A historical analogy I really, really hate.

[Lumpy]

Once upon a time, a people had thrown off the yoke of their king and established a republic, where the freedoms and rights of citizens were sacred.

However as time went on, one of those rights, concerning the freedom to own and use something that had been a feature of society from the founding days, came into question. Many critics said that it was an archaism that did more harm than good, with no place in a modern society. Some local authorities banned it; a few radicals called for banning it throughout the country; more insisted that reasonable limitations were within the government's purview. Those who believed in this ancient right were incensed, insisting it was an integral part of how society ought to be. They denigrated the political and ideological motives of the banners, and warned of the perilous results if banning came to pass. In some places laws were passed offering extra protection for this right. Yet even a favorable decision by the highest judicial authority in the land did not quell the controversy, as the banners became more strident and the conservatives became more entrenched. Finally a leader came to power who openly declared that this ancient right should eventually pass away for the good of society.

I am referring to the right to own Negro slaves.

I hope it's a flawed analogy; yet I worry about being on the wrong side of history.

[xd ED]

Owning firearms essentially neither harms nor adversely effects anyone.
Owning another human being... well that's pretty obvious.

Our form of government was created to recognize human rights.
It took a while to get passed some things and get them right.

Our Constitution affirms in letter and spirit ending slavery was the correct thing to do.
The Second Amendment facilitates and enables the execution the entire document


Quite honestly that analogy/ argument is something I would expect to see on the View, if I ever watched it; and unfortunately I did, just this morning listening to some moronic, babbling females about how the dems owe it to obama to vote, and feel sorry for barry because no candidate wants him around their campaigns

[yuppiejr]

The second amendment provides the ultimate protection of the individual's right to exercise the rest of their constitutional rights as US citizens including the 13th amendment protecting them from slavery. Some of the earliest forms of gun control were enacted in southern states after the end of the civil war and subsequent passage of the thirteenth amendment.. specifically to limit the freedom of former black slaves to own or possess firearms, most notably in Mississippi and Alabama.

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

Those defending the individual's right to keep and bear arms are on the right side of history.

[jshuberg]

Anyone who draws a parallel between slavery and firearms ownership is a either a complete and total moron, or intentionally distorting reality. Either way, they are nothing more than a monkey throwing feces. They should be avoided and otherwise ignored.

[Uffdaphil]

That fairy tale is awfully one sided. There were more than a "few radicals" wanting to ban slavery. Before the Constitution was even written many of the founders felt slavery was wrong, but constructed a document that could unite the county over a more perfect one that would fail. Slavery was opposed by many leaders right from the beginning. After thousands of years of slavery being socially acceptable, it only took 75 years to end it totally. Many of the states being free well before that. Then thousands of citizens with no skin in the game except principle, fought, suffered, and died to free strangers.

That is the right side of history in my book.

[Erud]

Slavery = bad

Gun ownership = good

your analogy = dumb

[Lumpy]

Quite honestly that analogy/ argument is something I would expect to see on the View,

I didn't say I agreed with it- I am a gun owner and carrier after all. And the two situations are/were motivated by opposite concerns. It just disturbs me how well the pattern fits; that defenders of gun rights find themselves, as it were, politically in the same strategic position. If someone on the anti side were to use that argument, it pisses me that I would have to argue against it basically on the defensive.

Certainly the antis see it that way: they consider us as morally blind reactionaries, and it's all too easy to imagine a future in which the "progressives" have won and gun ownership is regarded as a barbarism that only the wicked could ever have defended. It's chilling when you get a glimpse of how the other side thinks.

ETA: I think I'm getting the flu or something. I'm definitely not myself today.

[xd ED]

Quite honestly that analogy/ argument is something I would expect to see on the View,

I didn't say I agreed with it- I am a gun owner and carrier after all. And the two situations are/were motivated by opposite concerns. It just disturbs me how well the pattern fits; that defenders of gun rights find themselves, as it were, politically in the same strategic position. If someone on the anti side were to use that argument, it pisses me that I would have to argue against it basically on the defensive.

Certainly the antis see it that way: they consider us as morally blind reactionaries, and it's all too easy to imagine a future in which the "progressives" have won and gun ownership is regarded as a barbarism that only the wicked could ever have defended. It's chilling when you get a glimpse of how the other side thinks.

ETA: I think I'm getting the flu or something. I'm definitely not myself today.

I'm not suggesting you agree with the analogy. only that it possesses a level of intellectual rigor found on some of the daytime TV flapfests.
As others state, comparing/ analogizing slavery to the basic human right of self defense is too far beyond the pale to seriously address.