Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the handgun-ban case explored the historical context for the Second Amendment’s language on gun ownership. In the process, Scalia quoted from abolitionist Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner’s famous 1856 speech about “Bleeding Kansas”:
“The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defense, than now in Kansas, and at least one article in our national Constitution must be blotted out, before the complete right to it can in any way be impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the solemn guarantee, embodied in the amendments to the Constitution, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ the people of Kansas have been arraigned for keeping and bearing them, and the senator from South Carolina has had the face to say openly, on this floor, that they should be disarmed — of course, that the fanatics of slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.” Three days later, in reaction to that speech, S.C. congressman Preston Brooks attacked Sumner and beat him with a cane into unconsciousness.
176 Comments
civilized society has always been a wishful thing, often contrary to the reality of human nature.
The need to defend one’s self is a statement that the society is not as civilized as it wants to claim.
The movie “Red Dawn” is an illustration of the real difficulty an invading army would face in the United States. The criminals know there will not be a Police Officer in every home when they break in. But they also know there is the possibility that they may encounter a armed home owner. Extreme examples as they are, they are what could happen. The average response time for Law Enforcement is 15 minutes, that might as well be an hour when you are facing an enemy.
Firearms is not what makes a society uncivilized, even without them people will be people.
In the moment it is not the masses you need to deal with, it is the one that is in front of you.
The lethality of guns is why there are over 30,000 deaths by gun wounds in the USA every year. True that people are people everywhere you go, give those people a lethal weapon and this is the result. You have 14 times the chance of dying from a gun shot in this country compared to any other industrialized country in the world. That’s just the reality of the situation. For many, that’s an acceptable loss for the individual, unregulated right to bear arms. It’s just where our priorities are in this country.
“For many, that’s an acceptable loss for the individual, unregulated right to bear arms.”
Over 20,000 laws regulating the possession of firearms in this country! The second amendment recognizing the right to keep and bear arms is the most ‘infringed’ on amendment there is!
Mary site your source on this.
Wow I was unaware of this speech, and its interesting that because of it, he was beaten.
There has been a whole discussion on the civil war and whether it was fought over states rights or slavery…well both, but teh main issue was slavery and the ’state’s right’ to abuse and keep slaves.
This is just one example of many writings *and state Constitutions* that were written about that directly addresses slavery. Revisionist history from those who claim it was ’state’s rights’ and not slavery.
What happened to the man who beat his fellow American? Was he allowed to retain his seat? was he arrested?
What an absolute disregard for free speech.
What do you think happened, P-mom?
:lol:
His constituents damn near drownded him in canes, that’s what happened (seriously, they mailed him a buttload of canes). South Carolinians LOVED it!
Brooks got his comeuppance, though. He was denounced as a coward on the House floor by a Yankee Congressman. This, of course, required a restoration of Brooks’ honor, so Brooks challenged the yankee to a duel…which was to be held in Canada (duelling was and remains illegal in the US, but at the time it was perfectly legal in Britain of which Canada was still a colony)…and at which Brooks failed to show up. That’s right, he dodged the duel (and died not long thereafter).
American history is endlessly fascinating, no?
What a perfect example for the 2 main reasons for having the 2nd Amendment:
1. For self defence. To be able to protect yourself and your family from those that might harm you. (”red man and the beast of the forest”)
2. To be able to fight tyranny. To be able to fight the Government which forces to impose it’s will of slavery on them. ( “that the fanatics of slavery, his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.”)
Does this mean that the Editors are becoming gun rights advoactes now?
Will you stop your disinformation campaign on Concealed Carry?
Jim Crow had much to do with keeping Blacks away from fire arms:
http://www.progressive.org/media_1832
Thats right, libs, I quoted from the Progressive, but the source is correct: Whites did not want Blacks to own or carry weapons, even in the military!
—–
Mary
Do you suggest that repeal of the 2nd Amendment would stop the Crips and the Bloods and all other street gangs?
Do you think that gun rights create murderous thugs?
Instead, is it not true that gun rights help “we the people” in defense of the violent, who will have guns, no matter what the law says!
What Mary doesn’t tell you is that 20,000 of those deaths are suicides.
The gun was not used by a bad person to hurt someone, there was no accident, 20,000 people every year simply choose to use a gun instead of something else to kill themselves.
When liberals like Mary make there comparisons they don’t like looking at other factors.
Japan, a country with no firearm ownership, has one of the largest suicide rates of the industrialized nations.
What are those people killing themselves with? Not guns.
Restricting gun ownership is not going to stop people from killing themselves.
Yet the liberals like Mary think that somehow, just the mere presence of a gun is so evil and compelling that someone is practically forced to kill themselves with it!
Of course, I meant, “in defense FROM the violent”
As a general rule, Liberals supported the crazy Dr. Kevorkian far more than the conservatives did.
We have a group of people in this country that thinks it is ok for people to drug themselves to death, if they want to. Even if the “decision” might well be forced by a greedy relative or an abusive spouse.
It is hard to defend yourself with a hypodermic needle or a bottle of pills.
It is much easier to defend yourself with a gun.
Drugs and guns can be used for suicide.
Liberals want guns to be illegal.
Liberals use the suicide deaths, from guns, like those suicides are “bad” suicides, while liberals push for drug based euthanasia, or “good” suicide?
Yes, I am generalizing, but I think I have made my point.
This quote illustrates, and as Franklin points out, the racist history of gun control. When examined carefully, most of the gun control measures in this country began as a way to keep guns away from “uppity” blacks and minorities. New York’s Sullivan Law is a classic example.
http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html
http://www.lizmichael.com/tahmasse.htm
Is that what you really want to defend, Mary?
News Flash: The Constitution means what it says. Deal with it.
“Red Dawn”?
Oh writerdog. You disappoint me.
“Liberals want guns to be illegal.”
Oh, bullshit, Rossell. Damn, even you can’t be THAT dumb.
“Liberals want guns to be illegal.”
WS, even YOU can’t that be dumb. A significant part of the leadership of your party wants EXACTLY that. Your continuing to deny same doesn’t make it less true.
Interesting history lesson.
What’s frightening is that FOUR justices of the Supreme Court ruled against an individual right!
Unbelievable!
The history is indisputable. That 4 could say “screw what it says, this is what we want it to mean” is frightening. The courts legitimacy is in question.
“A significant part of the leadership of your party wants EXACTLY that. Your continuing to deny same doesn’t make it less true.”
Nonsense, GMC, just flat out nonsense.
That is simply not true.
If you don’t think so, WS, either you’re in denial, or just not paying attention.
