Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Heller Affirmed! (updated)
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, June 26, 2008

By only a 5-4 vote, but affirmed nevertheless. Justics Scalia, writing for the majority, declares explicitly that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, unconnected with any service in a militia.

I have to go to work now, But I'm sure I'll have more later tonight, when the actual opinion becomes available for reading.

UPDATE [McQ]:

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, scrambles to get on the right side of the issue in light of the court's ruling, and is trying to characterize as "inartful" a previous statement by Obama in which he said he, '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS blog:
Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
I'm doing this from a grocery store parking lot, but hope to update it later today.

Much more to come.

UPDATE II [McQ]: From SCOTUS blog:
Quotes from the opinion:

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
Let the arguments begin.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
SCOTUSblog has a link to the decision. You’ll need to scroll down to the live blog and find the .pdf.

Great news for public safety; bad news for criminals. I’m reading the majority opinion. It’s an individual right.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
A dark day for America, a great day for mouf’ breathers though.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
A dark day for America, a great day for mouf’ breathers though.
Breathe deeply - feels good don’t it!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Joe:

No one is forcing anyone to own or carry a weapon. What’s the problem?

The decision contains an interesting phrase that I have always believed, “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”

The DC vs Heller decision says,

If anyone wants to ban handguns or place unreasonable restrictions on firearms which preclude their lawful use (e.g., self defense, hunting, target shooting) they will need to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The decision did not directly address the issue of licensing, but it did say that denial of a license must be justified. Mental illness, past felony convictions may be used to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

The decision was better than I had even hoped.
 
Written By: arch
URL: http://
I see Krovy, red, red Krovy flowing in the streets from this decision...Nothing good but more violence will follow...I wish America practiced Ahimsa, rather than at the gun range....

It’s not that I ma FORCED to own a gun, but that YOU may have one and shoot me...I mean it’s giving a bunch a wild-eyed rednecks a license to kill isn’t it?

I thought Bellaisles had demonstrated, quite thoroughly, that the "Gun Culture" is a myth and recent addition to our political landscape and that the much revered, though misunderstood Founding Fathers, intended the "right" to keep and bear to be for the militia, for the purposes of national defense. Instead, now wild-eyed gun-toting fanatics will be carrying massively destructive weapons with them, as IF it were a right. Weapons, I might add, that the Founders would be APPALLED at, even if possessed by the Militia, much less available to the average, unlettered, galoot on the street...

I may have to move to Canada.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
With this decision we see the beginning of the return of the polite society.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Worry:
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
I’ll have more to say in a few hours.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
With this decision we see the beginning of the return of the polite society.

All trolling aside, this is a silly assertion...Inner cities are awash in guns, and is there "polite" society there? Somalia and Iraq are awash in guns, are those "polite" societies? Guns do not make for a civil, polite or quiet society, PEOPLE do...

The Second Amendment as it relates to national security was a joke when passed, as it relates to the preservation of the "free state" is outmoded, but in terms of personal defense, quite justifiable. I’m glad that the SCOTUS ruled this way, but don’t make any great claims about civility or safety or security, please.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Bryan, you took the words out of my mouth.

I’ll wait for your input before I put in mine, but that last line sent chills down my spine.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Too bad we can’t apply Heller to the child rapist ruling...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Bryan, Joel, you then forget that the 14th amendment extends all other amendments to the State level...

So no, it would apply to the States.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
All trolling aside, this is a silly assertion...
Cf., Lott, John: More Guns, Less Crime.
Guns do not make for a civil, polite or quiet society, PEOPLE do...
Actually, knowledge that the general run of civil persons in a civil society could or are likely to be armed tends to increase civility, politeness, and quiet in a society.

"Thank you, sir" is the more likely outcome, if we observe our behavior in the slightly off-balance relationship with the police officer.

Where the general run of civil persons are disarmed, by law, such as in inner cities, there you have an off-balance relationship with thugs and criminals.

Where you have factional civil conflict, such as in Somalia (or among street gangs), the preference of one faction is always to see the other faction disarmed, making the purpose of the stronger faction less difficult to attain. In factional conflicts, mutual deterrence works, making civil society a possibility (likewise, mutual deterrence works between Mafia families who by lore have a tendency to get in each other’s way).

The nuclear standoff between the Soviets and the U.S. led to "the long peace," a good example of the deterring effect of arms.

Criminals and thugs love to operate in an environment where the general run of civil persons are disarmed and all that they have to do is avoid the police.

An armed society is a polite society.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
An armed society is a polite society.

The assertion of Heinlein aside, please not ethe examples inner cities, Somalia and Iraq all have lots of guns, and they are used pretty indiscriminately, sir. The thugs in DC are shooting EAHC OTHER, more than they shoot the civil populace. The fact that you and I are armed says nothing about our politeness...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The assertion of Heinlein aside, please not ethe examples inner cities, Somalia and Iraq all have lots of guns, and they are used pretty indiscriminately, sir. The thugs in DC are shooting EAHC OTHER, more than they shoot the civil populace. The fact that you and I are armed says nothing about our politeness...
I noted and addressed your examples, sir, and beyond, in theory and practice.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Joe, also not that Chicago and DC have incredibly restrictive gun laws, and have hugs murder rates, while crime in all catagories dropped in Texas, FL, and other states that are "shall issue" conceal-carry states.

