ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Shout them down again

It's time to begin cranking up the volume and sending the anti-gun politicians scurrying back under their rocks again:
In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devises.
  • Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    • 120 specifically-named firearms
    • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
    • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
We all knew it was coming.  You know the drill.  If there is even the slightest squishiness on the part of your elected official, squeeze him until he squeals like an NRA piggy.

Labels:

404 Comments:

1 – 200 of 404 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 12:56 PM  

When will we have reached the point where it is simply not enough to beg our Lords and Masters to please stop stealing our money, destroying our children's futures, and beating us? Will we wait until the knock on the door in the middle of the night? Will we wait until we have been completely disarmed, like so many cattle?

Those officials and their propagandists who are working to further erode the Constitution by prohibiting or severely restricting firearms ownership should be put on notice that their behavior is unacceptable. If they persist, they should be treated as one would treat a pack of evil, vicious mad dogs that poses a direct and imminent threat to the lives and and personal safety of every American family.

Seriously.

Frank J. Brady

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 12:58 PM  

@Vox Day

You didn't include this portion of the proposed legislation:

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

-Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment

-Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes

-Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 12:59 PM  

Come to think of it, Joe Manchin looks just like a hog...

Anonymous Difranco December 27, 2012 1:00 PM  

The debate is tiring.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:02 PM  

"Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by"

They do this with every piece of legislation you idiot. What did you think they were going to call it, the Gun Confiscation Act of 2012? No, it's always about "protecting" us.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:03 PM  

Tad truly is a tool. @Tad, don't bother responding to this one-time observation. You are a non-entity to me.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:03 PM  

@FrankBrad
Those officials and their propagandists who are working to further erode the Constitution by prohibiting or severely restricting firearms ownership should be put on notice that their behavior is unacceptable. If they persist, they should be treated as one would treat a pack of evil, vicious mad dogs that poses a direct and imminent threat to the lives and and personal safety of every American family

In my world, we put down such animals. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that those lawmakers who support Feinstein's legislation and those people who, though not lawmakers, publicly support this legislation ought to be killed? And if so, by whom and in what manner?

Anonymous Tallen December 27, 2012 1:04 PM  

That legislation is likely to be stopped at the House but for the sake of argument say it passed, and all domestic manufacturers ignored it. The govt can't shut down its own arms providers - it would have to take them over, and the emperor would be naked for the world to see.

Anonymous cheddarman December 27, 2012 1:06 PM  

Tad = turd in the punchbowl


sincerely

cheddarman

Anonymous O.C. December 27, 2012 1:07 PM  

I have in fact watched this drill often enough to know that a proposal like Senator Feinstein's is always the smokescreen; always the set of demands they're willing to bargain away to get what they really want. The challenge is to discern what they're really going after.

My guess is that this time, given all the talk floating around about this also being a public mental health issue, that the "reasonable compromise" will be some kind of additional unsubstantiated psych profiling being added to the NICS system and becoming grounds for taking away someone's already-owned firearms.

Now factor in Obamacare, and the American Psychiatric Association's proven willingness to change the definition of "mental illness" to suit political expediency...

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:08 PM  

"Just to be clear, are you suggesting that those lawmakers who support Feinstein's legislation and those people who, though not lawmakers, publicly support this legislation ought to be killed? And if so, by whom and in what manner?"

Tad, what's your moral basis for saying that any of this would be wrong? Some people just have different worldviews than you do.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:08 PM  

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm saying as clearly as I possibly can that Feinstein and all other government officials that follow her line should be tried for their treasonous betrayal of the Constitution, convicted, and then executed. A firing squad would be just fine with me.

@Tad, I'm making a one-time exception just to deal with your stupid question directly.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:12 PM  

@Frank

Well, that's not exactly what you said. You said they should be treated like dangerous animals. We don't put dogs on trial. We just put them down.

Glad you clarified.

One thing, enacting or supporting a law found to be unconstitutional isn't treason.

Anonymous Difranco December 27, 2012 1:13 PM  

@Tad

In my world, we put down such animals. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that those lawmakers who support Feinstein's legislation and those people who, though not lawmakers, publicly support this legislation ought to be killed? And if so, by whom and in what manner?

You do understand that those who support this legislation or similar, are in fact initiating force and violence on their peaceful neighbors? They are hiring men with guns to go out and round up people and/or their property.

Anonymous Orlok December 27, 2012 1:13 PM  

OC is pretty perceptive, methinks. Wouldnt surprise me one bit. Soviet Union used a similar technique.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 1:13 PM  

Tad,
You either accidentally missed or outright ignored my three attempts to ask you these follow-up questions from the other thread.

By your own statement, you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

Does this rule apply to police officers?
The President's security team?
The mayor of NYC's personal detail?
Madonna's private bodyguards?
Why or why not?

And I'll add, what about Senator Feinstein's armed security team?

This is now the 4th occasion on which I've asked this line of questions. I would appreciate answers.

Thank you,

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:13 PM  

@noah

Tad, what's your moral basis for saying that any of this would be wrong? Some people just have different worldviews than you do.

I didn't say any of it would be wrong, or right. I just asked for clarification. You know, just tying to make plans on what side of the street to walk down when I see Frank coming.

Anonymous Glacierman December 27, 2012 1:14 PM  

The fear is palpable in the States (and many other countries)right now. Especially with the politicians, as the common folk are being treated more like a cash cow for socialist programs to keep the welfare-mentality class' soother in their mouths.

The fearful in government are now waking to the realization that the plebes are not going down without a fight. The government has made so many decisions which have only benefited themselves and forgotten that the strength of the government is held in the people whom they are to serve, not the other way around. The government and courts have slowly stripped the backbone of the society through unjust, immoral and corrupt laws and now their lives are being threatened by those who's moral character are so compromised that evil now seems good and vice-versa. The beds they have created no longer have the comfy feeling they were expecting to have.

Feinstein is the poster-child of the quivering elite who are so out of touch an out of control. Mercy is all they deserve.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:14 PM  

Let me be as clear as I can. From Armenia through Hitler and Stalin to Mao, mass murder follows when a people is disarmed. What, exactly, differentiates Feinstein and her "peers" from a pack of mad dogs on a playground filled with children or a cobra in the nursery?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:15 PM  

@DeFranco

You do understand that those who support this legislation or similar, are in fact initiating force and violence on their peaceful neighbors? They are hiring men with guns to go out and round up people and/or their property.

So, do you have an issue with all laws that are enforceable by punishment, or just this one?

Anonymous Difranco December 27, 2012 1:17 PM  

Tad said: One thing, enacting or supporting a law found to be unconstitutional isn't treason.

Violating your oath of office is treason.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:18 PM  

@Frank

Let me be as clear as I can. From Armenia through Hitler and Stalin to Mao, mass murder follows when a people is disarmed. What, exactly, differentiates Feinstein and her "peers" from a pack of mad dogs on a playground filled with children or a cobra in the nursery?

Well then, we are in luck. The AMerican populace isn't being disarmed with this legislation. Only certain arms are being banned while hundreds are still perfectly legal.

As for the difference between humans, snakes and dogs, I guess I would begin with the form of locomotion. But there are others too.

Anonymous zen0 December 27, 2012 1:18 PM  

Its not too late to buy more Smith and Wesson shares. (SWHC)

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:19 PM  

For what it's worth, "Tad" (or whatever it is) seems to have a problem with the language. One last time: Try and convict these fuckers for treason--and then shoot them! Clear enough?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:21 PM  

@Difranco

Violating your oath of office is treason.

No, it isn't:

Article 3, section 3 of the U.S Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:22 PM  

@Frank

For what it's worth, "Tad" (or whatever it is) seems to have a problem with the language. One last time: Try and convict these fuckers for treason--and then shoot them! Clear enough?

Passing this law would not consist of treason as defined by the Constitution.

Anonymous Difranco December 27, 2012 1:22 PM  

So, do you have an issue with all laws that are enforceable by punishment, or just this one?

"Laws" as you term it are merely opinions of 535 individual assholes in a room. I am against using force against people's will.

Anonymous TLM December 27, 2012 1:23 PM  

Gun control, despite the current posturing, is always a political loser. It won't happen. It's strange that the govt robs us blind with taxes and we bitch but do nothing. Threaten our ability to arm ourselves and we go apeshit. This attempt, like most other recent attempts will fail. A great time to own a gun store.

Anonymous Soga December 27, 2012 1:24 PM  

Disarming the populace is giving aid and comfort to the United States' enemies. Therefore, treason.

QED

Anonymous Clay December 27, 2012 1:25 PM  

Tad December 27, 2012 12:58 PM @Vox Day

You didn't include this portion of the proposed legislation:

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

-Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment


Well, now Tad. Aren't they being generous!