Pick you poison.
“If you don’t think so, WS, either you’re in denial, or just not paying attention”
Sorry, GMC, but with all due respect (sincerely) the Democratic Party does not want to abolish gun ownership.
WS
For Heaven’s sake, do you EVER research an issue before you make a fool of yourself?
Look at the District of Colombia gun law, that was just declared unconstitutional. What was that, if not a ban? Did Liberals write that gun ban into law?
Not very many Conservatives get elected to the City Council in Washington D.C. do they?
Look at Chicago, where another NRA lawsuit will be filed, soon. Didn’t Liberals write that gun ban?
You are completely wrong WS.
Liberals do not want guns outlawed, we want tighter restrictions on what can be sold, and who can have access.
Even cons have a line and what is in question is where that line is drawn.
Sure people will commit suicide whether or not they have guns. it’s sure a lot easier with a gun now isn’t it? I had a friend who shot himself in the head while he was drunk- ruled a suicide. I don’t think he’d be dead today had he not had a gun.
Accidental shootings take many children and adults alike.
Bad guys get their access of guns through people who obtained them legally. That means if you, Nathan have a cache of weapons, one of them happens to be an automatic, someone could kill you and take your gun. And then the bad guy has the gun witht he ability to take out a hundred people in the right location in a matter of minutes.
There is a reason that bombs are illegal, these weapons that kill fast should be considered just the same.
And Paul, you’re darn right I defend a person’s right to choose physicial assisted suicide at the end of a painful life. Perhaps you really need to go WATCH people die. Sign up to volunteer at Hospice with your free time man. Instead of chatting up your rosy religious ideals, get out there and get some real life experience.
WS, you are backing off, like you are known to do.
It has been stated by me that “liberals” want to outlaw fire arms.
It has been stated, by others on this thread, that “a significant portion of the Democrat Party” wants to outlaw guns.
Those statements are correct.
I do not recall any pro-gun poster on this Blog stating the position of the Democrat Party Platform.
“Did Liberals write that gun ban into law?”
Did the DC Gun ban allow for rifles and shotguns in the home?
I have proved you wrong with just one sentence.
Now, if it had been said that “SOME liberals” want all guns banned, it may have been a correct statement.
And, if I were to state that “SOME conservatives” want the Bible to be the law of the land, I would be correct.
And, if I were to state that “SOME conservatives” want liberals to be lined up against a wall and shot, I would be correct.
“SOME” is far different than a blanket statement that “LIBERALS” want guns banned.
Christ.
“WS, you are backing off, like you are known to do.”
Phuck yourself, Rossell.
As usual, you are full of shit.
Frankline next thing you know he will be arguing with you about what ‘is’ is. That is a popular ploy.
Pmom
I have had more “real life experience” than I would care to list, here, in the hospice and end of life situations you mention.
I am against murder.
I have no problem with “DNR” or “NO CODE” or no heroics, end of life directives.
However, Kevorkian is a mad man, a morbid monster attracted to death.
Also, I have had more than one situation where the relatives of a well off person pushed that person to change beneficiary designations back and forth. Family manipulation of the disabled, at the end of life, is a REAL problem.
I want the law to forbid suicide.
However, I do not judge anyone, morally, if they feel the need to break that law in limited, extreme cases.
More to the point, it is wrong to treat hand gun suicide as evil while promoting chemical suicide.
Hand guns can protect us from violent criminals.
WS
I do not believe that the DC gun ban allowed for an OPERABLE shot gun or rifle to be in the home for self defense purposes.
“The lethality of guns is why there are over 30,000 deaths by gun wounds in the USA every year.”
You conveniently ommitted how many of these “gun wounds” were justifyable self-defense and how many of these were murders committed on people who didn’t have a gun to defend themselves.
Paul, you can’t possibly know what was really going on with the ‘back and forth’ like you claim unless you’re up close and personal with the family.
Something similar happened with my grandfather before his passing. My dad was the money grubbing one, but my step mother cared not a lick about my grandfather. She tried to get him declared incompetent so that she could put him in a nursing home and drain his finances rather than see my dad have the money.
Luckily my dad won custody of my grandfather, and he took him to his sister’s house where the family cared for him until death. Anyone looking from the outside of this would have thought literally that my father was just trying to salvage the money. Which is true to a point, but the bigger issue was that he didn’t want his father to be sent to a home.
Lots of nasty things happen over end of life issues, but none of this would even be an issue in suicide.
I think Kevorkian was a hero. I hope that more states enact Oregan’s law.
And you are too funny to try to compare you going in and signing some papers to actually watching someone die painfully over a long period of time, sitting with them for hours, trying to keep their body functioning while they writhe in pain.
People who insist on a natural death in all cases are the monsters. You treat animals better.
“Liberals do not want guns outlawed, we want tighter restrictions on what can be sold, and who can have access.”
Translation: Since Liberals cannot get around the Second Ammendment and totally outlaw guns, they must do it bit by bit, piece by piece. The first step in reaching this goal is to create laws restricting what can be sold and who can have access. The second step is to tighten those restrictions more and more until the only people who own guns are the Government and the military.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Once again the bloggers are attacking one another instead of dealing with the article they are supposed to be commenting on. Guns! Own several myself, avid hunter, like to “plink”. guess that makes me a potential whatever. Facts? America and Americans have too many guns. I know a person who collects guns. Owns over 900. Yep, thats nine-hundred guns. Stores them all in his house. Had a room built just for that purpose. Thats alot of guns. Fact? Banning guns will only make law-abiding citizens criminals. And the real criminals will always have guns. You see, they are criminals and don’t really care what the law says. So no matter what is said, our Constitution is supposed to give all of us the right to keep and bear arms. Up to and including the right to defend ourselves from our own government.
Pmom my 93 year old mom has signed a letter that she wants no heroic measures to save her life. She has also made her promise we won’t remove her from her own home. She is now legally blind but still living alone with several daily checkins. I will always make sure that she isn’t in pain. Because this is what she wants but won’t prolong her life in any way. Also what she wants. She survived double pneumonia and a heart attack in March because when EMTs were called they had to do what they could to revive her eventhough she had this directive on the wall above her bed.
Her brother recently died at 97 in much the same condition my mom is in now. He had outlived his children and wife. I admire you for taking care of these and helping families who just don’t have the time to spend as much time as we would like with them.
I just can’t applaud Dr. Death. I have a problem with someone else making a final decision for a terminal or older patient. Franklin has it right that no one who is in a position to benefit from their death should be making this decision.
It’s a tough call.