When people are able to defend them-selves, criminals tend to behave - No one wants to rob a bank when granny might whip out a .38 snub-nose...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Pick, quoting a footnote from Scalia’s opinion:
On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
Scalia is referencing the 19th Century cases, while noting that later cases extended the 14th Amendment inquiry regarding incorporation.

That litigation will come, but the Court will be faced with its own fully-developed doctrine of incorporation as it stands today, not as it stood in 1894.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Joe, also not that Chicago and DC have incredibly restrictive gun laws, and have hugs murder rates, while crime in all catagories dropped in Texas, FL, and other states that are "shall issue" conceal-carry states.
And who’s being shot, usually the thugs....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Heller’s lawyer who presented before the SC was on Glen beck, and when asked "What’s next for you?" replied with words to the effect of ’Chicago, LA, New York... This is only the begining.’
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"The assertion of Heinlein aside, please not ethe examples inner cities, Somalia and Iraq all have lots of guns, and they are used pretty indiscriminately, sir."
With the unlamented departure of The Maine Mosquito, I do affirm that this "Joe" person is the most completely ridiculous fu*king doughbrain to regularly appear on these pages.

All you have to do, dear reader, is reflect on the fact of his facility with comparing (not contrasting, you understand) you with dirt-scratching savages. Try to understand.

Martin:
"With this decision we see the beginning of the return of the polite society."
I could not disagree more.

I believe that legislation and litigation on this matter will prove my point. Try it like this: we are long past the point in this country where politics is war by other means.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
With the unlamented departure of The Maine Mosquito, I do affirm that this "Joe" person is the most completely ridiculous fu*king doughbrain to regularly appear on these pages.
Another well reasoned Beck screed, care to explain how you are allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon a private citizen, Billy? That’ll be good...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I would suggest there is a difference between being polite and not committing crimes.

"this "Joe" person is the most completely..."

So much for the armed society is a polite society argument.

Are you folks seriously asserting that those armed thugs Joe mentions are more polite to each other than to ’civilians’?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Beck:
I could not disagree more.
Well, it is the beginning of the return of a polite society (actually a fed endorsement of something that has already begun in concealed carry states), but that is not to say that a beginning cannot be ended before it makes it anywhere.

Allow me a least one day of optimism, however!

I think that Scalia has established a port (as in a harbor port) where litigation against state and municipal gun laws will force the Court to examine those cases in the light of their own fully-established incorporation doctrine.

Now, can the Court weasel its way around its own doctrine? Of course it can, and it will do so along the lines of its members politics.

But the decision is invigorating in that it didn’t, at least, go the other way, which was the direction I thought it would take, to be quite honest, given the sort of oddness that Justice Kennedy has been prone to.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I see Krovy, red, red Krovy flowing in the streets from this decision...Nothing good but more violence will follow...I wish America practiced Ahimsa, rather than at the gun range....
What the heck is a Krovy? Aside from that, we are talking about rights here - as stated in the Constitution. If you want to practice Ahimsa (the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of refraining from harming any living being) go right ahead. You have that right - but you do not have the right to force it upon me or mine. You don’t like the 2nd Amendment - good - CHANGE IT - that is what the decision says. You have that right also. Amend the Constitution to either eliminate the right or to rewrite it. Knock yourself out. Let us know how that works out.
And who’s being shot, usually the thugs....
And that is a bad thing?!?!
I may have to move to Canada.
Bye-Bye.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Martin, re: incorporation -
All true, but I’m not going to rest easy until that’s settled. The opinion suggests that it should be incorporated, but the composition of the Court may change before that decision comes up. For the time being, I’m looking out for the state level gun control activism.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Are you folks seriously asserting that those armed thugs Joe mentions are more polite to each other than to ’civilians’?
That depends on a number of things. But truces and agreements between gangs are not uncommon, hence the mob’s divvying up of territories.

But the general point of "armed/polite" is that at the threshhold for entering the criminal/thug profession the pool of vulnerable civil persons not only shrinks but the uncertainty is multiplied. Hence the "More Guns, Less Crime" phenomenon.

The "polite" aspect of it comes in the sense that the more viable option is to observe the rights of persons with an appropriately broad margin.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Pick:
I’m not going to rest easy until that’s settled.
Of course. The Court’s Left side always has weasels under their robes.

But they will now have to attack their own incorporation precedents, rationalizing the right to keep and bear out of the scope of those precedents, after Scalia has so clearly explained that the right runs to the people, not to the people as members of a militia, etc.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons
This is from Steven’s dissent.

I’m no constitutional lawyer like Sen. Lightworker, but wasn’t the whole point of the ammendments to limit govt. powers? At least that’s what a plebe like me sees, I’m sure I’m just wrong in the face of superior minds.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"...care to explain how you are allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon a private citizen, Billy?"
I would not discuss something like that with you on a bet. You’re an idiot and a douchebag. Shut the fu*k up.

Tim:
"Are you folks seriously asserting that those armed thugs Joe mentions are more polite to each other than to ’civilians’?"
{shrug} You make of it what you want to. I’m telling you that his invocation of "Somalia" and "Iraq" is the dead giveaway of a right bloody imbecile who lives in stark terror that you, sir, are an animal walking around on two legs without the least benefit of civilization. Now, if you understand that, then you can sit for it peaceably. I, for one, will point out that his presumption is a stark outrage, and if he were to seriously attempt an argument like that in my physical presence, I’d be right in his face over it in record time.

Martin:
"Allow me a least one day of optimism, however!"
Not one second, sir.

The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that there is nothing good in it.