NOW. Here's where the "other shoe" drops:

"• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration"



Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:26 PM  

@Difranco

"Laws" as you term it are merely opinions of 535 individual assholes in a room. I am against using force against people's will.

Doesn't this put you in opposition of laws that prohibit and punish killing and stealing?

Blogger Longstreet December 27, 2012 1:27 PM  

"For what it's worth, "Tad" (or whatever it is) seems to have a problem with the language."

Apparently so. Winston Webb has asked the same question at least 4 times.

I hate to be "that guy" but Tad...rule #2. Man up or shut up.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:28 PM  

@soga

Disarming the populace is giving aid and comfort to the United States' enemies. Therefore, treason.

Well, not really Sogo since there is enemy identified by the federal government that this law aids and comforts. But your point is moot. This law does not disarm the populace. It merely bans some arms. You still have legal access to hundreds of guns.

Anonymous Soga December 27, 2012 1:29 PM  

If the government can arbitrarily declare citizens "enemies of the United States" such that they should be assassinated whether on domestic soil or not, why shouldn't the People By And For Whom The Government Is Governed also be able to arbitrarily declare other classes of citizens as "enemies of the United States" and therefore, giving aid and comfort to them vis-a-vis gun control legislation is considered treason?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Anonymous Mina December 27, 2012 1:30 PM  

Dear Tad: Most people here give less of a f*ck about hunting than they do about their rights to bear arms (to deter Government tyranny), as memorialized in our constitution. Not conferred, not granted - memorialized.

Will someone please shut him up?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:32 PM  

@Soga

"The People" already can declare who is an enemy...through their elected officials of the government. What I think you mean is why can't an individual declare a person an enemy of the state and therefore declare their actions treasonous? Treason is an act against the state. An individual is not "the state".

There you go.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 1:33 PM  

Feinstein's Folly Part Deux.

Anonymous Soga December 27, 2012 1:35 PM  

Tad wrote:
"The People" already can declare who is an enemy...through their elected officials of the government. What I think you mean is why can't an individual declare a person an enemy of the state and therefore declare their actions treasonous? Treason is an act against the state. An individual is not "the state".

I think most people would be hard pressed to say that their representatives actually represent them.

So no, not really.

Anonymous Starbuck December 27, 2012 1:37 PM  

Hey Tad, Winston asked you a direct question. I'd like to see it answered.

Answer it please.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:38 PM  

Any attempt by the current gang of renegade politicians to disarm the people in clear violation of the Constitution will certainly result in civil war. That amounts to "levying War" against the people (who, liberals routinely inform us, are “the government of the United States).

There is a clear precedent for this statement. The first shots fired in the American Revolutionary war occurred when British troops attempted to disarm the colonists.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:38 PM  

But millions of individuals ARE the nation, and the actions of these politicians are clearly treasonous. I don't see any meaningful difference between a politician threatening to enact gun control laws and a terrorist threatening to blow up a bus full of innocent people, other than that the terrorist would do far less damage.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:41 PM  

"Well, they clearly represent them."

This is a case where perception determines reality. I also do not consider these politicians to represent me in any meaningful manner.

Anonymous Soga December 27, 2012 1:42 PM  

Tad
"Well, they clearly represent them. Of this there is no question. What they may not do is represent you to your satisfaction. Ok."

No, they don't. There is question as to whether or not they actually represent the people. Election results are frequently questioned. You're wrong yet again.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:42 PM  

For all practical purposes, representative government is non-existent in this country. The two party system has guaranteed that.

Anonymous O.C. December 27, 2012 1:43 PM  

@TLM

"Gun control, despite the current posturing, is always a political loser. It won't happen. It's strange that the govt robs us blind with taxes and we bitch but do nothing. Threaten our ability to arm ourselves and we go apeshit. This attempt, like most other recent attempts will fail. A great time to own a gun store."

Exactly. That's why it's such a useful smokescreen. While the right is busy going apeshit over this, watch to see what they're really trying to slip through without attracting attention.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:44 PM  

As for the difference between humans, snakes and dogs, I guess I would begin with the form of locomotion. But there are others too.

I will only observe that those differences appear to be quite narrow in at least one particular instance.

Blogger Longstreet December 27, 2012 1:46 PM  

Hey Tad. Answer WW's question.

Anonymous VD December 27, 2012 1:46 PM  

Answer the questions, Tad.

Anonymous Soga December 27, 2012 1:48 PM  

It keeps flailing... answer the questions.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:50 PM  

@Soga

No, they don't. There is question as to whether or not they actually represent the people. Election results are frequently questioned. You're wrong yet again.

If you are making the case that the current set of representatives in Washington were elected fraudulently, then make it. If not, then there is no question that statutorily and constitutionally, they are legitimate representatives of the people in their jurisdiction.

Blogger Longstreet December 27, 2012 1:51 PM  

Ahem...Tad.

"By your own statement, you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

Does this rule apply to police officers?
The President's security team?
The mayor of NYC's personal detail?
Madonna's private bodyguards?
Why or why not?"

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:51 PM  

@Frank


I will only observe that those differences appear to be quite narrow in at least one particular instance.


Now I like you much more than I did before.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:52 PM  

"There is nothing in voting to ban certain weapons that comes close to the constitutional definition of treasonous."

It's difficult to imagine a more direct or significant method of giving aid to a nation's enemies than to disarm that nation's people. It is treason conducted openly, notoriously, and in plain view of millions of witnesses. There is nothing in the constitutional definition of treason that requires secrecy.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 27, 2012 1:52 PM  

The Non-stop Tad Show has become tiresome.

Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!

[HEADS FOR THE DOOR]



Anonymous Big Bill December 27, 2012 1:52 PM  

So, Tad, you are not going to do anything about the 300 million weapons already out there?

They will be grandfathered in? The clips, the magazines, everything?

Clearly you have no intention of stopping the slaughter.

Adam and his wacky mom get to keep their guns, the schools stay disarmed and vulnerable, the gutless Connecticut police will still take 20 minutes to travel 1.5 miles, and the next slaughter will occur as the last one did.

And when the inevitable killings happen (as they eternally occur throughout the animal kingdom) you will cry out yet again for even more ineffectual gun, then knife, then club, then stick, then fist, then hand solutions, firmly and eternally committed to "Education" and "Knowledge" as the Final Solution to the evil that forever lurks in the hearts of men.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 1:54 PM  

"If not, then there is no question that statutorily and constitutionally, they are legitimate representatives of the people in their jurisdiction."

They all take an oath of office that the vast majority violate within mere days (I'm being generous here) of taking. Statutorily, constitutionally, they are criminals.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:54 PM  

@Vox Day

Answer the questions, Tad.

Winston said:

"By your own statement, you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written."

This is incorrect. I never said any such thing.

Vox Day.....what is the rule when the question is based on an incorrect assertion of what a commenter said. besides the "i didn't say that" response?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 1:57 PM  

@Noah


They all take an oath of office that the vast majority violate within mere days (I'm being generous here) of taking. Statutorily, constitutionally, they are criminals.


They may be criminals. But they aren't treasonous criminals for voting to ban certain weapons.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 1:57 PM  

If you are making the case that the current set of representatives in Washington were elected fraudulently, then make it. If not, then there is no question that statutorily and constitutionally, they are legitimate representatives of the people in their jurisdiction.

...which might be true if the monstrous and intrusive apparatus that rules every aspect of our lives from Washington had not long since forfeited any claim to Constitutional legitimacy. It did so it's not.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:00 PM  

"But they aren't treasonous criminals for voting to ban certain weapons."

I say they are. Frank says they are. So do millions of other people. I believe we're moving toward a consensus.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 2:02 PM  

A ban on transfers? You had best not die, then, else your children will be jailed upon the execution of your wills.

...For what it is worth, I vow that you may keep your weapons; I only mean to ban vibranium shields, trick arrows, large hammers forged in dying stars, full-body mechanised suits, weapons derived from extraterrestrial technology, and the use of gamma radiation-based enhancements.

None of you should be affected. Would I not be preferable to your Congress?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:05 PM  

@Noah

I say they are. Frank says they are. So do millions of other people. I believe we're moving toward a consensus.

Can you point me to the evidence that millions (at least 2 million) others besides you and Frank interpret Article 3, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution to mean that passing a law to ban certain guns is a case of treason?

Anonymous RC December 27, 2012 2:05 PM  

"The Non-stop Tad Show has become tiresome.

Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!

[HEADS FOR THE DOOR]" - Scoobius

+100**100

Please Tad, I beg you, please do NOT answer the direct question.