“Sure people will commit suicide whether or not they have guns. it’s sure a lot easier with a gun now isn’t it? I had a friend who shot himself in the head while he was drunk- ruled a suicide. I don’t think he’d be dead today had he not had a gun.”
Maybe not, but he might very well be in jail for killing someone while driving drunk. He may have done someone a big favor.
“Accidental shootings take many children and adults alike.”
People who die in accidental shootings are very low in the scale of total gun deaths. There are many more criminals who are killed during the commission of a home invasion that in accidental shootings. But this doesn’t matter to you, does it?
“Bad guys get their access of guns through people who obtained them legally.”
Really! Do you have any actual data to back this up with? Are you saying that all “bad guys” cannot legally purchase a handgun? How does a Federal Firearms Purchase form detect how one will use a firearm? Did you know the lunatic who shot up a bunch of people at Virginia Tech was able to legally purchase a handgun and did just that?
“That means if you, Nathan have a cache of weapons, one of them happens to be an automatic, someone could kill you and take your gun. And then the bad guy has the gun witht he ability to take out a hundred people in the right location in a matter of minutes.”
Oh my God! But then, if EVERYBODY had guns like in the “Wild West,” do you think for a second the “bad guy” would want to go on a shooting spree against the general armed population? Only if he had a death wish.
“There is a reason that bombs are illegal, these weapons that kill fast should be considered just the same.”
Huh? Are you suggesting that a slow death is better than a quick death? Please clarify this last confusing statement by you.
“And Paul, you’re darn right I defend a person’s right to choose physicial assisted suicide at the end of a painful life.”
Oh, you just don’t want them to be able to do it with a gun. Gotcha!
WS Clark,
Most of the Democratic Party probably doesn’t actively support a total gun ban, however, there are a significant number that wouldn’t mind it at all.
Even though your party may not support a total gun ban, they do represent a large number of different bans and restrictions to nearly the point of absurdity.
There are ample quotes from people like Barbara Boxer and Feinstein on their support for gun control.
Your party might not “technically” want to ban all guns, but your party clearly is the party of ever increasing gun regulation beyond what is arguably “reasonable”
“Did the DC Gun ban allow for rifles and shotguns in the home?”
Yes, but unbelievably, they have to be UNLOADED!! Furthermore, if there were children in the house, they have to be unloaded AND TRIGGERLOCKED!!
“I have proved you wrong with just one sentence.”
I have proved your lack of education about the D.C. gun laws in just one sentence.
WS Clark,
The DC gun ban completely restricted handguns and to have any other weapon you must have kept them disassembled and locked.
The entire point of fighting the ban was that a person had no reasonable way to defend himself under those circumstances.
What good is having a rifle or shotgun for self defense if it must be locked and/or taken apart?
“Most of the Democratic Party probably doesn’t actively support a total gun ban, however, there are a significant number that wouldn’t mind it at all.”
Phuck yourself, Price.
As usual, you are full of shit.
Pmom
I have seen a great deal of death.
As close as you.
How dare you say, on the one example that I was willing to post, that I did not know everything that was going on?
I most certainly did.
Enough to get an attorney involved and to tell the entire family that I was as witness against them.
My nemesis BG, I thought you were run off the board for being a liar.
Ok, I don’t want people who are dying to have only a gun to choose from if they feel the need to do theirselves in.
It sounds to me Paul, as if you injected yourself way too far into someone else’s personal matter.
How did the case turn out Paul.
Dr. Kevorkian, by the way, like to do artwork, depicting people in their final moments.
The guy is a nut job, a sick serial killer who found a way to get away with his blood lust for awhile, by pretending to be some type of hero.
Suicide is relatively simple. We should not have laws that make suicide any more simple.
If I sat on a jury, in a case like Clint Eastwood’s in “Million Dollar Baby” I would likely want to go very easy on the guy. That movie presented a case quite different than many.
We do not want to make suicide any easier, medically speaking or legally speaking.
For the cases you speak of, why shouldn’t the person who wants to die carry the moral and legal burdens on their own shoulders? Sure, there are some people who can not, physically, pull a trigger, but only a relatively few of those people actually want to die.
The world that Jack Kevorkian wanted would be prone to abuse, manipulation, fraud and gold-digging.
I think Kevorkian and gun control SHOULD be discussed, together.
Their is a HUGE contradiction in the liberal mind.
Those killed by Kevorkian, in the liberal mind, found mercy and peace.
However, we MUST outlaw handguns in order to stop suicide?
Also, how does “regulation” meet very many requirements, at all?
A rational person can buy a gun, today.
20 years from now, the same person might get dementia or take drugs or otherwise go nuts.
Government can NOT do anything about that.
Government can, however, allow the rest of society to protect itself, through the 2nd Amendment.
p-mom
Your such an absolute fool. You think you’re the only one who’s seen death? Get over yourself! You think you’re the only one who’s watched people suffer, including a family member? Who are you, God?
I watched my mom die a slow and painful death, “UP CLOSE”. She wanted to die, but would never dream of suicide.
I have no problem with anyone with a terminal disease ending it for themselves. Just don’t expect the State to sanction it. Do it yourself.
“Dr. Kevorkian, by the way, like to do artwork, depicting people in their final moments.”
Proof? Link? Facts?
Pomom
Three days in a row, three DIFFERENT children marched in with dear old “mom” who was terminal and had been crying, and would not look me in the eye.
One had taken care of “mom” for a few months. She OF COURSE, deserved ALL Of the money.
One had loaned “mom” lots of money. He of course deserved ALL of the money.
Another wanted “mom” to leave the paperwork the way it was to begin with, split 3 ways.
This was an account first established by a retired broker. The family attorney was mentioned, in the file. I called the family attorney and informed him that I had informed my company that the beneficiary changes might have been made under duress.
I was a kid, at the time, fresh out of college.
I did the right thing.
The family attorney rounded up the family, told them that they would never see a dime, if it all got tied up in court, and the beneficiary designations went back to “three children, to share equally, per stirpes”.
“Yes, but unbelievably, they have to be UNLOADED!! Furthermore, if there were children in the house, they have to be unloaded AND TRIGGERLOCKED!!”
WHAT?
Safety measures! The very IDEA!
I know heckler didn’t post that. But if he agrees with it, he is almost certain to experience a tragedy. Having a loaded, unlocked gun in the same house with a kid is begging for it.
Guns are for scared people. Ask yourself instead why it is you are afraid and go from there.
WS
Do you even know how to use a browser, yourself?
