The madness continues
“Whenever they can, wherever they can, the Democrats want to take away the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase a gun – a right that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. …
“It is ironic, to say the least, that at the same time Democrats in Congress are threatening to deny Americans their second amendment right to own a firearm and defend their families and homes, they are considering bringing terrorists like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda detainees to our communities once the President follows through on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. …
Don’t forget the mind control and flouride poisoning.
Fucking prove it, Mike.
Put up or shut up.
I propose we put forth a measure wherein Congressional Democrat Socialists®©™ provide Americans with firearms free of charge. Or at the very least, get 2 abortions, get a handgun free!
“Or at the very least, get 2 abortions, get a handgun free!”
That would cause the GOP base to explode. Their brains couldn’t handle the dichotomy.
Earth to Steele: N—a, PLEASE.
Call me a racist if you will (I happen to be black). But those are two words Steele desperately needs to hear.
Worth mentioning of course is that Steele himself is not a gun owner.
Palin / Steele 2012!
Don’t mock it, man! We have to protect our precious bodily fluids!!
they are considering bringing terrorists like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda detainees to our communities
This is actually correct. Steele is just pointing out that a lot of Republican politicians may run into detainees in their new home in prison. I’m thinking KSM and Cheney may have a meeting of the minds, kind of like Chris Partlow and Wee-Bay.
Alex Jones will be the next radio host Steele fills in for
Upon examination it appears that we have two seperate issues here. To be fair we should seperate these issues and judge each on it’s individual merits.
Issue number one
This appears to be two issues that should be judged on thier individual merits. You know how those politicians are when they move thier lips. Bipartisan affliction.
Issue number one
There are a few fringe Democrats, generally from the west who support traditional 2nd Amendment values, but historically Democrats as a whole tried to erode the right to bear arms at every opportunity. They are consistant enemies of the second amendment who have used every opportunity to erode that right and take all kinds of special interest money from groups who are sworn to try to make arms illegal, unobtainable, unusable and unavailable to citizens of the United States.
Well yes that is true. Democrats are after your guns and your right to both self defense and as a counterwieght to the power of the government.
Issue number two
A multipart issue quite a bit more complex than issue number one.
Are Democrats in favor of shutting down Guataunamo as a detention center for enemy combatents?
Do Democrats prefer to give these people legal trials in US court rooms with all of the traditional due process that entails or would they prefer military tribunals or simply holding them until hostilities in this duly authorized war cease?
If not Guataunamo where would these people be detained?
What do my liberal Democrat fellow commentors think about the multipart issue 2. Issue 1 is a forgone conclusion.
oops double post problems
“…groups who are sworn to to try to make arms illegal…”
What’s wrong with that? You want everyday citizens to have access to grenades and nuclear weapons? Those two things are not “arms?”
They are consistant [sic] enemies of the second amendment…
If I were as interested in respectful and constructive dialogue with my political adversaries as you apparently are, Amused Observer, I would respectfully and constructively point out that the republicans are consistent enemies of every other amendment besides the second.
I’m sick and tired of republicans infringing on my constitutional right to plant anti-personnel mines in my front yard and to fill my Ryder van with c4.
“…tried to erode the right to bear arms at every opportunity…are consistent enemies of the Second Amendment…have used every opportunity…take all kinds of special interest money…”
Guy can’t even figure out what tense to use.
I’m sick of all these Second-Amendment-shredding laws forbidding me from purchasing my nuclear weapon of choice!
AO is something of a tippler, especially late at night. That’s why his comments are filled with spelling, grammar, and syntactical errors, and are also stupid as hell.
Let’s see… Obama filled out a questionnaire saying he supported the banning of all handguns.
Obama backed a measure that would have banned gun stores from being within FIVE MILES of a school or a park. TRY and get five miles from any schools and parks.
Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation for eight years, and that group has been instrumental in the most draconian anti-gun proposals. In fact, during Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation “bought” an entire issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review that featured nothing but articles that attacked the argument that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Gee, I wonder why people think Obama is a proponent of the theory that the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment where “the right of the people” is a “collective” and not an “individual” right.
J.
LOL,
Attack the messenger instead of the message. You guys sure don’t have much game.
Critiquing my spelling and making slanderous accusations is as close as you come to intelligent political discourse. The only thing that makes you guys americans is where you were born.
“Let’s see…Obama filled out a questionnaire saying he supported the banning of all handguns.”
Irrelevant to this particular thread. With regards to the gun issue, Steele was whining here about Democrats IN CONGRESS.
“…nothing but articles that attacked the argument that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.”
Gee, who could imagine that an amendment that mentions “the right of the people,” NOT “the right of the individual” is referring to a collective, and not an individual, right.
With regards to AO, since he implied that his/her opponents were anti-American, I can only surmise” that the words “slanderous accusations” were meant as a compliment.
Hmm, daniel… let’s give that theory a whirl, shall we?
<iCongress 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Care to offer an example of another “collective” right that is denied to the individual, daniel? And no, “assembly” isn’t one of them; that requires a group of individuals.