Blogger Longstreet December 27, 2012 2:06 PM  

"Would I not be preferable to your Congress?"

Well, your wardrobe is definitely more awesomer. The staff, the cape, the horny helmet...

Bitchin!

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 2:09 PM  

Tad,
Now not only are you dodging my question, but you are accusing me of lying?

Tad December 26, 2012 3:39 PM

@winston

Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

Good question. How about we start with this baseline: Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written. That would be a purely Originalist (even "Textualist") approach to interpreting the Constitution, wouldn't it.


Further on in the topic, I pressed you to be more specific:

WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 3:48 PM
No, it would not. You are adding the artificial metric of "hand held weapon".


Your response?

Tad December 26, 2012 3:53 PM
You asked. And I responded..


I accused you of waffling, which you are still doing.

Later on:

WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 4:09 PM
For the sake of continuing, I'll bend and count this as a specific answer to the question "Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?".

Does this rule apply to police officers? The President's security team? The mayor of NYC's personal detail? Madonna's private bodyguards? Why or why not?


Which you still refuse to answer.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:11 PM  

It's an estimate, but I am certain that 2 million is extremely conservative. Gun sales over the past couple of months are a good indication.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 27, 2012 2:13 PM  

Tad you aren't getting our guns. Deal with it.

Tad, how about talking about disarming the police which have become a bunch of thugs, hauling people off who want to smoke a plant?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 2:13 PM  

Well, your wardrobe is definitely more awesomer. The staff, the cape, the horny helmet...

Bitchin!


Indeed.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 2:19 PM  

Tad hates our freedom!

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:21 PM  

@Winston

My response was this:

"How about we start with this baseline: Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written. That would be a purely Originalist (even "Textualist") approach to interpreting the Constitution, wouldn't it."

In this thread you say I said this:

"you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written."

BIG Difference!!

With that clarification, let me answer your question as stated this way:

"Does this rule apply to police officers? The President's security team? The mayor of NYC's personal detail? Madonna's private bodyguards? Why or why not?"

Yes. The 2nd Amendment does allow the president's security team, the mayor of NYC's personal detail and Modonna's private bodyguards to at least carry any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written because these weapons seem clearly authorized by the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Now of course beyond this baseline, there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry. This leads to the issue of what limits there might be on the right to bear arms. I like Scalia's and the Supreme Court's assessment that unusually dangerous arms can be constitutionally regulated and banned.

Anonymous Mina December 27, 2012 2:21 PM  

"how about talking about disarming the police which have become a bunch of thugs" - for example the huge increase the in number of police responding to calls and shooting dogs that happen to be on the scene when they get there?

Not to equate humans with dogs, but there they are, indiscriminately firing at people's pets ("private property"), killing them and endangering everyone in the general area.

Two weeks ago one shot a dog in close quarters (inside someone's home) and hit the animal control guy who had come with him in the leg. The dog was killed with the follow-up shot.

Yes these guys are trustworthy and exhibiting good judgement. So much better than those out of control citizens.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:23 PM  

@Fubar

Tad, how about talking about disarming the police which have become a bunch of thugs, hauling people off who want to smoke a plant?

I'm not with you on disarming the police, but I am with you on decriminalizing marijuana. And I think that once we have a few years of WA an CO under our belt, we'll get there.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 2:25 PM  

The 2nd Amendment does allow the president's security team, the mayor of NYC's personal detail and Modonna's private bodyguards to at least carry any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written because these weapons seem clearly authorized by the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Now of course beyond this baseline, there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry. This leads to the issue of what limits there might be on the right to bear arms. I like Scalia's and the Supreme Court's assessment that unusually dangerous arms can be constitutionally regulated and banned.


Thank you. Do you have any questions for me before I present my next one to you?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:25 PM  

@Noah

It's an estimate, but I am certain that 2 million is extremely conservative. Gun sales over the past couple of months are a good indication.

I dont see the connection between gun sales and peoples interpretation of Article 3, section 3 of the constitution. Can you point me to a website that addresses this connection and indicates that people who buy guns believe that passing gun bans is a treasonous act under the constitution's definition of treason?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:27 PM  

@Winston

Yes, I do have a question. Do you agree with the clarification I offered?

Also, would you agree with my assessment of the proper meaning of the 2nd amendment insofar as I offered in the first paragraph of the portion of my comment you quoted?

Anonymous DonReynolds December 27, 2012 2:28 PM  

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

March 23rd, 1775


Anonymous Unending Improvement December 27, 2012 2:28 PM  

Tad,

where exactly do the words "How about we start with this baseline: Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written" come in. Can you point out where the Constitution says that?

I'd really like to know. It's not as if the founders were unaware that weapons technology advances. Obviously you know nothing about guns, and very little about history, but do us all a favor and look up the Ferguson rifle.

Anonymous Todd December 27, 2012 2:29 PM  

Strange "coincidence" that Aurora and Sandy Hook are placed in the Batman Rises movie ... and we know product placement is designed in movies.

Almost as creepy as this from a few months before 911

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:30 PM  

"This leads to the issue of what limits there might be on the right to bear arms."

The 14th amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law should then apply, allowing a citizen to have any weapon that any individual serving in law enforcement or the military may operate or possess.

And I don't see the military or police rushing to get rid of their high capacity magazines because they're too dangerous.

Anonymous Roundtine December 27, 2012 2:30 PM  

You didn't include this portion of the proposed legislation to restrict journalists:

Protects legitimate journalists and the rights of existing media outlets by:

-Grandfathering newspapers legally operating on the date of enactment

-Exempting over 900 specifically-named TV stations used for entertainment or educational purposes

-Exempting antique, manually-operated, printing presses

All journalists will also be restricted to using technology available at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

Anonymous Anonymous December 27, 2012 2:30 PM  

LOL! As if owners are really going to register their so called assault weapons and have themselves photographed and fingerprinted. Here in California’s population of 35 million people, only 27,000 "assault weapons" have been registered per the California DOJ, even though it is estimated that there are 500,000 to 1 million legally owned assault weapons still running around in California.
What will happen is that such rifles will simply go underground by their owners. Just look at the recent mass purchases in anticipation of a ban.
Incidently, there are not enough LEOs, fed police agencies nor national guard to collect firearms.
Sure, the feds will make examples of firearm owners when they catch them but it is virtually impossible to collect them all.

I look at this way. I'm 67 years old in fairly good health and it's been 43 years since being in combat in Vietnam and I would probably love a good rush in my old age picking off feds at 500 yards.

Anonymous Frederick303 December 27, 2012 2:31 PM  

Tad I think you had better answer Winston Webb's question. It looks like you misrepresented him and have mislead all of use here on your previous statements.

How about every one hold off any more conversation with TAD until he responds to Winston Webb's questions and the inevitable follow up questions

I really want to hear the answer(s).

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:33 PM  

"I dont see the connection between gun sales and peoples interpretation of Article 3, section 3 of the constitution."

As though it were not already quite clear, you are fool who can't connect the dots.

Anonymous Unending Improvement December 27, 2012 2:35 PM  

@IowaHawkBlog: "When the founders wrote the 1st Amendment, "the press" was a guy rolling ink on wooden blocks. #muskets"

Saw this on Twitter, love it.

Anonymous Frederick303 December 27, 2012 2:37 PM  

Opps late on publishing comment, my bad

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:37 PM  

@Noah
The 14th amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law should then apply, allowing a citizen to have any weapon that any individual serving in law enforcement or the military may operate or possess.

The 14th Amendment is not implicated where military weapons procurement is concerned if only because the military is not a "class" of people, but rather an institution of the federal government.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 2:38 PM  

Tad,
Yes, I do have a question. Do you agree with the clarification I offered?
I agree that it was a clarification. But it begs the question as to why you were not more specific the first time I asked. No matter, we can always later pursue what non-18th century weaponry you feel applies.

Also, would you agree with my assessment of the proper meaning of the 2nd amendment insofar as I offered in the first paragraph of the portion of my comment you quoted?
No, not at all.

My turn.

...there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry.

1) What, "other weapons"? Please be specific so we can avoid the prior...whatever that was.

2) Why do you differentiate between weapons that are allowed for security details and weapons that are allowed for individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment draws no such line. On what do you base yours?

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:39 PM  

TAD, you are also still dodging my question. How many children will you allow a mass murder to kill before you are willing to take meaningful action to stop it from happening?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:40 PM  

@Noah

As though it were not already quite clear, you are fool who can't connect the dots.

Well then connect them for me. All you have said is that there is a connection, but you've not demonstrated the connection. You've merely said one exists.

Anonymous Credo In Unum Deum December 27, 2012 2:43 PM  

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress!"