Dr. Death and a sample of his artwork:
http://www.arianagallery.com/kevorkian.php
“What Mary doesn’t tell you is that 20,000 of those deaths are suicides”
So that’s OK, Nathan? I guess you have no compassion for those who are mentally ill or depressed to the point they don’t want to live…typical of such a “good” Christian. By the way, your numbers are off…but you get my point.
I guess it was a good thing that Congressman Brooks didn’t have a gun..otherwise Sumner would have been killed.
That’s the problem with flooding a country with guns…the lethality. It’s harder to kill yourself or someone else if you try to do it with anything else. It makes killing for any reason, be it accidental or intentional, way too easy.
“My nemesis BG, I thought you were run off the board for being a liar.”
Wrong again, Polymom.
“Ok, I don’t want people who are dying to have only a gun to choose from if they feel the need to do theirselves in.”
There’s plenty of ways to off oneself besides a gun. Jumping off a tall building is one way. Getting real drunk, then taking a bunch of downers is another way. I’m sure someone like yourself can think of several other ways.
Guns are for responsible people who want to protect themselves.
By the logic that “guns are for scared people” I guess that:
Homeowners insurance is for people who are afraid the house might burn down.
Health insurance is for RESPONSIBLE people who fear that them might have medical expenses.
Life jackets are for people who are afraid they might drown.
Maturity requires that we take measures to deal with the risks of life.
Gun ownership is often a very responsible way to deal with risk.
“Having a loaded, unlocked gun in the same house with a kid is begging for it.”
Have you ever heard of a gun safe? The kind with the five buttons that must be depressed in a certain order and sequence? They’re about eighty bucks. It takes about three seconds to get into it if you know the combination.
How long will it take for you to unlock a trigger lock and load a gun if you hear a crash of glass in the middle of the night by some crackhead desperate for his next rock?
Perhaps more than a lifetime.
You choose what’s best for your children.
“Do you even know how to use a browser, yourself?”
Please phuck yourself, Rossell.
Paulie if I wanted to kill you I’d use a can of Raid.
I do sorta wish you were dead.
Guns are for scared people.
Mary
For the record, Dr. Death Kevorkian did not see the need to have a mental evaluation, before he killed people.
—–
Liberals see the GUN as evil, rather than the acts that guns might be involved in.
Suicide by gun? Evil!
Suicide by Kevorkian? MERCY!
Government does have limits. Government can not stop someone from killing, government might be able to catch the killer, after the fact.
Government can not stop anyone from suicide.
However, 2nd Amendment supporters are supposed to feel guilty about gun-related suicide deaths?
It is a tragedy.
So are hurricanes, so are floods, so are tornadoes.
Little that government can do or should do, before the fact.
“How long will it take for you to unlock a trigger lock and load a gun if you hear a crash of glass in the middle of the night by some crackhead desperate for his next rock?”
You watch too much TV.
“Dr. Kevorkian, by the way, like to do artwork, depicting people in their final moments.”
Pretty crappy art word, but I wouldn’t call it “depicting people in their final moments.”
Of course, the truth and you rarely meet, do they now, Rossell?
Christ………………………………..
It must really kinda suck to go around afraid all the time.
Then again, such people have probably never known any other way.
BJ
Your compassion is so deep!
Gosh, you want us to get rid of our guns, you want peace and love?
No, not really. You are a thug. Guns in the hands of the general population keep YOU in line.
You do “kinda want me dead” —
And I “kinda want to live” —
You would like to disarm me, and I am smart enough to know why.
It must really suck to go around hating people all the time, but people like BJ have never known any other way.
“It must really suck to go around hating people all the time”
For Christ’s sake, Rossell, the absolutely most hateful people on this Blog are the self-proclaimed “good Christians” Nathaniel, Hank, McCluer, American, Boxlock, Parkay, American Way and HOG.
You aren’t far behind, either.
BJ
“I know heckler didn’t post that. But if he agrees with it, he is almost certain to experience a tragedy. Having a loaded, unlocked gun in the same house with a kid is begging for it.”
Two “GunVaults”. 4 button combo. Locked up and secure weapon to effective defense in under 2 seconds. For all of us responsible “skeered-e-cats”.
WS
I don’t recall that I ever wished anyone dead.
I don’t recall anyone that you listed, on the right, ever wishing any other blogger dead.
YOU?
Yes paulie. YOU I would like to see totally disarmed.
It is YOU who is a thug. Did you use yer piece to threaten some gay or black people? YOU know. When you were recruited for your fighting ability to mug people in parks?
Does anybody know the number for Dcon?
I got an econ I want exterminated.
I don’t have a problem with reasonable people having reasonable guns and ammunition if they do so in a reasonably safe manner.
Several posters who have guns are not good advocates for their case here.
“I don’t recall anyone that you listed, on the right, ever wishing any other blogger dead.”
Everything but………………….
BJ
You are a thug, and a liar.
I never boasted about “gay bashing” — instead, I made the factual point that I once turned some gay bashers into the police.
The libs on this board did not believe me, so I gave some details.
You want to bring up only half the equation, that some sick fools insulted me by asking me to join them in their sick games — you always fail to mention that I chewed them out for what they were doing, and that I then told the cops.
You “boast” of squirting some poor guy with a hose once, who came to your door with political literature. That was a crime, Mr. Rimmel. It wasn’t me, I would have arrested you.
You also boast that you wrote “Fritz an Tits call it quits” on the black board, when you claim you were a Republican that voted for Reagan.
You have advocated putting land mines on the border, to blow up Mexicans.
There is not a racist or hateful bone on my body.
You only claim otherwise in a goofy attempt to smear me.
I just shared some popsickles with my Black neighbor kids. They wanted to know what I was writing about, and I told them.
Want to come by and join us?
No guns, I promise.
“that some sick fools insulted me by asking me to join them in their sick games ”
Funny, you didn’t SEEM insulted. It rather sounded like you were bragging. Your fighting ability and all?
“You only claim otherwise in a goofy attempt to smear me.”
You do that quite well on your own. I just help you get your foot from your mouth to your butt and back again.
“You also boast that you wrote “Fritz an Tits call it quits” on the black board, when you claim you were a Republican that voted for Reagan.”
Yup I was young and VERY dumb. Sort of a genius version of you back then. The teachers name was Wahto. You could ask her. I’m sure she would remember. If she sees this I do want to apologize.
Did ya tell the kiddies that you think Barack Obama moved to Chicago to learn to be black?
Did you tell them how you capitalize an adjective because of your embedded bigotry?
Keep diggin’ paulie! I’ll throw ya down a shovel and some rat poison.
Obama never did feel comfortable with himself.