What I see here is the Supreme Court acting as a focus-group for legislators and administrators: the Court is telling them how to tweak the program.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
dead giveaway of a right bloody imbecile who lives in stark terror that you, sir, are an animal walking around on two legs without the least benefit of civilization
Actually it was before that... this was a better indication:
It’s not that I ma FORCED to own a gun, but that YOU may have one and shoot me...I mean it’s giving a bunch a wild-eyed rednecks a license to kill isn’t it?
I wonder if he lives in fear that some "wild eyed redneck" might run over him with their gas guzzling owl killing SUV. Or go at him with a knife. Or a bat.
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
You guys don’t read Joe much do you.

Polite society? Not here I guess.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"...care to explain how you are allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon a private citizen, Billy?"
I would not discuss something like that with you on a bet. You’re an idiot and a douchebag. Shut the fu*k up.
Why because this isn’t YOUR blog or I’’m not saome usenet fanboy or mostly because you realize that it would expose to the just ridicule of the regular folks hereabouts? You talk a nasty game, but not a particularly erudite or reasoned one, mostly personal investive and groundless assertions..."They have no right" or "The constitution isn’t a social contract on me" and the like.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I wonder if he lives in fear that some "wild eyed redneck" might run over him with their gas guzzling owl killing SUV. Or go at him with a knife. Or a bat.
Joe shouldn’t be in any particular additional danger unless he’s breaking into said redneck’s trailer.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Regarding the incorporation issue, this is the key phrase from Heller: "...a question not presented by this case..."

Until the legislation of a State is confronted with the 2d Amend. and the Heller ruling, the incorporation issue will have to wait. The chances are, IMHO, that once the individual right is found (as with the 1st Amend., which is why Scalia mentions it), the SCOTUS will really have no choice but to find that the States are precluded from infringing any more than the federal government.

Of course, I suppose that doesn’t mean it will do so, but the argument against incorporation will have to be awfully contorted in order to overcome the amount of precedent directing the decision the other way.
The assertion of Heinlein aside, please not ethe examples inner cities, Somalia and Iraq all have lots of guns, and they are used pretty indiscriminately, sir. The thugs in DC are shooting EAHC OTHER, more than they shoot the civil populace. The fact that you and I are armed says nothing about our politeness...
The experiences of the UK and Australia suggest otherwise. Also, keep in mind that in the D.C. area you have three "states": one with a gun ban, one with strict restrictions on guns, and the other with minimal restrictions. Guess how the relative crime rates rank amongst these three areas?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
As someone pointed out already polite does NOT equal low crime..it means POLITE...it doesn’t mean non-violent.

As to Iraq, especially, EVERY household may possess an AK-47 and ammunition. In short Iraq can be and probably IS akin to Switzerland in its firearms possession rates...and yet which is more violent or polite for that matter?

Further Iraq demonstrates the fallacy of the guns=security, on a larger scale, argument. Everyone owns or can own an AK, yet JAM, AQ, and the various Sunni militias/gangs terrorize neighborhoods and whole towns, why? Because the thugs have the initiative, the numbers, the training, and the general nastiness to beat down any single household in the neighborhood/town...they show up, kill/kidnap/rob who they want and before anyone can react the deed is done...the message is clear, "We own this area and there’s nothing YOU can do to stop us and if you don’t want to be the next person we pay a ’visit’ to you’ll do what we say."

Bad guys in numbers always beat he good guys in singlets, and unless the good guys form a gang or militia they lose. And if you’re forming a gang or militia, then you aren’t doing your day job, so to support yourself you resort tot he same sort of thuggery you were formed to prevent.

An Armed Society may be polite, I understand that Iraqis can be very polite and quite pleasant hosts, but it is far from a quiet society, and can be quite violent.

You want a gun for PERSONAL protection, go for it...you own yourself, and that means you have every right to defend yourself. And you’d be foolish to expect the State to be able to provide enough police coverage to make defending yourself superfluous. Just don’t think that everyone owning a firearm, makes the COMMUNITY more peaceful, simply by virtue of the possession of firearms, or that firearms will pprevent you from large-scale, organized thuggery, by the local gang or the local state.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
care to explain how you are allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon a private citizen, Billy?"
thermonuclear weapons in private hands are a pain in the ass for a variety of reasons. They are usually quite large, heavy and unwieldy. They require regular maintenance and actual usage requires too much planning. They end up causing more damage to the wielder than others.

An AK is a much better choice.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://

It’s not that I ma FORCED to own a gun, but that YOU may have one and shoot me...I mean it’s giving a bunch a wild-eyed rednecks a license to kill isn’t it?
Of course the problem is, pre-Heller (and post-Heller), those for whom the law is merely something that applies to other people would still have the gun, and not worry about shooting you, since the law against that doesn’t really effect their action (criminals). All Heller says is that the government can’t force you to be a defenseless victim. You can still choose to be one though.

I thought Bellaisles had demonstrated, quite thoroughly, that the "Gun Culture" is a myth and recent addition to our political landscape and that the much revered, though misunderstood Founding Fathers, intended the "right" to keep and bear to be for the militia, for the purposes of national defense. Instead, now wild-eyed gun-toting fanatics will be carrying massively destructive weapons with them, as IF it were a right. Weapons, I might add, that the Founders would be APPALLED at, even if possessed by the Militia, much less available to the average, unlettered, galoot on the street...
I thought that it had been pretty much proven that Bellaisles had created his "demonstration" out of whole cloth. When asked to support his findings, Bellaisles had lost his homework.