John Adams
1776.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3TGbKfkwGA

America had a good run.

We are at right now at the point where Ancient Rome was around the year 390-410 or so. Sooner or later, we're going to have a major loss, and in another 70-100 years America will be gone, and replaced by something new...

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:43 PM  

@Winston

"1) What, "other weapons"?"

Well, I'd certainly put many hand guns into that "other" category. Certainly many rifles.


2) Why do you differentiate between weapons that are allowed for security details and weapons that are allowed for individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment draws no such line. On what do you base yours?"

I didn't make such a distinction. I said:
"there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry.

Anonymous Difranco December 27, 2012 2:44 PM  

@TAD
Doesn't this put you in opposition of laws that prohibit and punish killing and stealing?

No. Using force to murder people and steal their possessions has always been illegal in common law.

What those 535 assholes do is make up Statutes that some refer to as "laws" to serve their various lobby groups and corporate friends.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:44 PM  

@Noah...

I asked for clarification of your question on another thread.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 2:48 PM  

How many children, Tad?

Anonymous zen0 December 27, 2012 2:51 PM  

And don't forget, when NATO was making Kosovo safe for Islam, ammo became money.

Anonymous Buck December 27, 2012 2:52 PM  

Somewhat related - the "journalists" who posted a bunch of gun owner's names and addresses online have had their own addresses published in return:

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/

Anonymous Outlaw X December 27, 2012 2:55 PM  

Tad Pole think they can tell us what we should do in TX. Move in withDavid Gregory.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:56 PM  

@Noah

How many children will you allow a mass murder to kill before you are willing to take meaningful action to stop it from happening?

I can see no reason to accept any amount of killing of children before supporting meaningful action to prevent such a thing.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 27, 2012 2:58 PM  

The answer to gun control is NO, and it will remain NO even when they come into my driveway to demand my surrender.

Pass whatever laws you like, they will not stand. The laws already on the books are actively avoided by the Executive branch with impunity. Ineffective laws will still be ineffective after they are changed. It is common knowledge that this is no longer a nation of laws, so the American people no longer have an obligation to obey the law, when it can be disregarded by those who are duty sworn to enforce it. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Clearly, we are not.

Prior to the Texas Revolution, the Mexican military gave an old cannon to the Texas Militia. Once the revolt began, the Mexicans demanded it be returned. The Texans said.....Come and Take It! And that is my answer too. Come and Take it.

Anonymous Josh December 27, 2012 2:59 PM  

there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry.

Sweet, the secret service uses stinger missiles. Look out drones.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 27, 2012 3:02 PM  

See what happens when you don't tell Tad to shutup? I hope you are all satisfied.

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 3:02 PM  

"I can see no reason to accept any amount of killing of children before supporting meaningful action to prevent such a thing."

Me either. So, when your proposed solution of banning high capacity magazines fails to protect innocents, what will you propose to ban next?

Anonymous Idle observer December 27, 2012 3:04 PM  

"Well then, we are in luck. The AMerican populace isn't being disarmed with this legislation. Only certain arms are being banned while hundreds are still perfectly legal."

"Only" certain? Then more only certain... Ever hear the story of The Frog and Scorpion? It's disgusting while idiots like you use tragedies to push your homicidal agenda while concurrently ignoring your Dear Leader Obozo's murderous behavior in foreign countries.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:06 PM  

@noah

Me either. So, when your proposed solution of banning high capacity magazines fails to protect innocents, what will you propose to ban next?

You mean fails to protect any or all innocents? Because while it might not prevent all from harm, it may protect some.

Anonymous zen0 December 27, 2012 3:07 PM  

Feinstein is one of the most blatantly corrupt politicians in America. Her husband profited from the Iraq war(with her help), profited from the housing sham (with her help), and will probably find a way to profit with her help in this sting.

Anonymous Anonymous December 27, 2012 3:08 PM  

@ Tad,

Why do you avoid his questions?

I have one, two of my own for you:

1) Which state or federal institution do you work for?

Your solicitation of that one gent struck me as rather...odd. reminded me of the gunshow scene in the book Unintended Consequences.

2) Is your real name John J. Towery?

frenchy

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 3:15 PM  

Let's suppose the country did go along with a high capacity magazine and semi-auto rifle ban, and at some time afterward, suppose a guy walks into a school with a pump shotgun and two revolvers, and thanks to the gun grabbers, it's still a victim disarmament zone. The guy then proceeds to kill 17 people, unimpeded. Are you saying that this is an acceptable level of loss and that you will propose no additional measures to stop this from happening, or at that time, would you then advocate additional gun control?

Blogger Giraffe December 27, 2012 3:15 PM  

I hope the Ilk had a great Christmas. You too Tad. Come to Jesus. He can wash you white as snow.


Anonymous zen0 December 27, 2012 3:16 PM  

You mean fails to protect any or all innocents? Because while it might not prevent all from harm, it may protect some.

So if homosexuality and abortion were made illegal, and it only protected some, it would be well worth it, right Tad?

Anonymous Geoff-UK December 27, 2012 3:17 PM  

Throughout history (as well as a kick-ass movie in the 80s called Red Dawn), the process is simple and horribly effective.

1. Registration

2. Confiscation.

3. Eradication of political enemies of the state who can't fire back

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:18 PM  

@anonymous

None. No.

Anonymous JCB December 27, 2012 3:20 PM  

O.C. December 27, 2012 1:07 PM

" I have in fact watched this drill often enough to know that a proposal like Senator Feinstein's is always the smokescreen; always the set of demands they're willing to bargain away to get what they really want. The challenge is to discern what they're really going after.

My guess is that this time, given all the talk floating around about this also being a public mental health issue, that the "reasonable compromise" will be some kind of additional unsubstantiated psych profiling being added to the NICS system and becoming grounds for taking away someone's already-owned firearms.

Now factor in Obamacare, and the American Psychiatric Association's proven willingness to change the definition of "mental illness" to suit political expediency..."

After wading through the Tad sideshow, this is the most important thing said here. The psychiatric establishment has been passing out anti-depressants like party favors for years now. Add to this a generation of kids raised on Ritalin, and you have a large portion of the population potentially denied the right to own a gun. When all medical records migrate to a central Federal database courtesy of Obamacare it will take about 10 nanoseconds for your background check to return the answer "No gun for you!"


Blogger Giraffe December 27, 2012 3:23 PM  

I don't think VD has pointed this out yet.

If we had gotten Romney, we would be in a lot worse shape right now regarding gun control. He passed a ban as governor of Massachusetts. He played it cool to get elected, but if he did decide to go after guns, a good number of repukes would turn traitor with him.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:23 PM  

@Noah

Are you saying that this is an acceptable level of loss and that you will propose no additional measures to stop this from happening, or at that time, would you then advocate additional gun control?

No. No. No. I'm not saying any of that.


Noah, if armed guards are put in schools, and a student walks in with a concealed semi automatic with two magazines of 30 rounds each and proceeds to kill 30 fellow students before the armed guard can get to the class room and is then shot dead by the gunman, would you then suggest that armed guards be placed in every class room in every school in America? Or only in those class rooms with more than a certain number of students?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:24 PM  

@zeno

So if homosexuality and abortion were made illegal, and it only protected some, it would be well worth it, right Tad?

Maybe...But it depends on what you mean by "protected". I'm not clear how making homosexuality or abortion serves to protect anyone from anything.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 3:25 PM  

Because while it might not prevent all from harm, it may protect some.

Sounds like a great rationale for sodomy laws. Lol!

Tad is an authoritarian. Authoritarian elitists like Tad simply fail to realize until it is too late that every authoritarian measure they support can and will eventually be used against them by even bigger badder authoritarians.



Anonymous Feh December 27, 2012 3:29 PM  

Noah, if armed guards are put in schools, and a student walks in with a concealed semi automatic with two magazines of 30 rounds each and proceeds to kill 30 fellow students before the armed guard can get to the class room and is then shot dead by the gunman, would you then suggest that armed guards be placed in every class room in every school in America? Or only in those class rooms with more than a certain number of students?

By this logic, we should never have police or guards of any kind, unless we can guarantee that those police and guards have a 100% chance to stop all types of crime, permanently.

Armed guards don't stop bank robberies, therefore the whole concept of "armed guards" is invalid. Got it!

Anonymous redsash December 27, 2012 3:33 PM  

If the republicans in the House of Representatives would only refuse to increase the federal debt limit, then most if not all attempts by the federal government to curtail my liberties and freedoms would come to a crashing halt.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 3:36 PM  

Tad: "I'm not clear how making homosexuality or abortion serves to protect anyone from anything."

If we can save just a few people from dying from HIV or a botched abortion it will be worth it. It may not save all of them, but it can save a few.