And rotter, your colleague Newsy is the one who’s been pushing the “America — love it or leave it!” argument of late.
J.
Jay Teabag said “Let’s see… Obama filled out a questionnaire saying he supported the banning of all handguns.”
OMG! That’s all you have? When? Where? Do you have a copy, or are you just going on what you read at the NY POST?
God, wingnuts are the dumbest fucking gullible rubes alive today.
If by “you guys” you mean Bruce Henry, AO, I guess I’ll just say, “Drink up, dude!”
Is anyone even talking about gun control that much in the first place?
“…nothing but articles that attacked the argument that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.”
Daniel: “Gee, who could imagine that an amendment that mentions ‘the right of the people,” NOT “the right of the individual’ is referring to a collective, and not an individual, right.”
It also explains why that right is there. So if the person, or the gun, doesn’t fit within that reason (a well regulated militia) then it can be limited.
Therefore, you can prevent violent rapists from getting guns.
Does anyone disagree on this point?
Not in the least, Strowbridge. But you’re not making the point you think you’re making.
You wanna keep guns out of the hands of rapists? Good luck. The best you’re gonna do is make it impossible for them to get them legally. But that’s a good thing.
Now, a “violent rapist” needs a conviction to qualify for that. So they’re a convicted felon. And convicted felons forfeit a lot of other rights, not just guns.
Way to go. You shot the hell out of that straw man.
But I’ll repeat what I said: could anyone cite another right in the Bill of Rights that is “collective?” Especially those that use the very same verbal construction?
J.
Me: “Does anyone disagree on this point?”
J.G.Thayer: “Not in the least, Strowbridge.”
At least we get that done.
“But you’re not making the point you think you’re making.”
Considering how stupid you are, you really shouldn’t make claims like that.
So now that we agree that violent rapists can’t have guns, what about people who are legally blind? Could the government say, ‘Dude. You’re blind. You would be of no use in a well regulated militia, therefore, you can’t own a gun.’
The Second Amendment is different from other amendments, as it gives a reason for its existence. Because of this, it is treated differently.
Something is different. Therefore, it is treated differently.
“Now, a ‘violent rapist’ needs a conviction to qualify for that. So they’re a convicted felon. And convicted felons forfeit a lot of other rights, not just guns.”
And after they have served their term? After all their rights have been returned? Can they get guns then?
Thanks for refraining from the personal insults, Strowbridge. It’s a refreshing change for you.
Yes, convicted rapists can petition to get their individual right to keep and bear arms restored after being convicted of a felony. Just like they can petition to get back their right to vote. But just because they ask for it doesn’t mean it will — or should — be granted.
Maybe they can find and present a compelling reason why that right should be restored. I can’t imagine one, but I acknowledge the possibility.
Hell, maybe he’ll end up before a liberal judge and say that he only intends to shoot Republicans.
As for the blind man argument… might I suggest you Google up Arthur Williams of Gainesville, Florida? He’s a 75-year-old legally blind man whose home was invaded by a 28-year-old criminal at 3 in the morning. Williams called 911, but the cops didn’t get there in time — Williams hat to shoot the guy in the neck to stop him.
Or Donald Ferro of Rosharon, Texas, who shot and killed his attacker in self-defense. Ferro is also legally blind — he had a shotgun, the guy kept advancing until Ferro was backed into a corner and couldn’t retreat any more, so he shot the guy.
There are twos example of a legally blind person with a legally owned gun using it responsibly. You got a counterexample of a legally blind person going on a shooting spree?
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is plausible. The Amendment is poorly written — that it’s merely an exhortatory clause is just as valid an interpretation.
It’s also been noted that the “militia” was all free white able-bodied adult males, and they possessed military-grade weaponry in their own homes. I have some health issues, but I’m free, white, and an adult; can I have an M-16 or M-4? I promise I’ll take good care of it…
J.
(Note: that last bit is sarcastic. I don’t own any guns, never have, have no interest in owning any, but am perfectly legally qualified to own one should I change my mind.)
Oh, and burn: in 1996, Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire. One of the questions was whether he would support a total ban on the private ownership of handguns. He said yes. Then, in 1998, he backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic weapons. (Those are the ones that fire a single shot for every trigger pull — in other words, most weapons that aren’t revolvers, shotguns, or bolt-action rifles.) And in 2004, he backed a bill to ban gun sales within five miles — FIVE MILES — of any school or park.
Ever try to get five miles from any schools or parks? That’s the middle of fucking NOWHERE. Try to find places that aren’t within five miles of a school or a park.
Oh, yeah, on that questionnaire: Obama said a staffer filled it out, and made a mistake. But the questionnaire had several corrections on it, in Obama’s handwriting, showing that he had reviewed it — and he didn’t touch the handgun question.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Thanks for refraining from the personal insults, Strowbridge. It’s a refreshing change for you.”
If you don’t act like a fucking idiot, I won’t call you a fucking idiot.
Sadly that’s not true here.