You mean the tell me that the Founders would expect the militia to be armed with lesser weapons than their oppressors? Why?

 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
You want a gun for PERSONAL protection, go for it...you own yourself, and that means you have every right to defend yourself. And you’d be foolish to expect the State to be able to provide enough police coverage to make defending yourself superfluous. Just don’t think that everyone owning a firearm, makes the COMMUNITY more peaceful, simply by virtue of the possession of firearms, or that firearms will pprevent you from large-scale, organized thuggery, by the local gang or the local state.
I don’t think anyone is asking you to believe it. They’re just point it out as common effect of widespread gun ownership (i.e. high cost to thugs to violate your personal sovereignty). It doesn’t stop crime, but it does make it a lot less likely.

As for Iraq, you should also mention that it is those citizens with guns who have largely repelled AQI and other thugs. Whether or not, they become a "polite" society is not really the issue; it’s just a saying after all. Taking it literally is probably not the wisest course of argument. YMMV.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
All Heller says is that the government can’t force you to be a defenseless victim. You can still choose to be one though.
That’s about as succinct as you can get on this case.

As for your retort to Joe’s comments, Loren, he was playing the part of a stereotypical lefty troll. It’s difficult to tell unless you’ve been reading the comments here for awhile because he’s got it down pretty pat. Hard to tell the difference between his sarcastic comments and real trolls sometimes.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
As for Iraq, you should also mention that it is those citizens with guns who have largely repelled AQI and other thugs.
OH they have, so that whole SURGE, and the stand-up of several hundred thousand Iraqi Security Forces thing, was a waste of time? So, the PEOPLE of Basra liberated themselves, and all this time I thought it was the ISF backed up by Coalition firepower. Please, that was a very sub-optimal argument. The "people" of Iraq, in the form of their STATE, have defeated the AQ, the JAM, and the various Sunni militia’s/gangs, and if the People had done it Ramadi, Fallujah, and Sadr City would have thrown the rascals out long ago. Yes, civilian cooperation was vital tot he Surge’s success, but it was the troops, not the People who killed the thugs....and the People only sided with the Government when the troops showed they could do the job, would do the job, and would stick around after the shooting to prevent any reinfestation, and when the locals decided that they could trust the Central Government, a bit, and tolerate the Americans. But the organized forces f the state provided the catalyst for change...not some mythical People’s Uprising. you might as well talk about how the People of the Untied Staes defeated Hitler or Tojo or Robt. E. Lee.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"You guys don’t read Joe much do you."

That was my thought, too. A grim and humorless bunch when it comes to guns.



"You talk a nasty game, but..."

Careful there, you are starting to sound a bit like *he whose name is mud*.


I think the ’An armed society is a polite society’ thing is a little oversimplified. Guns, like computers, are just tools. Both types of hardware are not very useful without the accompanying software.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Billy:
Not one second, sir.

The more I think about this, the more I’m convinced that there is nothing good in it.
I’m headed in the opposite direction. The weakness is that it’s a 5-4 decision. The strength is in Scalia’s clarity about this being a pre-existing right intimately connected to self-defense and that it is a right on a par with other individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Hard to tell the difference between his sarcastic comments and real trolls sometimes."
Not to me. I understood nearly everything about him right from the jump.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"Not to me. I understood nearly everything about him right from the jump."
Another omniscient libertarian graces us with His presence.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"The weakness is that it’s a 5-4 decision. The strength is in Scalia’s clarity about this being a pre-existing right intimately connected to self-defense and that it is a right on a par with other individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights."
I wonder if anyone here can imagine just how often I understand that I am failing in my entire project online.

I don’t know how to make this clear in all its largest dimensions. Look, man:

Can you understand that this is simply an historic accident manifest in the fact that Scalia just happened to be sitting on the bench when this case was heard?

The legal wrangling over this will be nearly endless, and the suspense will be chaotic in all its actual political ("legal") implications.

Nothing has been made clear in all this. Consider the whole epistemic climate in this country, Martin. Do you remember when I wrote about "talking to a crescent-wrench"? Well, what we have here is just exactly that. Bear in mind the word "opinion": it’s common colloquialism in reference to a court decision, but it is nonetheless very precise in how it illuminates the fact that facts don’t matter anymore in this sort of debate.

This matter is going to be an object-lesson, Martin.

What you have here is a case-study in the logical hierarchy of philosophy: this thing runs from metaphysics (animism: the attribution of moral characteristics to inanimate objects like guns), to epistemology (the matter of animism only being a single example of rampant defective thought), to ethics (the overthrow of freedom as a political value), right up to politics: the machinations over destroying freedom.

That is the real dimension of this, Martin. And nothing about this culture is ready to deal with it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Don’t make BB angry, you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry. ;)

It all comes down to if people think they have a right to defend themselves, and by extension, own the means to defend themselves, or not.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I don’t give a sh*t if I make Beck angry. What’s he going to do, call me a douche bag? Whatever value Billy has to offer here is more often than not obscured by his need to express melodramatic bullsh*t from his high horse.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"Not to me. I understood nearly everything about him right from the jump."
Another omniscient libertarian graces us with His presence.
No sh*t. BTW, didn’t Billy storm out of here, never to return, over McQ refusing to denounce Dale for "gleefully" condemning a pants-sh*tting dope smuggler to years of *ssrape?