It's your logic, Tad. You just aren't used to having it thrown back in your face.

Anonymous fish December 27, 2012 3:36 PM  

Tad is an authoritarian. Authoritarian elitists like Tad simply fail to realize until it is too late that every authoritarian measure they support can and will eventually be used against them by even bigger badder authoritarians.

Pretty sure that "Tad" is T o n y the resident penis catcher from the Great state of Oklahoma who trolls at reason.com. They both employ the "I'm a reasonable guy. You're not. So my opinion is much more valid" argument. Ignore it and it will usually slink off for a while.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 3:37 PM  

Because while it might not prevent all from harm, it may protect some.

I protected three elementary schools from shootings today, by changing the street signs in their city. Doubtless, at least one of those fellows who became lost and confused was on his way to murder a large number of children.

No, I cannot quantify exactly how many lives were saved, but it is true that at least some may have been protected. I am a hero, and my action was good and justified.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 3:38 PM  

"Noah, if armed guards are put in schools, and a student walks in with a concealed semi automatic with two magazines of 30 rounds each and proceeds to kill 30 fellow students before the armed guard can get to the class room and is then shot dead by the gunman, would you then suggest that armed guards be placed in every class room in every school in America? Or only in those class rooms with more than a certain number of students?"

My suggestion is the same as it was last week and the week before. Allow teachers, administrators, and other school workers to be armed. As infrequent as these mass shootings already are, they are even less common where people are allowed to be armed for their own defense.

What will your next proposal be after your current one fails? Do nothing? Reverse the ban since it clearly didn't work as intended? Or enact yet another ban? It's not that I don't already know the truth, it's just that I find it amusing to watch you attempt a coherent response.

Anonymous zen0 December 27, 2012 3:38 PM  

Maybe...But it depends on what you mean by "protected". I'm not clear how making homosexuality or abortion serves to protect anyone from anything. @ Tad

You are not sure about a lot of things. Almost as if you are some kind of contrarian language algorithm.

Anonymous John J. Towery December 27, 2012 3:40 PM  

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:42 PM  

@Porky



I see your point. The problem with it, however, is that homosexuality is not he cause of HIV.

Anonymous RC December 27, 2012 3:45 PM  

If the republicans in the House of Representatives would only refuse to increase the federal debt limit, then most if not all attempts by the federal government to curtail my liberties and freedoms would come to a crashing halt." - redsash

Nothing that an executive order wouldn't clear up.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:47 PM  

@Noah

My suggestion is the same as it was last week and the week before. Allow teachers, administrators, and other school workers to be armed. As infrequent as these mass shootings already are, they are even less common where people are allowed to be armed for their own defense.

What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 3:49 PM  

Tad,

You are correct, homosexuality does not cause HIV. It is the number one vector of new infections, and is responsible for more powerful, drug resistant forms of HIV.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 3:52 PM  

Tad December 27, 2012 2:43 PM

@Winston

"1) What, "other weapons"?"

Well, I'd certainly put many hand guns into that "other" category. Certainly many rifles.


"Many"?
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Many (but presumably not All) arms shall not be infringed."
Your qualifier has no place in the original text.


2) Why do you differentiate between weapons that are allowed for security details and weapons that are allowed for individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment draws no such line. On what do you base yours?"

I didn't make such a distinction. I said:
"there are other weapons that i believe the second amendment authorizes not just these kinds of security details to carry but authorizes individual citizens to carry.


Let's simplify things:

Tad, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment secures my Right to carry on my person any type of weapon that is carried by Senator Diane Feinstein's security detail?

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 3:55 PM  

The problem with it, however, is that homosexuality is not he cause of HIV.

No problem. Guns are not the cause of murder either. Like your male organ, a gun is simply a tool that can be deadly if used improperly.

Perhaps we should begin by simply registering all homosexuals. Then we can selectively ban a few of the most dangerous types. A quick background check to determine how many partners you've had recently, a brief glance at your medical records, lots of paperwork to fill out at bath houses...

If it saves even one life....

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:55 PM  

@Winston

"Many"?
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Many (but presumably not All) arms shall not be infringed."
Your qualifier has no place in the original text.


You seem to imply here that any arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Can you define what you mean by "arms"?

Tad, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment secures my Right to carry on my person any type of weapon that is carried by Senator Diane Feinstein's security detail?

Would Sen. Feinstein's detail be a detachment of the Secret Servcie? What do they carry?

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 3:57 PM  

Kind of gives new meaning to the term "slippery slope", no?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 3:57 PM  

@Porky

Perhaps we should begin by simply registering all homosexuals. Then we can selectively ban a few of the most dangerous types. A quick background check to determine how many partners you've had recently, a brief glance at your medical records, lots of paperwork to fill out at bath houses...

That might work. But first you'd have to explain what is is about homosexuals that make them any form of danger to anyone.

Anonymous Roundtine December 27, 2012 3:57 PM  

I see your point. The problem with it, however, is that homosexuality is not he cause of HIV.

Unprotected butt sex is the leading method of transmission.

Anonymous Frederick303 December 27, 2012 3:58 PM  

Tad,

by your reasoning police should not be armed either, they may be disarmed by offenders.

Anonymous Roundtine December 27, 2012 4:01 PM  

Homosexuals are also spreading STDs at alarming rates and due to their use of antibiotics, it is creating drug resistant STDs. Some homosexuals are bisexual, spreading drug resistant STDs into the heterosexual community. They are a public health threat.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 4:01 PM  

"I see your point. The problem with it, however, is that homosexuality is not he cause of HIV."

Applying similar logic, guns aren't the cause of shootings.

Anonymous Anonymous December 27, 2012 4:04 PM  

It is useless to discuss anything with a person who is only interested in attempting to belittle the ideas of the ilk and argue about what is is.

Blairll

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 4:04 PM  

Hmm. I wonder.

If I were to glue a dozen senators and an incendiary grenade to the ball at Times Square during the New Year's festivities, do you think the gun-control advocates would thereafter argue to ban "unusually adhesive adhesives"?

This bears attempting. Signe, if you are following this thread, prepare the purchase order for a pallet of Krazy Glue. (And answer your damned telephone, wench. I grow weary of your sulking.)

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 4:09 PM  

"What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?"

Ah yes, the old argument that guns are useless for self defense because someone will just take it away to use it against you.

If it's so easy to take a gun from someone, why are you afraid of someone having a gun in the first place?

Let's try it. Why don't we just let the cops take guns away from bad guys with their bare hands instead of carrying guns themselves? Sure would save the taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd all be so much safer having those guns off the streets.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 4:11 PM  

Tad December 27, 2012 3:55 PM
You seem to imply here that any arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Can you define what you mean by "arms"?

Sure.
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

Tad, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment secures my Right to carry on my person any type of weapon that is carried by Senator Diane Feinstein's security detail?

Would Sen. Feinstein's detail be a detachment of the Secret Servcie? What do they carry?

Yes, they are S.S.
Their issue sidearm is a Sig Sauer (.357), but they also carry the H&K MP5 submachine gun and Remington pump shotguns. I have no idea what rifles they carry.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 4:20 PM  

But first you'd have to explain what is is about homosexuals that make them any form of danger to anyone.

Well, they are 2% of the population yet they are responsible for nearly 80% of all new HIV infections.

How many men must die before we pass meaningful legislation to stop these killers?

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 4:23 PM  

@ Tad

In my world, we put down such animals. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that those lawmakers who support Feinstein's legislation and those people who, though not lawmakers, publicly support this legislation ought to be killed? And if so, by whom and in what manner?

I was recently listening to a long interview with a serious, not perceptibly political historian who wrote a book evaluating the prospects of various countries and regions around the world. He noted that it is a good thing that the US is so prosperous because military coups are the usual fate of governments that behave with the levels of corruption and local meddling in which ours engages.

So, the short answer is a military coup, supported at the local level by police agencies that the executors of the coup deem sufficiently non-corrupt and trustworthy.

Additionally, I would point out that your questions have a subtle premise of which you're probably not aware. You're neither disputing nor endorsing the condemnation of the political class in this comment section. What you are doing is coyly asking them "What are you gonna do about it?". In layperson's terms you are endorsing the premise that might makes right.

And you are correct! Right does make might. Ever single thing a person today considers "right" is an effect of prior establishment of that right through the use of force. Why is slavery "wrong" in the US? Because Lincoln killed six hundred thousand people to make it wrong, the corollary being that slavery would not be wrong if Lincoln had not engaged in the Civil War.

There is no "beyond" that gives us a received notion of right and wrong. There is only power and the question of who gets to control whom.