Read his book, if you actually ever do READ books?
What Obama has hid, from the public, is that Obama is probably not more than 12.5% Black. Obama might be only 6.25% Black, in fact. Why does that matter? Fraud for one thing. Obama might have fraudulently taken advantage of affirmative action programs, by fudging his minority status a bit.
It is not racist, in any way, to discuss such facts. Those of us who KNOW we are not racist have the self confidence to discuss the character of any any person, of any color or race.
Also, many Black authors have asked for the word Black to be capitalized, when it applies to race.
This person thinks that “Black People” should be capitalized, while “white people” should not.
I disagree, but here is his logic:
http://www.asetbooks.com/Us/Author/BlackInCapitals.html
For the record, I think if “White” refers to race, it too, should be capitalized. There are those that say the “White race” is “Caucasian” and that other references to white skin color do not refer to race, in the same way that “Black” refers to race, but I think that is not relevent. If the color of skin is used to refer to the race, the word becomes a proper noun.
Much like Kansan or Wichitan.
Only a racist would care to look into what percentage someone is or is not black.
Only a DEDICATED racist would have them down to a quarter of a percent.
Do you even have a CLUE how badly you are coming across here paulie?
“Obama might have fraudulently taken advantage of affirmative action programs, by fudging his minority status a bit.”
I have no great trust in Barack Obama. But to have him being even CONCERNED with how black he is or is not let alone scheming about it from how young an age?
Oh folks. If paulie didn’t post here I’d have to invent him. He is a cartoon of the worst in the cons!
BJ
You are much too shallow and twisted a person for me to consult, as to how my words might appear to normal, rational, sane human beings.
Since you bring it up, however, Obama makes RACE the CENTERPIECE of his life.
Obama talks endlessly about race, in his books and in his speeches.
Obama claims to want an “adult conversation” about race. He does not. Obama wants us to shut up, he wants to do all the talking.
That is not a “conversation” — that is DICTATION!
BJ, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT has various affirmative action programs, and minority set aside programs. So, too, does Harvard.
Obama CLAIMS to be the first Black President of the Harvard Law Review.
Well, the truth? The title was changed from “Editor” to “President” — by aggrandizing himself, Obama actually discounts a former Black EDITOR of the Harvard Law Review.
Obama, also, is NOT the first person with Black Heritage to run for President.
We have had 5 different ELECTED United States Presidents with more Black heritage than Obama.
Obama is Arab, not Black.
Yes, it matters.
I have voted for Arabs before. I would vote for a Black person, if Condi or J.C. Watts would run.
I think the American people deserve to know that Barrack Husseing Obama is Arab.
It shows a complete lack of courage and self confidence and honesty that Obama is hiding his true identity this much.
Obama does have an identity crisis.
Obama even admits to part of that identity crisis, in his book. However, it is the White vs Black crisis that Obama admits to having, in himself:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/feature.html
Obama has not admitted that he is, actually, more Arab than Black.
Read, BJ.
I feel like I am shooting fish in a barrel. There is very little sport in fighting with you.
You aren’t even “warm up” material for me.
“Obama is Arab, not Black.”
Paulie has his bigotry carefully compartmentalized!
The only thing you shoot is your own foot paulie! Aim higher! Fire away!
“We have had 5 different ELECTED United States Presidents with more Black heritage than Obama.’
You keep saying that but you never name names.
Actually, it is the only modestly interesting thing you have to offer here. Or have EVER had to offer here
I have seen genealogy that suggests that all of the Presidents are related. I have also seen genealogy that suggest that I myself am related to all of them.
Yeah bush too. It makes me sick at my stomach.
My research is ongoing but I have yet to find any of my ancestors that are of African descent.
Gun pals, you’re not going to believe this! The Police Dept of Washington D.C., in reaction to the SCOTUS case, has announced it will now register handguns. Revolvers, but not semi-autos! Even though about 70% of handguns are semi’s! They bandy about the terms auto and semiauto as if they were the same! Their arrogance is maddening! I’ve already sent this link to the NRA, but I’m sure they know about it. This will just spend your NRA dollars and mine, in a lawsuit that will further define “the line.” BTW, for you non-gunners, my PPK/S, holds 7 rounds of .380 cal ammo, and is a semi-automatic. Just ONE round more than a .38 cal six-shot revolver, of about the same lethality. Their is nothing inherantly more “deadly” in a semi than a similar sized revolver. There is no reason for this limitation. It is akin to allowing people to have cars, but only stick-shifts, not automatic transmissions. Or, for your Roe vs Wade types, it would be akin to abortions are constitutionally protected, but only in the first 3 weeks of gestation. Sounds like “infringement” to me! Those arrogant jerks!
Here’s the link: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view.asp?a=1237&q=547431&pm=1
MartyG;
I’m not a bit surprised; I’ve also read that DC intends to use zoning and “reasonable” (NOT) registration requirements - i.e. an endless and maddening set of hoops - to continue to do what the SCOTUS told them they could not do.
And I’m not a bit surprised that they will attempt to “define” firearms out of existance with inane “reasonable” regulation (as I understand it, they also define any firearm capable of accepting a magazine of more than 12 rounds as a “machine gun”). The one consistent thing the BradyBunch and the usual bunch of gun-banners is that when it comes down to it, they don’t know a damn thing about the object of their “reasonable” regulation.
You didn’t think the gun-banners in DC would let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way, did you? Typical left-wing arrogance: WE know best, and we will make you tow the line and do the “right thing” (and of course, only WE know what is the right thing) whether you want to or not - liberties be damned.
Typical. Scratch a moonbat, find a totalitarian.
Check this out for the DC’s reaction:
http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1325&mon=200806
Note the quote: “We will comply with the Court’s reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit,” said Chief Lanier.
Right. I bet he even said that with a straight face. Wanna tell me again, WS, how no one in the leadership of the Democratic party wants to ban guns? Uh-huh. Either stupidity or willful denial. Pick your poison.
I know what “reasonable, common-sense regulation” means. It’s code. When the proposed “reasonable” regulation fails, as it will, as they KNOW it will, they’ll have another “reasonable, common-sense regulation” lined up to make it effective. When it fails, etc., etc. Incrimental steps to the desired goal.
Back to the story, Rhonda, thanks for the historical viewpoint. Even though we “gun types” often chastise your paper for an anti-gun stance, I believe this perspective shows just how deep the 2nd Amendment goes in the thread of American life. The story shows how inflamed the anti-gun types can get when faced with an opposition that is armed. That is the very essence of the 2A, so that a tyrannical government cannot run roughshod over a populace from a position of power. An armed society is indeed a polite society.