Your dramatic exit has been downgraded to "meh."
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
"...didn’t Billy storm out of here, never to return..."
Cite that and link it up. I dare you.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
OH they have, so that whole SURGE, and the stand-up of several hundred thousand Iraqi Security Forces thing, was a waste of time?
I’m sorry. Where did I say that again?
So, the PEOPLE of Basra liberated themselves, and all this time I thought it was the ISF backed up by Coalition firepower.
You have heard of the Anbar Awakening? The Sons of Iraq? The Citizens Councils? What did you think those were?
Please, that was a very sub-optimal argument.
It’s not an "argument" it’s the rest of the story that you left out.
The "people" of Iraq, in the form of their STATE, have defeated the AQ, the JAM, and the various Sunni militia’s/gangs, and if the People had done it Ramadi, Fallujah, and Sadr City would have thrown the rascals out long ago. Yes, civilian cooperation was vital tot he Surge’s success, but it was the troops, not the People who killed the thugs.
Not exactly, but you’re batting a thousand telling whole story by focusing on one piece of the puzzle.
and the People only sided with the Government when the troops showed they could do the job, would do the job, and would stick around after the shooting to prevent any reinfestation, and when the locals decided that they could trust the Central Government, a bit, and tolerate the Americans.
Again, not exactly right. The Anbar Awakening, etc., actually started before the surge once the Iraqis got tired enough of AQI’s indiscriminate tactics.
The formation of the Sahawah Al Anbar, or Anbar Awakening, the grouping of Anbari tribes and former insurgents opposed to al Qaeda’s Taliban like rule, traces back to last year, when al Qaeda in Iraq conducted its campaign of murder and intimidation throughout Anbar province. Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies among the tribes and anti al Qaeda insurgent groups began forming alliances in the spring and summer of 2006. In September, the groups established the Jazeera Council in Ramadi, and began working more closely with Coalition forces to begin securing neighborhoods in Ramadi. The Sahawah Al Anbar, which followed the success of the Jazeera Council, was formed in October. The Awakening provided the disparate groups with a political platform, and began to work closely with the Coalition and establishing ties with the Iraqi government.
But you’re on a roll!
But the organized forces f the state provided the catalyst for change...not some mythical People’s Uprising.
Mythical? Really?
These volunteer security forces vary greatly by region and even within the different regions of Iraq. Broadly, the leaders of these groups are considered members of the Iraqi Awakening (“Sahwa”) political movement, which began in the previously-restive al-Anbar province in western Iraq. The members of these groups were known as “Concerned Local Citizens” (CLC), later renamed “Sons of Iraq” (SoI). Though the size and composition of the groups vary throughout the country, they generally function as neighborhood watches.
I’m not suggesting that these Iraqi volunteers were the sole reason that Iraq has made such a dramatic turnaround, but you didn’t see fit to mention them at all. Instead you ignored their participation in making Iraq a "politer" society. I simply poked some holes in your theory.
you might as well talk about how the People of the Untied Staes defeated Hitler or Tojo or Robt. E. Lee.
Right, ’cuz that’s obviously the same thing. [/eyeroll]
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Cite that and link it up. I dare you.
From your own blog, tough guy.
That’s Really That
I just got off the telephone with Bruce McQuain.

He has made astounding progress in a very short time. What I think I’ll do now is start reviewing a lot of what he’s written in the past, because I would never have believed that I would hear him say the things that he says now.