That military coup may not come, and if it does not then it is solely because today's "conservatives" have endorsed a weepy, effeminate, sentimentalist notion of God and the bible, which is just watered-down leftism. A great example is the so-called "pro-life" movement.

If the right ever gets off its ass and discards its weepy, sentimentalist, anti biblical notions that people, like yourself, warrant any moral obligations from it then people like you will be slaughtered in the tens of millions. If not, then we will slowly become an empire that is some grotesque cross between Brazil and Mexico.

Why was Zeus the king of the gods? Because he could beat the crap out of the other gods. The entire history of life is a ringing paean endorsing might as the sole source of right.

Anonymous Red December 27, 2012 4:24 PM  

BTW, 1970s sentencing is back. Kid was given one year in juvie for beating to death a tube playing street performer. He got out and killed again. We're letting the real criminals back on the street while we lock up people for non crimes.

http://www.komonews.com/news/1dead-1-wounded-in-shooting-at-crowded-Bellevue-bar-184682681.html?m=y&smobile=y&clmob=y&c=n

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 4:28 PM  

Porky?,

According to the CDC, male homosexuals only account for 47% of all new infections nationwide.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 4:29 PM  

That might work. But first you'd have to explain what is is about homosexuals that make them any form of danger to anyone.

The behavior of a substantial subset of homosexuals is a danger. Back in the day (1973, in graduate school), I had occasion to research this topic for a class. Homosexuality had just been removed from the APA's lists of diagnoses where it had been comfortably ensconced for decades along with such other philia as pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. Now in that same session, the APA's executive committee also voted to support a North Vietnamese victory in the Vietnam War--so it is likely that the homosexuality vote was intended as a blow against "bourgeois morality".

In any event, there were articles in such prestigious scholarly publications as The Journal of Abnormal Psychology reporting extraordinary rates of promiscuous behavior on the part of a large segment of male homosexuals (25% to 33%) who claimed to have several hundred anonymous sex partners each year. Such extreme promiscuity on the part of a heterosexual male would itself be a diagnosis ("Don Juanism") and was the reason HIV spread so quickly throughout the “homosexual community.”

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 4:31 PM  

@Roundtime

Homosexuals are also spreading STDs at alarming rates and due to their use of antibiotics, it is creating drug resistant STDs. Some homosexuals are bisexual, spreading drug resistant STDs into the heterosexual community. They are a public health threat.

Let's clarify... People who have HIV and have unprotected sex are a health hazard. There is nothing about being homosexual that is a health hazard.

More importantly, folks who do not have HIV and have unprotected sex are the true hazards.

Again, there is nothing about Homosexuals, Heterosexuals or bisexuals that make them health hazards. It's the individual's actions that are problematic.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 4:32 PM  

Porky?,

According to the CDC, male homosexuals only account for 47% of all new infections nationwide.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 4:33 PM  

@Noah

You didn't answer the question. You commented on the nature of the question. The question was:

"What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?"

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 4:35 PM  

What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?

That, clearly, children do not require protection; they are perfectly capable of using firearms themselves.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 4:37 PM  

Well, Tad, enough individual members of the homosexual community are having unprotected sex and contracting HIV that the 2% of you that comprise the homosexual population in this country are responsible for ALMOST HALF of all new infections and half of all current infections.

Sorry, but reality must forcefully penetrate even your fleshy cranium at some point.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 4:41 PM  

@stg58:

The stat I cited was MSM's, not male homes.

@Tad: "There is nothing about being homosexual that is a health hazard."

It's not the fact of being one, it's the habitual behavior that they exhibit. 2% of the population doing 80% of the infecting shows clearly that they are dangerous, dangerous people who must be registered, regulated and outlawed.

It's your logic, Tad. You just aren't used to having it used against you.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 4:41 PM  

Again, there is nothing about Homosexuals, Heterosexuals or bisexuals that make them health hazards. It's the individual's actions that are problematic.

...except that homosexualty IS a behavior. Despite a blizzard of propaganda from homosexual advocacy groups, there are no studies capable of replication by a disinterested investigator to suggest that homosexuality is anything other than a maladaptive obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorder. It is something you DO (such as smoking, anorexia, excessive drinking), not something you ARE (a status, such as male or female, black or white, short or tall). There may be a genetic predisposition for the behavior (as there appears to be for other obsessive-compulsive dependencies such as alcoholism).

Anonymous Mina December 27, 2012 4:42 PM  

"What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?"

The big problem here is that Tad has zero trust and faith in his fellow citizens and puts all of his trust and faith (stupidly, IMO) in the Government and its agents.

Tad further does not understand how he becomes an agent of Government oppression by supporting the programs proffered by the Government.

The chasm cannot be crossed. The twixt shall never meet. Someone now please throw him off the island.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 4:44 PM  

@Winston

Tad, do you believe that the 2nd Amendment secures my Right to carry on my person any type of weapon that is carried by Senator Diane Feinstein's security detail?

Assuming they carry, for example, automatic weapoons, then no. I believe there are legitimate limits to the type of arms civilians may carry without a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 4:46 PM  

@ Tad

Why do you differentiate between weapons that are allowed for security details and weapons that are allowed for individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment draws no such line.

Actually, it does. The term "arms", at the time, referred to weapons that would be used to field a military force required to oppose a tyrannical government and its agents. Stinger missles and tactical nukes are actually less effective than simple battle rifles like the M4 and the AK-47 because an effective armed insurrection would involve selectively eliminating prominent members of the ruling class, not just politicians, and their families and friends. Tactical nukes and stingers are not effective for that sort of thing.

Paradoxically, weapons like tactical nukes, which indiscriminately kill large numbers of people, are less effective at taking down a tyrannical government than are basic rifles and handguns. And the context of the second amendment is about the ability to overthrow the government.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 4:47 PM  

What in the text of the 2nd Amendment allows you to say or leads you to think there are legitimate limits to the type of arms we can own or carry?

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 4:47 PM  

Tad, you neglected to answer my last question. Provide an answer, and I will respond to your question more directly.

I repeat:

What will your next proposal be after your current one fails? Do nothing? Reverse the ban since it clearly didn't work as intended? Or enact yet another ban?

Anonymous FrankBrady December 27, 2012 4:50 PM  

Okay. I may be the only one who holds this position, but I no longer care what Tad thinks or says about this or any other topic.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 4:52 PM  

@ Tad

Nice non-answer Tad. At this point, your coy evasions cannot be chalked up to stupidity but to intellectual dishonesty. His question was very simple: Why should members of the ruling elite get access to arms that the rest of us cannot. His question was not about restricting some arms but about the ruling elites crafting laws that effectively exempt themselves from the rules the rest of us have to follow; it was simply about the consistency of the rules.

BTW, even the President himself doesn't personally carry around tactical nukes and stinger missles.

Jesus, Tad is making a good go of turning intellectual dishonesty into an art form

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 4:55 PM  

Sorry, but reality must forcefully penetrate even your fleshy cranium at some point.

Now, now, there's no point in exciting him.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 4:55 PM  

Assuming they carry, for example, automatic weapoons, then no. I believe there are legitimate limits to the type of arms civilians may carry without a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

1) There simply is no such "limit" in the language:
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.
It's very clear. Any "limit" is unconstitutional.

2) When does an S.S. agent become not a civilian? After all, they are a branch of the Treasury Department, not the military. You either must argue for the S.S. to be disarmed of these extraordinarily dangerous weapons, or your position will be proved to lack consistency.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 4:56 PM  

@ stg58/Animal Mother

What in the text of the 2nd Amendment allows you to say or leads you to think there are legitimate limits to the type of arms we can own or carry?

The context of the second amendment is about overthrowing the government should it become tyrannical. Weapons like tactical nukes sole possible usage is against foreign governments, therefore, they are useless in combating a native tyrannical government. The way to overthrow a tyrannical government is to selectively eliminate the ruling class, clearly not restricted to politicians. For that, all you need are simple battle and sniper rifles.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 4:58 PM  

If we take some of the 'HIV guns' off the streets then that's fewer 'HIV guns' that can be used to kill. We need meaningful legislation against 'HIV guns'.

It's your logic Tad.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 27, 2012 4:58 PM  

Okay. I may be the only one who holds this position, but I no longer care what Tad thinks or says about this or any other topic. @ Frank Brady

You could join the Knights that Say "Shutup, Tad". You don't need to use exclamation points, because what he says is not of import.

Try it Frank, you'll feel better.

P.S. Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous praetorian December 27, 2012 4:59 PM  

Let's clarify... People who are crazy and shoot lots of people are a health hazard. There is nothing about being a gun owner that is a health hazard.