“Yes, convicted rapists can petition to get their individual right to keep and bear arms restored after being convicted of a felony. Just like they can petition to get back their right to vote. But just because they ask for it doesn’t mean it will — or should — be granted.”
Congratulations on missing the point, entirely.
Not ever state takes away the right to vote from felons. They are allowed to, but not every state does it.
Likewise, just because the second amendment says the government can not restrict the rights of the people to get guns, they can restrict the rights on individuals to do so.
If that’s not true, then it is unconstitutional to stop violent rapists from owning guns.
Get it?
“There are twos example of a legally blind person with a legally owned gun using it responsibly. You got a counterexample of a legally blind person going on a shooting spree?”
Go fuck yourself, you fucking idiot.
You act like a moron, I call you on it, then you have the guts to complain.
Oh, glee. Strowbridge sets up his straw man, then gets annoyed when I set it on fire.
Obviously I’m speaking the wrong language to him. Using concrete examples and citing facts and law didn’t do any good, so let me see… it’s not a lingo I’m very fluent in, but I think I can get something vaguely appropriate:
“Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw, you gibbering dolt.”
I hope I got that right. I’d hate to think that I’d instead asked directions to the nearest men’s room…
J.
By George, he’s (finally) got it. Steele finally understands what kind of chairman the RNC wants him to be.
Tell you what, Strowbridge. You’re a judge. A convicted rapist who’s served his sentence wants his gun-owning rights back. He promises only to shoot those you have determined are “subhuman.” What would you do then?
J.
Hostility towards the Constitution in general and especially selectively towards certain amendments is almost a hallmark of leftists. Note the contempory contempt for Amendments 1,2,5,9,10,12, and 14.
First I would like to note with amusement that most of the replies from our progressive friends have shown that of the two separate issues I raised, issue number 1 is indeed a forgone conclusion. The thornier situation set out as issue number 2 has been neglected.
Leftists prefer a theory summed up as “The Constitution is a living document” in which they mean that it’s meaning evolves over time. The Constitution is indeed a living document but only so long as it means what it says with the language understood in it’s original context. Otherwise it is dead indeed.
Our founders wisely left specific directions to let the Constitution evolve over time through due process. Something leftists hate because it is oh so much easier to find a nut job judge to “interperate” a radical new meaning into the Constitution with the whack of a gavel rather than the rather drawn out process of a Constitutional convention.
The second Amendment is not nearly as unclear as it’s opponents claim given the context of the times and the remarks of the founders. Indeed it is only in fairly modern times that it’s meaning was ever in doubt as “progressives” intent upon disarming the general populace tried to find chinks in the armor.
So let us examine this controversial amendment that makes a free men in a free nation.
“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.”
Take special note of the key words regulated and people. This is a right not enumerated for the state but for the people themselves. Now let us examine the word regulated. Below is a brief etymology of the word regulate.
regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare “to control by rule, direct” (5c.), from L. regula “rule” (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, “act of regulating;” sense of “rule for management” is first attested 1715.
Now let us substitute the meaning of regulate for the word itself in the amendment.
A Militia “controlled by rule”, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Crystal clear. So again I ask our progressive fellow Americans here what of issue 2? So far Steele seems to be making perfect sense and this posting by the Oliver, a propaganda professional in his day job seems like just another cheap shot with out merit.
Oh and by the way Wilber I believe you to be dead wrong in your assumption. See my note in the first paragraph. I would be happy to go over the amendments one by one and compare scorecards at another time.
J.G.Thayer: “Oh, glee. Strowbridge sets up his straw man, then gets annoyed when I set it on fire.”
My strawman? You’re the one who misrepresented what I wrote.
I’ll explain once again using smaller words.
If the right to own a gun is individual and absolute, then the government could not legally prevent that violent rapist from owning a gun.
Do you understand now?
Since we agree violent rapists can be prevented from owning guns, we agree that that is not the case.
Right?
Wrong.
What you put forth — and I agreed with — is that convicted felons forfeit some fundamental rights. Voting. Freedom of movement. Freedom of association.
And yes, gun ownership.
You’re going for the inflammatory language and extreme cases to make your point, but it simply doesn’t matter. it’s not the fact that the person in question is a violent rapist, but a convicted felon. When Bernie Madoff or Duke Cunningham get out of prison, they’ll also be denied the right to own a gun — even though there was nothing violent about their offenses.
Personally, I think that Madoff would be a fairly safe risk to allow to own a gun. Not only does he have a real reason to fear for his physical safety, maybe he’ll be overcome with remorse and kill himself. But the law’s clear: convicted felons don’t get guns.
Oh, and what happened to your staunch denunciations of guns for the blind? Did you ever find a case where some blind guy with a legally-possessed gun went on a random shooting spree to counter my two examples of legally-blind people using duly registered guns to defend themselves?
(I really shouldn’t say this, but I can’t resist)
Why do you hate the visually impaired, Strowbridge? Don’t they have enough problems in their lives without you wanting them left defenseless to the predators of the world?
J