He’s really got it down, pat. And he’s gone.

~~~~~

No matter what, I’ll never forget the man who wrote: "The American Revolution in fact died with the ratification of the US Constitution."

There are some things to which we never have to say good-bye.
It’s hard to believe that you’re even more of an egotistical Internet Tough Guy on your blog than you play at here, but there it is. This isn’t Usenet and no one here is your fanboy.

The USSC rules that D.C.’s gun ban is unconstitutional and the glass is half empty. More an-cap whiny bullsh*t from the usual parties who would be the first to get steamrolled if they got the anarchy they think they want.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Hey Jeff, there is nowhere in there where Billy states that he’s never going to read or post at QandO....comprehension problem? Guess so.
 
Written By: Reader
URL: http://
pssst! MichaelW! Parody.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
You’ll find, Jeff, that Billy (and some of the others who popped up during the whole Dale/dope smuggling brouhaha) are extremely literal.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Forget it, Reader. You’re not talking to sensible people.
"The USSC rules that D.C.’s gun ban is unconstitutional and the glass is half empty."
Look, fool: that "glass" metaphor entirely depends on the differences between who’s pouring and who’s drinking.

You don’t have to be a moron. Stop it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Not done, Billy? Remember this?
I promise you, Bruce: that was no threat.

I don’t keep friends who keep friends like this rotten crumb you’re blogging with.

I’ve known you for nearly eighteen years. You really have no serious idea what I’ve thought of you for a long time. I’ll never forget you. But I’m glad my father isn’t here to see this.
Or this?
Let me tell you something about "disagreement": should the day ever come when you decide to throw an innocent man in prison, you’d better make up your mind that you’re all done with me, because you’ll be all done with me. If you ever stand with someone like that, you’d better have all that squared away, too.
Anyone remember this?
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Jeff, Again comprehension issues? Jeezis, Still nothing says "I’m never going to post at QandO or read it. What is your f*cking problem? There are courses you can take for comprehension you know.
 
Written By: Reader
URL: http://
"I don’t keep friends who keep friends like this rotten crumb you’re blogging with."
Of course I remember it. I’m the one who wrote it. Nothing about it means what you’re saying it does. I don’t keep lefty friends, either, but I read them and comment on them.

You are not a very good thinker. You should be quiet now.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Why don’t you research the context of all those remarks, Reader? Billy was daring McQ, over and over, both here and on his own blog, to ban him from commenting. I guess he felt Richard Nikoley stole his thunder by getting banned. When McQ wouldn’t ban Billy, he pouted and insinuated over and over that he was done with McQ, Dale, and everybody here who agreed with Dale’s decision to vote to convict that moron.
Still nothing says "I’m never going to post at QandO or read it.
Are you really that dense or is it just too hard to read with Billy’s n*ts banging off your chin?
Of course I remember it. I’m the one who wrote it. Nothing about it means what you’re saying it does.


Of course it does, Billy. Because that’s what you say EVERY TIME your words come back to bite you on the *ss.
You are not a very good thinker. You should be quiet now.
When I want advice from a scrawny, aging roadie who says "bloody" alot, I’ll drop you an email, Billy. And in keeping with your tradition of posting an asinine lyric when you think you’ve just posted a zinger, here’s one for you:

"Girl, don’t go away mad. Girl, just go away."

-Motley Crue
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Reduced to third-rate rock lyrics and an impotent slag pilfered from the worst that Usenet ever produced. Very good.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

I’m not going anywhere sonny, and you’ve got nothing to say about it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Jeff, Wow.

Are you really that dense or is it just too hard to read with Billy’s n*ts banging off your chin?

You are a douche bag aren’t you! I’m not the dense one here, you are. You really should have taken this advice:
You are not a very good thinker. You should be quiet now.

And you should invest in some help for that reading comprehension problem.

I was there for that whole thing back in January and yes I read two—four. That does not mean I have someone’s n*ts banging off my chin....as a matter of fact do you know wheter I’m male or female? Bet your life you don’t. Does it make you feel like a man to write sh*t like that? Does it make you feel oh so good making comments like this about Billy?

When I want advice from a scrawny, aging roadie who says "bloody" alot, I’ll drop you an email, Billy. And in keeping with your tradition of posting an asinine lyric when you think you’ve just posted a zinger

Now be sensible if that’s possible, stop slinging stupid insults and get back on topic. There are ethics and principle to be discussed.
 
Written By: Reader
URL: http://
I’m not going anywhere sonny, and you’ve got nothing to say about it.
[billybeck]
You are a bloody liar. I never said I had anything to say about it. Cite that. I dare you.
[/billybeck]

I’m glad you’re here, Billy. You’re more entertaining than Erb, in a completely different way.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
I may have to move to Canada.
If you do, take mkultra and scott erb with you. please.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You are a bloody liar. I never said I had anything to say about it. Cite that. I dare you.

Like I said, comprehension problem. Honestly, you are embarassing yourself already.
 
Written By: Reader
URL: http://
I see Krovy, red, red Krovy flowing in the streets from this decision...Nothing good but more violence will follow...I wish America practiced Ahimsa, rather than at the gun range....
Wah, wah, wah...PIGS SHOULD FLY!!!!!!!!
It’s not that I ma FORCED to own a gun, but that YOU may have one and shoot me...I mean it’s giving a bunch a wild-eyed rednecks a license to kill isn’t it?
My Guns, Joe, have collectively killed one less person than Ted Kennedy’s car.
I thought Bellaisles had demonstrated, quite thoroughly, that the "Gun Culture" is a myth and recent addition to our political landscape and that the much revered, though misunderstood Founding Fathers, intended the "right" to keep and bear to be for the militia, for the purposes of national defense. Instead, now wild-eyed gun-toting fanatics will be carrying massively destructive weapons with them, as IF it were a right. Weapons, I might add, that the Founders would be APPALLED at, even if possessed by the Militia, much less available to the average, unlettered, galoot on the street...
Go change your sheets. Bedwetter.
I may have to move to Canada.
If you promise, I pledge $20 towards a one-way ticket.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Reader: Honestly, you are embarassing yourself already.
After reading so many comments by that guy and a zillion other trolls, I wonder if he is capable of embarrassment.

I’m wondering if Jeff has anything to offer the discussion, i.e., any thoughts on the principles involved in legally infringing on the right of every individual to defend his or her one and only life. It’s not like Heller is going to stop Chicago from requiring registration, then being perpetually out of the forms needed for registration, for example.
 