More importantly, folks who do not have guns and rely on the fedearl government for "protection" are the true hazards.

Again, there is nothing about gun owners, pacificts, or morons who can't string two logical thoughts together that make them health hazards.

It's the individual's actions that are problematic, Tad.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 4:59 PM  

The million dollar question is simple:

What did the term "well regulated" mean in 1789?

The answer is your limit.

Tench Coxe said that the sword and every other terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of every American.

If you take his word for it, I should have an MP5 sitting in my gun safe.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 4:59 PM  

Why do you differentiate between weapons that are allowed for security details and weapons that are allowed for individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment draws no such line.

Assuming [Feinstein's security detail] carry, for example, automatic weapoons, then no. I believe there are legitimate limits to the type of arms civilians may carry without a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The key to being an effective liar, Tad, is to be consistent.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 5:00 PM  

@Porky


@Tad: "There is nothing about being homosexual that is a health hazard."

It's not the fact of being one [homosexual], it's the habitual behavior that they exhibit. 2% of the population doing 80% of the infecting shows clearly that they are dangerous, dangerous people who must be registered, regulated and outlawed.


Ok, so we agree that being homosexual isn't dangerous. We agree that certain behaviors are dangerous. It looks apparent also that homosexual sex is not inherently dangerous. Rather, sex with someone who has HIV is dangerous.

So, let's play a game.

Suppose there is no HIV. But suppose that the rate of STDs among homosexuals is twice that of the heterosexual population. Under these circumstances, would you argue that homosexuals ought to be registered, regulated and outlawed?

The better question is this: at what greater rate of infection should any population (be it homosexuals, steelworkers, Baptists, Jews, Bus drivers or bloggers) be registered, regulated and outlawed?

Finally, back to homosexual. If Lesbians do not show this high rate of infection, should they be registered, regulated and outlawed. They are homosexual.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:02 PM  

@ WinstonWebb

It's very clear. Any "limit" is unconstitutional.

No, it's not. It's clearly limited to weapons effective for keeping a state free, i.e. overthrowing tyrannical government. Weapons that are effective against foreign governments are ineffective against native tyranny, which is the point of the second amendment. I mean, if private citizens are allowed to own tactical nukes then, by implication, private citizens would have the constitutional right to declare war on foreign sovereign states. Otherwise, what's the point of having such weapons.

Look, I'm on your side, but your arguments are counterproductive and just hurt your cause.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 5:06 PM  

So, let's play a game.

I am now enjoying a bowl of popcorn, waiting to see who falls into Tad's trap of arguing his position for him.

Anonymous daddynichol December 27, 2012 5:06 PM  

I just finished writing my US congressional delegation and I've encouraged others to do the same.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:10 PM  

Also, the whole homosexual argument going on here is just ridiculous.

Why does the right go off on irrelevant tangents and end up shooting itself in the foot, so often? Jesus, people, the point is to knock the crap out of the other guy, not to establish the priority of some metaphysical "principles".

"Principles" comes from a latin term meaning "first things". There are no first things. There is only power and the struggle for supremacy, which the left has been winning for decades. Does it not register with you that the left has been doing this inexorably while you have been piteously bleating about your "principles"?

Life has one rule and one rule only: conquer or be conquered. Time to belly up to the bar and take some shot of reality.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 5:10 PM  

We have no interest in playing your game, Tad. We merely used your penchant for buggery as a handy rhetorical analogy. Either that or we got off track somehow.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 5:11 PM  

Asher,
I understand what you are trying to say, but look at it this way:
Any private citizen that had (1) the resources, and (2) the desire to own a nuclear weapon could not be indefinitely deterred from obtaining one (see Korea, North). Proliferation of weaponry has been decried by the ruling classes since the beginning of documented time. Artificial attempts to prevent such are only temporary successes at best.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:13 PM  

@ Loki of Asgard

am now enjoying a bowl of popcorn, waiting to see who falls into Tad's trap of arguing his position for him.

Yeah, notice that Tad doesn't have the balls to respond to me, although he's gleefully pursuing the whole homosexual line of comments. Jesus, with morons like this maybe the right does deserve to lose to the left.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 5:15 PM  

Life has one rule and one rule only: conquer or be conquered.

Never buy a salad for lunch. Conquer the deli and take it. If they fail to provide Caesar dressing, sow salt in the earth where the deli once stood.

This sounds like a typical noontime for me, actually.

Blogger Joel December 27, 2012 5:17 PM  

@ WinstonWebb

No private citizen in the West has the resources necessary to acquire nukes. Kim Jong iL, as the dictator of a state, had far more resources, of the type necessary for achieving a nuke, than do the world's fifty richest men combined.

Anonymous FP December 27, 2012 5:18 PM  

Saw this via GLpiggy's blog, perfect example of the anti-gunners:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/i-grew-up-with-guns-then-i-was-held-hostage-with-one/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=i-grew-up-with-guns-then-i-was-held-hostage-with-one

"“I’m not talking about that; I’m talking about what if you killed some poor kid that broke in to steal our television? I’d never forgive you!”

Wow. What a sentence, right? Fraught, pregnant with meaning.

We don’t live in a traditionally “great” neighborhood. Our blue-collar working-class neighborhood is pretty low for violent crime, but it’s high for theft and such. And I was alone, a lot, both the year before and the year after we were married.

“Luke, I…well I’d have to assume…if someone did break into our house while I was here, I’d have to assume that they were there to do me harm. I mean, you just have to make that assumption. Would you rather me be dead or the kid that broke into our house?”

It was obvious by his silence who he’d prefer, and so I spent the next two nights in the guest room.

In six years of being together, it has been one of the most difficult arguments we’ve ever had."

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 5:19 PM  

We have no interest in playing your game, Tad. We merely used your penchant for buggery as a handy rhetorical analogy. Either that or we got off track somehow.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 5:20 PM  

Ok, so we agree that being homosexual isn't dangerous.

No more than being a gun owner is dangerous.

The better question is this: at what greater rate of infection should any population (be it homosexuals, steelworkers, Baptists, Jews, Bus drivers or bloggers) be registered, regulated and outlawed?

I don't think they should be. I'm a libertarian. What I'm doing is using your own logic to demonstrate how idiotic your logic is so, why don't you tell us... are you willing to ban the most dangerous form of HIV gun - the MSM? Why not?

Why would you balk at banning the 2% of deadly humans causing 80% of the deadly HIV infections? Would you also balk at banning the 2% of most deadly weapons if they were causing 80% of gun deaths?

It's your logic, Tad. You should be able to answer your own question.

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:24 PM  

@ WinstonWebb

Let's say the ten richest people in the US use money to acquire previously manufactured nukes from a foreign government. Now, let's say that all those ten people are secret agents of a foreign government who want to see the US conquered by that government. They plant those bombs in large US cities and then declare they will gradually set them off one by one until the US government officials replace themselves with members of that foreign government.

Is that an unlikely scenario? Sure, but it demonstrates the point that some weapons are simply irrelevant to staying a free, i.e. non tyrannical, state.

Again, your argument isn't wrong per se, but it is counter-productive to the ends you're looking to achieve. The second amendment is really clear that bearing arms isn't an end in itself but a means to achieve the end of remaining a free people. That is the plain language meaning of the text. Possessing tactical nukes would be entire unrelated to staying a free people.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 27, 2012 5:25 PM  

No private citizen in the West has the resources necessary to acquire nukes. Kim Jong iL, as the dictator of a state, had far more resources, of the type necessary for achieving a nuke, than do the world's fifty richest men combined.

I believe that is a wild exaggeration as the entire GDP of NoKo is only $45B.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 5:26 PM  

@stg

What in the text of the 2nd Amendment allows you to say or leads you to think there are legitimate limits to the type of arms we can own or carry?

AS I would expect, STG gets to the heart the issue simply and directly.

Your question implies the possibility that a strict textualist approach to understanding the Constitution is that which should be followed. Yet if this were the case then clearly defamation laws (slander/libel) would violate the free press and free speech claus of the 1st amendment. And yet, they largely don't.

In fact, prohibitions against defamation were commonplace in England and America prior to and after the Constitution was erected. Yet, the first Amendment is clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

It turns out that today, after the Sullivan ruling, defamation suits usually only succeed if "malice" can be proven.

The point is that despite what the text of the Constitution might clearly say, there is broad agreement that exceptions exist. Why? Well, where free speech and free press are concerned Justice Potter put it this way (I'm paraphrasing from memory):

"Protections against defamation reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of everyone — a concept at the very root of any system of ordered liberty."

The textualist approach to understanding the constitution can work in some circumstances. For example, how old one must be to hold the office of president or in which house spending bills can originate. But there are other parts of the constitution that are not so easily understood from a Textualist approach.

The second amendment is one them. For example, we have no definition of "arms" in the Text. And it can be argued that surface to air missiles are "arms". Are we to believe that the possession of SAMs are protected by the first amendment?

Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller opinion noted that there is an “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons" when he explained that while possession of many weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment, some weapons are not. I agree with this interpretation for the same reason that I agree that there must be some limitations on speech and press.

Anonymous Porky? December 27, 2012 5:30 PM  

Tad: "Ok, so we agree that being homosexual isn't dangerous."

Porky: "No more than being a gun owner is dangerous."


I should add the caveat that gun owners don't typically cruise bars looking for people to shoot at them.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 5:34 PM  

@Asher

I would point out that your questions have a subtle premise of which you're probably not aware. You're neither disputing nor endorsing the condemnation of the political class in this comment section. What you are doing is coyly asking them "What are you gonna do about it?". In layperson's terms you are endorsing the premise that might makes right.

I'm aware. It's not an endorsement of anything. It's merely an attempt to get clarification. To do that, one need not endorse nor deny the premise.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 5:36 PM  

Tad,

The problem with your proposal that the textualist approach can only be applied to certain parts of the Constitution is who gets to decide what analytical tool should be used for what portion. This approach gets us nowhere, since it still allows the mutation of the preamble (general welfare clause) and the Interstate Commerce clause.

Would Scalia agree with the proposition that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defeat a tyrannical government? The Founders were unanimous and prolific in communicating their logic underlying the 2nd Amendment.

The most accurate interpretation of the Constitution obeys the stated will of the Founders and the meanings of words and phrases found in the Constitution at the time of its adoption.

The only problem with this method is you will definitely not like the results.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 5:36 PM  

There is no prior restraint to prohibit individuals from communicating freely, only civil and/or criminal punishment after the fact if a person's actions directly violate the rights of others. A person is not muzzled before entering a theater to prevent them from yelling "fire."

If we applied the same standard to the second amendment, as we should, there would be no restriction on the rights of individuals to possess arms, only punishment after the fact if they use those arms in such a manner as to unlawfully deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property.

Anonymous daddynichol December 27, 2012 5:36 PM  

What will be your response when there is rash of students overpowering the teachers and administrators carrying guns, taking the guns and killing others?

Shoot the little bastards and bitches.

In case your curious, Tad, teachers are already getting assaulted, but according to your logic, no armed teachers should mean safe teachers.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 5:37 PM  

...or in them.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anonymous Noah B. December 27, 2012 5:38 PM  

You sound just like an ACLU hack, Tad.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 5:40 PM  

Tad,

By the way, my screen name is the amalgam of the austrian version of the FN-FAL battle rifle and the M-60 gunner in Full Metal Jacket.

Just in case you didn't know where I stand on the issue of guns...

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:53 PM  

@ WinstonWebb

I believe that is a wild exaggeration as the entire GDP of NoKo is only $45B.

Note I used the phrase "necessary resources". Lots of resources can't be measured in monetary terms and lots of resources that can are irrelevant to making nuclear weapons.

In terms of the resources necessary for making nukes the dictator of NK has far more of that than the fifty richest men. Take the Russian oil magnate Roman Abramovich whose net worth is around forty percent of NK's GDP. One of his prized assets is Chelsea soccer team, worth close to a billion pounds. But you could stick Frank Lampard, John Obi Mikel and Fernando Torres in Stamford Bridge for the next ten million years and they're not going to produce a nuclear weapon.

What you mean is allowing private citizens to acquire nuclear weapons from foreign government, and the problem with that is how are you to know whether or not they aren't agents of that government. Additionally, I'd point out that individuals with the resources to get nukes are overwhelmingly likely to be in the US ruling elite which you have to understand is your enemy. So, the US ruling elite is your enemy but the idea that individuals in that elite can buy nukes makes you feel freer? How does that work?

Let's say that the board of Goldman Sachs decides to buy a nuke. From the people who brought you corporate welfare and the housing bubble we now get the "right" to privately own nukes.

Yipee! I certainly feel better.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 5:54 PM  

@stg


The problem with your proposal that the textualist approach can only be applied to certain parts of the Constitution is who gets to decide what analytical tool should be used for what portion. This approach gets us nowhere, since it still allows the mutation of the preamble (general welfare clause) and the Interstate Commerce clause.


Pretty soon here STG I'm going to have to find a way to get you a bottle of Hudson Whiskey as the prize for being the most astute conversationalist.

YES...that is exactly the problem and it's been the problem since Marbury v. Madison. Well, actually the issue of judicial review is settled, but the issue of what method to use to interpret the constitution is at issue. And this even after some pretty darned smart jurists have addressed. Scalia has new book out on the issue in fact. And Bryer has written persuasively as well.

What you seem to be arguing for, given your note about what founders had said about their intentions outside the body of the constitution is an "originalist" approach to understanding the constitution.

Would Scalia agree with the proposition that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defeat a tyrannical government? The Founders were unanimous and prolific in communicating their logic underlying the 2nd Amendment.

I'd have to go back and re-read the Heller Decision. In it Scalia makes a case for his version of the meaning of the second Amendment. I'll want to read the dissents also.

The Commerce Clause is an interesting case. I'd argue that the very reason the Constitutional convention too place was to get the Commerce Clause into the governing document given the various trade wars that were occurring between the states under the Articles of Confederation where the Fed Government had no power to regulate inter-state commerce.

The Commerce Clause is very straight forward and reads: "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes..."

Any limitations on that power of regulating interstate commerce are not indicated. So, how to interpret it?

Anonymous Gerd December 27, 2012 5:54 PM  

We all saw how disarming the general populace worked for Germany Pre-WWII. Yes?

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 5:59 PM  

@ Tad

I'm aware. It's not an endorsement of anything. It's merely an attempt to get clarification. To do that, one need not endorse nor deny the premise.

Then we agree. Might makes right. Now, if only I can get this message out to those addle-minded on the right who are confused with the quaint notion of "principles" we can get to the business of conquering people like you.

BTW, this also implies that there is nothing particularly bothersome about children being killed per se, just so long as they're your children, not mine. However, since there is nothing wrong with children being killed per se then the school massacre is not grounds for gun control.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 27, 2012 6:03 PM  

YES...that is exactly the problem and it's been the problem since Marbury v. Madison. Well, actually the issue of judicial review is settled, but the issue of what method to use to interpret the constitution is at issue. And this even after some pretty darned smart jurists have addressed. Scalia has new book out on the issue in fact. And Bryer has written persuasively as well.

The problem with Marbury v Madison was the paradigm shift introduced by Marshall, in which the SCOTUS changed from deciding if the statute in question conformed to the Constitution to telling us what the Constitution means. After Marbury, the Constitution isn't even the same document.

What you seem to be arguing for, given your note about what founders had said about their intentions outside the body of the constitution is an "originalist" approach to understanding the constitution.

If it merely seems that way to you, I am not making my arguments strongly enough. That is exactly what I am arguing for. Anything else is intellectually dishonest, because you presume to declare that the Framers didn't mean what they meant when they drafted the Constitution. They didn't mean what they said or wrote in letters and public commentary, they now meant that particular phrase or clause to mean something completely different, retroactively decided from 240 years later.

The prime directive is easy: anything which maximizes the power of the people over the states over the federal government is the correct Constitutional impulse; anything that empowers the Federal Government over the states and people is wrong.

Pretty soon here STG I'm going to have to find a way to get you a bottle of Hudson Whiskey as the prize for being the most astute conversationalist.

Please, call me STurmGewehr.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 6:04 PM  

@Noah

If we applied the same standard to the second amendment, as we should, there would be no restriction on the rights of individuals to possess arms, only punishment after the fact if they use those arms in such a manner as to unlawfully deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property.

Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. Citizens ought not be prohibited from owning Surface to air missiles, but rather prohibited from harming another person with them?

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 6:05 PM  

@Asher

I'm aware. It's not an endorsement of anything. It's merely an attempt to get clarification. To do that, one need not endorse nor deny the premise.

Then we agree. Might makes right.


When you say "right" do you mean "morally right" or simply "more powerful"?

Anonymous Asher December 27, 2012 6:06 PM  

@ Tad

Any limitations on that power of regulating interstate commerce are not indicated. So, how to interpret it?

As you already admitted, against interests, the context of the commerce clause was to prevent states from engaging in trade wars. So, the "originalist" position would be that the commerce clause is there to prevent trade wars between the states, and nothing more.

As I'm not a constitutionalist per se, much less an originalist, this isn't my position, but the originalist one is pretty clear.

1 – 200 of 404 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts