I never know whether to laugh or cringe when some corporate media hack claims that the DailyKos is a "liberal" or "progressive" website. It's run by highly partisan, conservative Democrats who are trying to move liberals to the right at every opportunity.

Seldom has it gotten so cynical or disturbing as a posting by "angry mouse" with the misleading title "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment."

There are so many disturbing things about this. She goes along with NRA terrorist propaganda about the Second Amendment, claiming it is about personal ownership of handguns while ignoring what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As you can clearly see from the text, the 2nd Amendment only applies to government sponsored militias that are well regulated. Claims that the 2nd Amendment applies to private gun ownership are deceptive NRA terrorist propaganda that cost the lives of almost 30,000 Americans every year, and which results in far more frequent rapes and robberies. That's right. Having guns legal causes the equivalent of ten 911s every year, from murders, other homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings.

Angry mouse also makes the following nonsensical and dangerous claim about the constitution:

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

Claims that the first ten amendments of the Constitution only protect "individual rights" involve a specious distinction that originates from the minds of rabid segregationists and has nothing to do with the text of the Bill of Rights. This farcical claim has been used venomously by white supremacists and misogynists to attack Affirmative Action and civil rights in general.

It's also willfully ignorant of who and what human beings are. Human beings are individuals, but we also are social organisms who belong to groups. Parsing out "individual rights" (which also is a rightist code phrase) has the effect of creating numerous civil and human rights violations against individuals who belong to groups in society that face discrmination.

It really should be astonishing that the author actually makes the claim that gun ownership is a "civil liberty." This is fatuous nonsense. Taking away peoples' guns is merely a minor inconvenience. Let's look at the main reasons why people own guns.

1) Misuguided attempts at self protection that actually do far more to endanger the gun owners and the people who live around them.

2) The commission of robbery, rape, murder, and other serious crimes.

3) Killing animals. This is often referred to as "sport hunting," despite the fact that it is too one sided to honestly be referred to as a sport. If people want to hunt for sport, they should be using spears or clubs, not guns.

There simply is no basis for thinking that any of these remotely resembles a "civil liberty." This nonsense comes from the Tom Delay brand of "civil liberties" that considers the ability to put toxic pesticides on food a "civil liberty."

The author turns the civil liberties issue on its head. Gun owners are the ones who are violating the civil liberties of gun crime victims like myself. Present and future gun crime victims have an inalienable right to live in gun free societies. There is no greater violation of civil liberties than living as a gun crime victim in a society where you are surrounded by guns.

How many more people are going to have to get robbed, raped, and murdered before the gun extremists care?

The gun nut who wrote the rant then went on to make the most dangerous claim of all.

No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

By this "logic," everyone would have a Constitutional right to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, all of which are "arms." This is just plain nuts.

There is an entire industry of death merchants who profit off of this dangerous and irresponsible propaganda. Claims that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of guns or that gun ownership is a "civil liberty" are as deceptive as Big Oil and Big Coal's propaganda about Global Warming. Meanwhile, the resulting rapes, robberies, and murders continue.

This is dangerous Rand Paul/Sarah Palin wingnuttery at its most extreme. If I wasn't already aware that the DailyKos is a rightist website, I would be shocked. I have to say, though, if there were truth in advertising laws for politics, the DailyKos would be legally required to stop referring to itself as "progressive" and refer to itself as "rightist" or "corporatist."