Written By: Elliot
URL: http://
But the organized forces f the state provided the catalyst for change...not some mythical People’s Uprising. you might as well talk about how the People of the Untied Staes defeated Hitler or Tojo or Robt. E. Lee.
It was a "people’s uprising" that liberated Texas from Sana Ana’s Mexican dictatorship.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Texas, "People’s Uprising" so no army involved?

As to the Awkening from what I have read, organizations such as "Sons of Iraq" are receiving US funds...they are not a spontaneous organization emerging to defeat the insurgency/support the central government. Certainly, they represent a measure of civilian support for ending the CURRENT insurgency, but I’m not willing to call them a "Popular movement" or people’s uprising. And as useful as they have been: much of the heavy lifting, combat-wise has been US forces/ISF and they run the risk of being what I wrote above:
And if you’re forming a gang or militia, then you aren’t doing your day job, so to support yourself you resort to the same sort of thuggery you were formed to prevent.
We’ll see if they really go away in a year or two. I pray they do, rather than becoming a JAM or bandits.

I don’t deny that in Iraq popular support for ending the insurgency and for the Central Government is VITAL, but I still argue that the framework for its emergence is the the backbone of ORGANIZED regualr ISF and Coalition Forces. The Iraqi People could have done this any time post-Fed 2003, it was only with the surge and the adoption of new tactics by Coalition Forces that it could occur.


I see Billy has put out an "Important Action Alert" and brought one of his "posse" or is he playing Glenn Greenwald and just posting as reader? I guess we’ll know if he says, "Good day, sir" a la the parodies.

And speaking of parodies, I see Gonzman is a humourless one, might get the irony/sarcasm meter checked there bucko...Of course as I say, the New New Left of today have killed sarcasm, satire and irony. You CAN’T parody them because as much as you try, there’s some Progressive spouting your lines in all seriousness.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
then being perpetually out of the forms needed for registration, for example.
Sue to compel legal action...a court will most likely support you, to include the SCOTUS...having granted you a "right" (Yes Billy, Dale and McQ and others it’s not a granted right it was yours all the time...except you have rights from society, anything else is a polite fiction, but....) they will most likely then conclude as you have the right, the state may not vitiate your right by failure to act or provide a framework the exercise of that right.

All you guys unhappy with Heller grow up or take a Con Law class! There was Brown, Brown II, and then a host of SCOTUS decisions designed to advance the Civil Rights Movement, cases stretching from 1954 until well into the 1970’s, ALMOST 20 YEARS! If Blacks can litigate, amongst other things, for 20 years to get their Constitutional rights, surely you gun guys can too. It won’t kill you; it’s how things get done in a society. Sorry if all those who disagree with you don’t just fall down and make straight the Way of the Lord for you...

As wrong as your opponents may be, and I agree they are, it’s going to take a long and litigious slog thru the institutions of the society to bring about the change you want. IF you’re not prepared to fight that fight, Shut Up, please and let better folks get on with it.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I see Billy has put out an "Important Action Alert" and brought one of his "posse" or is he playing Glenn Greenwald and just posting as reader?

Now, Joe, you should know better than that. I am not Billy and I was not called out by any "Important Action Alert". I read here all the time.
 
Written By: Reader
URL: http://
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
All the weasel room a totalitarian will ever need.

Billy is exactly right when he wrote: "the Supreme Court acting as a focus-group for legislators and administrators: the Court is telling them how to tweak the program"

We have similar weasel language in our Canadian so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This prattle, for example:
"(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

is the vaporous legal scholarship that lets the Canadian government bureaucrats tell us what we are allowed and not allowed to speak and write.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
All the weasel room a totalitarian will ever need.
Well YEAH,
1) Because it is obvious that the US is verging on the establishment of a Fascist state, and that this ruling only puts the gloss of freedom on the pig....
2) Well, YEAH, because it’s not court rulings that makes for totalitarian systems...it’s the decision by the elites to adopt such a system and the acquiescence, by the masses, which sustains it. And if you think a constitution or a court ruling are going to ever change that you’re fooling yourself.

As Revel said, "Democracies commit suicide." Thank you for your obvious statement...
Plus the First Amendment has been subject to limits pretty much since the Founding and yet it continues on..are you saying that the Second is some how different or more "important?"
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
My name is being mentioned here in vain a few times so I’ll respond with a comment. Sorry to disappoint, but I actually agree with Scalia here. I don’t agree that being armed is a good thing, and would prefer a society where people don’t live in such fear that they think arming themselves gives them any real protection. But this is not a political issue, this is a LEGAL issue, and one goes by the constitution, not ones’ political preferences. In this case, Scalia’s legal judgment is accurate. (Note new blog address: http://scotterb.wordpress.com)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
ERB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That can only mean that Ott Scerb is only minutes away! HOORAY!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
if you think a constitution or a court ruling are going to ever change that you’re fooling yourself.

I’ve never thought that.

Plus the First Amendment has been subject to limits pretty much since the Founding and yet it continues on..are you saying that the Second is some how different or more "important?

Nope. I mean, the 1st *is* different from the 2nd—that’s why there’s two amendments—but I was only saying what I said: "all the weasel room a totalitarian will ever need" is sitting right there—and that Billy’s point about tweaking the program is correct.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
"that they think arming themselves gives them any real protection."
Right Scott, there’s no evidence that it has, it’s just paranoia on the part of gun owners. All those people who have successfully defended themselves with a gun could have just as easily used a celery stick.





 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Erb fix! So good...
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Well Ron ALL THE WEASEL ROOM A TOTALITARIAN...is present in ANY law or court ruling! It’s like saying any womon could be a wh*re, it’s true, but so what? UNLESS, you expect or want the SCOTUS to say, "Look you can own ANYTHING, up to and including thermo-nuclear devices, and the state, at any level, may NEVER dispute this and you may carry these weapons of destruction ANY WHERE you please, or at least on ANY public property." there is going to be debate about what is and is NOT a legal/constitutional/sound public policy concerning fire arms/speech/voting/taxation/property rights or any other constitutional issue you can name...and there will ALWAYS be those seeking to twist the meaning of the ruling to their nefarious purposes.