“Wanna tell me again, WS, how no one in the leadership of the Democratic party wants to ban guns? Uh-huh. Either stupidity or willful denial. Pick your poison.”
I have given you a fair measure of due respect Mr. GMC, so I don’t mind telling you that I am not going to tolerate your comments suggesting that I am stupid.
Enough is enough.
I am neither stupid or in denial.
“define any firearm capable of accepting a magazine of more than 12 rounds as a “machine gun”).
What?
Are you an incredibly bad shot GMC?
Worried you will be attacked by a platoon?
Kook.
The second Amendment was written for guns that could be fired at BEST twice a minute.
GMC70, I agree with you 99% The only part I beg to differ is that Chief Lanier is a “she,” not a “he.” Judging only by her age, appearance, and lack of experience, she was hand-picked by the mayor as a lackey.
“An armed society is indeed a polite society.”
The armed can afford arms.
The unarmed cannot.
An armed society re the United States is a society of “I have mine, you come dance for me to get yours!”
The Chicago Tribune is one of the most conservative papers in America –
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
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.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count. (Click here to read the full decision)
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 11 1/2 pages just on the meaning of the words “keep and bear arms.”
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
They have claimed, Stevens wrote, “a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.”
It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policy-making on gun control.
The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment “is not unlimited.” So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” It did not stipulate what weapons are not “dangerous.”
Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.
We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city. (Click here for gun-related crime statistics)
But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.
Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it.
Blue Jay, you are the “kook.” Changing definitions of words to fit the situation is just plain crooked. A “machine gun” means a fully-automatic weapon. It has nothing at all to do with the size of the magazine. Some semi-auto pistols hold 13 rounds, such as the very popular Berreta 9mm, the choice of the U.S. Military, and copied in several variations. It is a semi-automatic. To change the English language to define it as a machine gun is ludicrous! As I said before, these people bandy about terms because the average Joe Blow doesn’t know the difference. “Machine gun,” “assault weapon,” “automatic/semiautomatic” etc, are used to inflame the uniformed public. When pressed, most definitions of an “assault weapon” are what they LOOK like, not what they are capable of. That doesn’t matter to the anti-gun types. Why is it that people who don’t know guns from a hole in the ground are making these proposals? It’s not from common sense or facts, it’s from an anti-gun emotion!
BlueJay, you bring up a very interesting point about affordability, and the rights of poor people to defend themselves. I think we might find some agreement here. A cheap .25 handgun, new in the box, can be had for about $120. Some would call it a “Saturday Night Special,” and some would outlaw it as a criminal’s gun. I agree that a low-income person may not be able to afford a $700 Smith and Wesson, so what are they to do? Add to that a $150 class, a $150 permit, and the poor guy is priced right out of the market. Let the market decide. So what if the best he can do is a $120 “special.” For him, that might be a week’s wage, and especially needed in his neighborhood, where the drug runners are shooting up the place. Give him a chance! We as a country have to be very watchful on what we “allow,” and what we don’t, because very often we allow the upscale versions while denying the dad in the ghetto any way to legally defend himself. And the odds of his house being busted into are far more than yours or mine.
Are YOU a really bad shot TOO “marty”
Or, do you also think that more than 12 people might feel the need to take you on?
What is it that you are protecting? And how many people are hurt or subjugated in that?
“The court [the 5 justices in the majority] “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…”
This from Justice Stevens’ dissent. Good God.
Does he not understand that the entirity of the Constitution was designed to LIMIT what gov’t can do? The 1st Amendment “”chooses to limit the tools available” to elected officials. As does the 4th. As does the 5th. Etc., etc..
And three other fools signed on to join this opinion. Can we possibly impeach these idiots? Ya know, in many things reasonable people can certainly disagree. But the idea of a Constitution being designed, on purpose, to limit gov’t is so fundamental . . . Good God.
As usual, JR, you ignored the point. I’ll not even bother to correct you, you’ve demonstrated you’re not interested in facts.
Moreover, JR, until you get some counseling or psychiatric help, I’ll not even deal with you. These months and months of nurturing your hate has created for you serious issues, and I worry for your son in that environment; it cannot possibly be healthy. I pity you. So small, so sad. Get help, JR.
And WS, you’re not stupid. Far from it. You’re just in denial.
“Far from it. You’re just in denial.”
Horseshit.
You get help GMC.
Deal with your ego conundrum.
You hate government but you yourself are part of it.
I can go get one of your meltdowns if you would like. You REPEATEDLY called this blog a “left wing circle jerk that you would never return to.”
So why are you here?
Oh and lose the italics. They do not make you any more impressive.
I WANT government to protect me from people like you and others like you GMC.
I’m kinda in the same mood as YOUR President when he said that the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.
“GMC70″ shows how he doesn’t get it, with –
“…the idea of a Constitution being designed, on purpose, to limit gov’t is so fundamental . . . Good God.”
Yup, and the Heller decision expands the federal government’s power over local government (you, know, the old CONservative platitude of how the best government is supposed to be local?)
As Erwin Chemerinsky notes –
The Supreme Court’s invalidation of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, joined by the court’s four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.
If the terms “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.
The Democratic Party position on guns…………
“We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.”
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 Jul 10, 2004
What denial?
“We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms”
Can it be any more clear?
E. J. Dionne Jr. –
In knocking down the District’s 32-year-old ban on handgun possession, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have again shown their willingness to abandon precedent in order to do whatever is necessary to further the agenda of the contemporary political right.
The court’s five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia’s talk about “originalism” as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.
Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case…..
In fact, it was the court’s four more liberal justices who favored judicial modesty, deference to democratic decisions, empowerment of local officials and care in examining the Constitution’s actual text and the history behind it. Indeed, the same conservative majority ran roughshod over the work of an elected branch of government in its ruling yesterday on campaign finance law.
It was telling in the gun case that while Scalia argued that the Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home” — note that the Second Amendment says nothing about “self-defense in the home” — it was Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent who called for judicial restraint. He asked his conservative colleagues where they were able to find an expansive and absolute right for gun possession.
The court majority, Stevens said, “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” But such evidence, Stevens insisted, “is nowhere to be found” in the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer also defended the rights of democratically elected local officials in a separate dissent, saying the D.C. ban was “a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.”….
This decision opens people’s eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that “originalism” is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges.
Washington Post Editorial:
Even granting [Justice Scalia's] expansive view [of the 2nd Amendment], a modest understanding of the judicial function would not have led to the outright cancellation of the District’s laws. Every constitutional right — whether the right of free speech or the right to be free from intrusive searches and seizures — is subject to limitation or regulation. Having overturned precedent and established a new standard, the court could and should have heeded the suggestion of the Bush administration that it send the case back to the lower court with guidelines about how gun control laws should be legally scrutinized.
The District’s outright ban on handguns may not have survived such scrutiny, but at least the District would have had a chance to defend its laws, including the utterly reasonable and prudent requirement that weapons in the home be secured with trigger locks. To our great dismay, the court instead adopted a legal approach that swept out the core of the District’s law and may very well hamper efforts to protect public safety.
Monkeyhawk
Posted June 30, 2008 at 12:01 am | Permalink
“GMC70? shows how he doesn’t get it, with –
“…the idea of a Constitution being designed, on purpose, to limit gov’t is so fundamental . . . Good God.”
Yup, and the Heller decision expands the federal government’s power over local government (you, know, the old CONservative platitude of how the best government is supposed to be local?)
———————————
The best form of government is local.
No other level of government knows its people, its problems and it needs better than a local government.
Giving an entire focus to a central government is ala communist, central politburos thinking. It just doesn’t work.
Wow. Apparantly, the Chicago Tribune has not read the decision either. The majority read the preamble, and the operative clause. In fact, the operative clause makes sense only with the preamble. It is, in fact, the banners who want to read out of the Constitution certain words - in particular the phrase “the right of the people.”
Had the 1st amendment read
“A well-informed electorate being necessary to the governing of a Republic, the right of the people to keep and read newspapers shall not be infringed”
would you be arguing that it applied only to voters, and no others had the right to read what they choose? Or that it applied only to a printing press as operated in 1789?
Of course not. But you argue the same, with a straight face, with the 2nd Amendment. And it’s equally stupid.
Stevens argues, incredibly, that when the Constitution says “right of the people” it means individuals - everywhere, magically, except the 2nd amendment. That’s not interpreting, that’s pre-deciding a policy preferenced and then twisting the Constitution to serve the policy preference.
And note my above post for an even scarier example of Stevens’ “analysis” (and I use that word, when it comes to Stevens, very loosely).
News Flash: The Constitution means what it says. Deal with it.
And if you wanna try to repeal the 2nd Amendment, go for it. It’s a loser, of course, but at least that would be intellectual honesty.
What the hell. More red meat –
Slate: Guns of Convenience: The Supreme Court Thinks Convenience Is An Argument Against Gun Control. Actually, It’s An Argument For It
My point is that a handgun’s convenience when put to good uses is heavily outweighed by its convenience when put to bad ones…
It’s this second set of conveniences that led the District of Columbia to ban handguns. Granted, in jurisdictions where gun ownership is permitted, criminals seldom obtain their guns legally. But illegal guns begin life as legal ones.
Glock, Beretta, and other handgun manufacturers are not illegal enterprises; rather, they manufacture a legal product that is subsequently stolen and fenced by criminals. More legal guns therefore mean more illegal guns. More illegal guns mean more people get killed. The inconvenience this poses to the dead and their families, and to society at large, does not concern Scalia.
The Republican Party platform…………….
Ban gays, allow guns and God will take care of the rest.
Come now councilor.
The only reason you so love the Constitution is because it was written for people LIKE you.
Namely, propertied, white, men.
Now I have the “white” and “men”
But I don’t seem to have found the status of “propertied”.
And I don’t like that YOUR law favors some ego maniac, self absorbed, creep like you deciding how I can live.
“The best form of government is local.”
So you were FOR the DC gun ban, McCluer, and opposed to the SCOTUS decision?
“Regular” chimes in with –
“The best form of government is local.
No other level of government knows its people, its problems and it needs better than a local government.
Giving an entire focus to a central government is ala communist, central politburos thinking. It just doesn’t work.”
Uhm, “Regular?”
The D.C. Gun Ban was a local ordinance. Scalia et al just overturned local gun laws by imposing “central government… a la communist, central-
Supreme Courtpolitburos thinking.”(chortle)
And the First Amendment.
Where can I find it in action here in Wichita?
The monied few have the airwaves all day.
What we need is a NEW Constitutional convention that addresses the needs and concerns of the modern age.
“No other level of government knows its people, its problems and it needs better than a local government.”
Get your bennies from the local government do ya James McCluer?
Smalling down government to regions gives power and control to the people in those regions who have money.
It was tried once. It was called feudalism.
“I can go get one of your meltdowns if you would like. You REPEATEDLY called this blog a “left wing circle jerk that you would never return to.”
I’ve dared you before, JR. You declined. I’ll dare ya again. Go for it. But get counseling. You need it.
MH - Wanna explain to me how ruling that the Constitution means what it says, and serves as a limit on government, in particularl here, a part of the federal gov’t, is “judicial activism?”
The term does have some meaning - and there are legitimate criticisms of some courts when it’s done. But this decision is the very opposite of “judicial activism.”
But in moonbat world, up is down, black is white . . .
As to papers - the usual left-leaning media. Shocking. Am I surprised? Not a bit. It fits reporters’ general ideology, and their preferred narrative. And they fall into line with the usual talking points.
WS - There is what they say, and what they do. They’re not the same thing. “Reasonable, common-sense regulation” is just code words. BTW - there is no “gun-show loophole.” There never was. Usual ignorance from the gun-banners.
News Flash: The Constitution means what it says. Get over it.
I made ya famous GMC.
I’m sorry for that but HAPPY to do it again.
I’m gonna find one of your meltdowns. We’ll show folks just who it is serves in public office in Kansas under the Con banner.
“Reasonable, common-sense regulation” is just code words.”
Ah, so using the conservative’s playbook of telling US what WE think………………. right.
Gotcha.
Let’s suppose, MH, that DC decided that an effective way to curb violence was to embark on warrantless sweeps, searching blocks of houses at a time. It might well be effective.
If the SCOTUS, rightly, struck that down, would you be arguing that same was “judicial activism?”
I think not.
Try some intellectual honesty for a change.
Or suppose DC decided to stop all cars entering certian neighborhoods and bar people who don’t “belong there” . . .
. . . Oops, they did that. If the DC Circuit strikes same down, is that judicial activism?
Surely you understand that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of gov’t? And yet you argue that actually doing same is “judicial activism?!”
Yeesh.
On this issue (local government) McCluer is using the John McCain tactical position…………. he is FOR it and he is AGAINST it.
“I made ya famous GMC.”
Try to keep your head small enough to fit through the door, JR. And get counseling.
WS Clark,
More correctly, the Democratic Party Platform on the 2nd Amendmend should have read:
“We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own ONLY THE firearms THAT WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW THEM TO OWN IN ONLY THE MANNER WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW AND FURTHER ONLY UNDER THE STRICTISTS CONTROLS.”
You get some counseling too councilor.
Try a diet too. Since you are kinda round?
I’m off to mine some of your greatest splits.
WS Clark,
Would you say that Washington DC is… er, was an example of “reasonable” gun control?
GMC70,
I welcome your posting here. I have found you to be one of the few posters here who can articulate a thought rather well.
Please understand that over the past year this blog has seriously went down hill.
I hope you continue to post here and don’t allow the name calling and personal attacks to drive you off.
Thank You,
Nathan
I tell what they think by what they do, WS, not what they say. Not the same thing.
Or you could take the Obama tactic of carefully being for both sides, straddling the issue. The equivalent of voting “present” when an issue is controversial and your vote might come back to haunt you.
And it seems to me that the arguement that certains statements are “code” is a usual left-wing tactic. What’s good for the goose, I guess. And the shoe certainly fits, to mix metaphors.
At least Feinstien, Shumer, and Co. are open about their agenda. Much (though not all; James Webb is actually sane on this issue) of the rest of the leadership of the party hides behind a platform that we both know has no meaning in the real world (political platforms never do).
“GMC70″ asks –
“Wanna explain to me how ruling that the Constitution means what it says, and serves as a limit on government, in particularl here, a part of the federal gov’t, is “judicial activism?”
I apparently ran off “Regular et al” by pointing out how the federal government usurped DC’s local ordinance. That’s judicial activism. Another 5-4 SCOTUS decision that panders to the Republic Party political agenda and trashes precedent and CONservative rhetoric.
Hey, whether it works or not or makes sense or not, municipalities have imposed gun bans; from Wyatt Earp’s Dodge City to the DC handgun ban.
I continue to chortle that you defend what “Regular et al” called “…communist, central-politburos thinking.”
How’s the view from atop your petard?
Hmmmmm
Reauthorizing the “assualt weapons” ban.
Why?
Since the ban was allowed to expire, have we seen some troubling rise in crime with “assualt weapons?”
Has there been any trouble at all?
Can anyone who agree with the assualt weapons ban tell me how much worse things have gotten because the ban was allowed to expire?
Anyone? Anything?
“Would you say that Washington DC is… er, was an example of “reasonable” gun control?”
Nope.
MonkeyHawk,
So if “local ordinance” decided to deny any free speech, closed down churches, didn’t allow peaceful assembly, you would support that?
Still looking for your greatest meltdowns and revelation of character there GMC.
But of course I have met you in person.
You are as you post here. A Macy’s day parade float.
“More correctly, the Democratic Party Platform on the 2nd Amendmend should have read:”
Another conservative claims to be able to tell US what WE think.
By the way, Price, if you are going to be a Second Amendment supporter, you should learn how to spell it.
WS Clark,
Wouldn’t it be safe to say that the more control the left has in places the more unreasonable gun control becomes?
Washington DC is not the only place which has such “unreasonable” gun control.
You can look all over the country from San Francisco, to Chicago, to New York City.
Why is it that you say with a straight face that the Democrats only want what is “reasonable” gun control and yet the more power and control they have in locations the more “unreasonable” the gun control gets.
They talk a good talk, but the simple fact is that Democrats traditionally support more and more gun control to a point beyond what is or could be considered to be reasonable.
Nathan is as he posts here too.
He is one of those people who goes on a rampage and people say, “Well, he was always one of those quiet ones”
Searching is difficult. I’ll find you at your worst there GMC.
Your worst not in person I mean.
WS Clark,
I don’t try to tell you what you think. I only look at what actually happens.
BlueJay,
Perhaps a long break from the blog would do you well.
I am not saying that I never want you back nor am I trying to run you off.
I am suggesting that perhaps a time away to reflect on the happy things in life will help you get rid of some of all that hate you have built up inside.
It is not healty.
Thanks Nathan you can tell me what to do when you stop doing what your dad tells you to do.
Don’t talk to me about unhealthy. You got issues kid.
Faced with reality, “GMC70″ opts for the hypothetical –
Let’s suppose, MH, that DC decided that an effective way to curb violence was to embark on warrantless sweeps, searching blocks of houses at a time.
Like Shrub’s warrant-less wiretaps?
“If the SCOTUS, rightly, struck that down….”
And if frogs had longer back legs they wouldn’t bump their butts on the ground.
You may have a point here, “GMC70.” Care to make it?
“Try some intellectual honesty for a change.
PhysicianLawyer, heal thyself.“Or suppose DC decided to. . .
and…
“. . . If the DC Circuit strikes same down…”
And if a bumblebee read “The Theory of Flight,” he’d have to walk to work.
“Surely you understand that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of gov’t?”
The Constitution exists to limit the Federal government. At least, according to CONservative political rhetoric.
Heller expanded federal dominance and crushed local government and imposed what “Regular et al” called “…communist, central-politburos thinking.”
Here in reality, “GMC70,” we see the CONs imposing “Regular et al’s” “communist central-politburos thinking” yet again.
Don’t expect it to stop with 2nd Amendment issues.
MH -
You’re avoiding the issue. I understand why, of course. Your position is indefensible. So let’s try this again. It’s a simple question:
How is insisting that a local gov’t - and one that is a part of the federal gov’t - is requred to follow the federal constitution, “judicial activism?”
And yet YOU, MH, who routinely rail against what you insist are unconstitutional userpations by the Bush administration (as they may be, but that’s beside the point here) argues - with a straight face, I suppose - that holding that the Constitution is binding on the federal gov’t is “judicial activism?”
The Constitution is binding on gov’t. Wow. That’s hardly a position that’s controversial. But here you backpeddle from that fundamental truth.
Sorry - there are levels of intellectual dishonesty, but this one takes the cake.
News Flash: The Constitution means what it says - and it’s actually binding on gov’t! Get over it.
I know the parade float GMC from his first posts here.
It’s work, but I’ll find his start up here.
‘When defending gun rights led to a caning’
Nathaniel posted June 29, 2008 at 2:23 am
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/open-thread-628-2/#comment-375611
“I am quite capable of hitting a person at 600 yards with open sights.
Give me a scope and 7.62 rifle and we are talking 1000 yards.
If I can ever afford a Barrett .50 caliber rilfe(sic) I could hit someone at much, much, much further distances.”
—————
No additional comment needed…
BLueJay,
I didn’t tell you what to do. Just a friendly suggestion.
I will always do my best to Honor both my