If you think that any ruling of the SCOTUS will EVER end the debate you are fooling yourself and I just don’t see the point you’re trying to make...Heller affirms an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right...it makes that right subject to certain, unspecified conditions...well Hello that’s what most rulings of the SCOTUS do. All that seems pretty good to me.

Just think of this as Brown v. Board of Education....a land mark ruling to be sure, but one followed by 20 years of litigation and legislation to flesh out the meaning(s).
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe: It’s one thing to attempt to be clear and unambiguous but to fail due to varying interpretations of meaning (as happened with the 2nd Amendment, which was short and to the point); it is another to specifically articulate the weasel room.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Ron it was short, but NOT to the point....it talks about national security, it talks about the Free State, it talks about the militia AND the right of the people... There was no debate about the amendment in the Congress so we don’t really know WHAT the Founders intended, sure it may have been obvious, to THEM, what it meant, but 200 years later it’s a little opaque...

Plus, "Congress shall pass no law abridging....Free Speech...” pretty short and to the point...what does it mean? Is libel actionable; is seditious libel actionable, can I publish Washington’s plans for defeating the Whiskey Rebellion?

You say, "Short and to the point" but it’s obvious, from other portions of the BoR and Constitution that it IS NOT OBVIOUS what the Framers meant, or we wouldn’t have voluminous case books filled with SCOTUS reasoning.

In 60 years we went from reading the Constitution as allowing "Separate but equal" to holding that Separate but equal was not acceptable...we discovered that the NYT has a little more protection from libel, when its writing about George Bush than it would when writing about you...I don’t know it’s not obvious to me that’s so, but it’s accepted now...and that’s from the simple "...no law...Free Speech...or Press..."

It’s fairly obvious to ME, that Capital Punishment is imminently constitutional, even though I oppose it...but it wasn’t so obvious to the SCOTUS, was it?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
it is *still* another to specifically articulate the weasel room.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
"It’s not like Heller is going to stop Chicago from requiring registration, then being perpetually out of the forms needed for registration, for example."

...and Elliot wins the cigar, since that’s exactly how marijuana was made illegal.

If the Second Amendment was judicially interpreted in the same way that the First was, the NRA’s current positions would make it look like a collection of degenerate hoplophobes.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
My name is being mentioned here in rapt anticipation a few times so I’ll respond with a comment. Sorry to disappoint, but I actually agree with Scalia here. We have to throw you dense righties a bone every once in a while, and this looks like a good one to throw because you’re so excited about it. Heck, it’s only handguns, and when we wise leftists with our godlike powers of political science take over, our military and police will have weapons that make those silly handguns completely worthless.

I don’t agree that being armed is a good thing because I’m a pacifist at heart who thinks only wise policemen in leftist governments should have guns. I’d even like to get rid of the soldiers, and I thought if we made Iraq into an obvious and utterly embarrassing failure, with helicopters taking off from the roof of the embassy and so forth, then we would be taking a big step towards getting rid of those soldiers like the wise and mature Europeans have done. Alas, it looks like that’s not going to happen for a while, since the obviousness of the failure is temporarily obscured by illusory peace and political progress, but just you wait, that failure is right there, constantly lurking in the shadows.

I would prefer a society where people don’t live in such fear that they think arming themselves gives them any real protection. Like the Europeans, and don’t start up with the increasing violence from Muslim immigrants, you hear me, just don’t start! We wise leftists would be able to create such a society if it were not for you dense righties, but c’est la vie. And no, I’m not trying to be snooty by using French. I have plenty of ways to be snooty; I don’t need one so obvious.

But this is not a political issue, this is a LEGAL issue, and one goes by the constitution, not ones’ political preferences. In this case, Scalia’s legal judgment is accurate. Until we wise leftists pack the court or get a disarming amendment passed or something. I’m patient. We’re winning, so I can wait. (Note new blog address. Please come over there and argue with me. I’ve posted many entries there that will completely overwhelm you with their eloquence and logic, but I know you dense righties never give up, and I don’t have anybody over there right now who is willing to satisfy my craving for someone to be self-righteous with. There’s only this one guy named Weijuns or something like that, and I’m afraid I’m wearing him out.)
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
"Erb fix! So good..."

Pervert.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What all this boils down to is who is the best at protecting us… we, ourselves, or the government, and doling out rights on the basis of the answer to that question.

I ahve serious problems with it, but if that is the framework the gun grabbers now want to use, then the obvious parry to their thurst is a referral to the memorials established to the vitims of their folly, at VT and Coumbine and all the other other places, where someone figured a law would protect better than a gun.

Seems to me these are each a practical example of why such rights were recognized in the first place.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
And speaking of parodies, I see Gonzman is a humourless one, might get the irony/sarcasm meter checked there bucko...Of course as I say, the New New Left of today have killed sarcasm, satire and irony. You CAN’T parody them because as much as you try, there’s some Progressive spouting your lines in all seriousness.
I don’t find anything about my freedom funny.

So, yes, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment - which, as long as I have that, all other freedoms will flow from - I take it dead serious.

If you’re parodying a leftard, you’re right- "progressives" say that sh*t in all seriousness.

If you’re not, God help us all...
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Gonz...read the thread...and note even Jesus could lighten up from time-to-time and He was facing Crucifixion and worrying about your Eternal Soul. Smile more, even when it’s "Your Freedom"-using my BIG, SERIOUS VOICE Do you go around like this ALL the time..."STOP smiling there are serious threats to our freedom afoot!" You live in one the freest nation to ever exist and you gotta get all serious....all the time? I guess you don’t read Ott Scerb either...he just keeps talking about how PhD’s in Political Science ought to run the country, because they see more, know more...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider