John Edwards this morning on This Week With George Stephanoupolos:

[OpSomBlood]

"I believe that gun owners have the right to protect themselves provided by the Second Amendment."

Wow, I'm stunned that someone running for Vice President has such a pathetic lack of knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Someone needs to let him know that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard.

[The Zanti Regent]

1. I won't let John Ashcroft take my gun from me.

Edwards gave the correct answer. No Nazi is taking my guns from me!

[MrSandman]

2. Or hunting...

Does it seem that the ticket is going out of the way to moderate the gun control image of past. We know that gun control is so popular, why would they risk alienating the majority of the population on this coomon sense issue?

[Wickerman]

4. self deleted - wrong placement

[library_max]

45. Because gun nuts are single-issue voters

and the majority, which support gun control, are not.

Whoop it up over Edwards throwing you a political bone. It hardly changes seventy-five years of court decisions against you.

[Township75]

3. He must have meant gun owning members of the national guard

:eyes:

[Wickerman]

5. As Always

the response here is fascinating. The Dem VP says something very positive for the fans of a weapon in every pot and these very fans, Democrats, even, find a way to belittle it, question it, and mock.

Damn, I thought, when I heard this elsewhere when I checked into the Gungeon there would be champagne corks a poppin'. :shrug:

:party:

[OpSomBlood]

6. No, I'm very excited to hear this.

I thought the sarcasm in my first post was pretty evident.

I'm very glad that both members of the Dem ticket seem to agree with my own interpretation of the Second Amendment, that we have the individual right to own guns in order to defend ourselves and our families.

While I disagree with the "assault weapons" fiasco, I'm thrilled that we have a strong pro-RKBA ticket in 2004. To the chagrin of those who think that "pro-gun Democrats" don't actually exist.

[Wickerman]

7. Glad to hear it

And I thought I detected that sarcasm - I just found it interesting that there was no real party going on here - its always surprising what is good news and what is bad news when in the gungeon. Diane Feinstein fucking up creates huge joy - Kerry hunting offers up extended criticism of his safety practices, even when blown up photos show broken shotguns, fingers off triggers, etc.

I guess the tepid response to an unambiguous thumbsup from the Dem VP was sadly typical.

[Columbia]

8. Party in the Gungeon!

:party:

:toast:

:thumbsup:

:yourock:

:headbang:

[Wickerman]

13. Well, now - thats the spirit

[OpSomBlood]

9. No, none of that stuff brings us joy.

Everyone knows that Feinstein is a sore spot for me. Seeing her screw up doesn't make me happy...quite to the contrary, it makes me angry that she has decided that she is the Democratic Party's representative on all things gun-related. She has chosen to make anti-gun legislation her legacy, and has been fighting the hardest to ensure that law-abiding gun owners like me have as difficult a time as possible acquiring the firearms we want. That bothers me a lot, especially since she represents my own political party.

As for Kerry's questionable gun safety, go back and look over that thread. I don't recall any of the pro-gun regulars really berating Kerry over it...most of the people who were doing so were newcomers to the Gungeon. I believe slackmaster and I both said something like, "he needs a little better trigger discipline" but nothing suggesting much else.

I really don't see it the same way as you, I guess. It bugs me that many people (on both sides of the aisle) feel like gun control is the official Dem party line. That you can't be a "real" Democrat unless you support restrictive gun laws.

If you look at the recent well-publicized gun tragedies, you'll see that most of the violators were already breaking several existing gun laws (most commonly, previously convicted felons acquring guns illegally). Passing new laws is therefore a questionable tactic in fighting gun crime, when there are plenty of laws already on the books for that exact purpose being disregarded.

[Columbia]

10. Gun control costs us votes

And especially considering that there is no evidence supporting that these additional gun control laws have done anything to reduce violent crime, it is quite prudent to drop it, adopt a serious pro-gun rights stance and use it against the gun-grabbing GOP.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
__________________________________________

http://www.msnbc.com/news/985341.asp?0cv=CB10

Indeed, the Democrats’ shift away from gun control is rooted more in politics than in a belief that gun laws do not help prevent crime and death, several Democrats said privately. It started after the 1994 elections, when Democrats lost control of the House and watched such veterans as then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (Wash.) get ousted after the Democratic-controlled House passed legislation making it illegal to “manufacture, transfer or possess” 19 semiautomatic firearms. The bill, which Clinton signed into law, does not apply to the sale or possession of weapons legally held before the ban took effect.

Surveys showed that the gun issue played a huge if not decisive role in ending the Democrats’ decades-long rule of the House that year. Still, many Democrats continued to target guns as a key contributor to violence and death, a belief reinforced for many by the 1999 Columbine shootings. Gore was among those leading the charge for new restrictions.

In the 2000 presidential primaries, Gore and former senator Bill Bradley (N.J.) engaged in what sounded to some like a bidding war for who would clamp down the hardest on handguns. Gore tried to distance himself from the gun issue in the waning months of his campaign against George W. Bush, but it was too late.

A key turning point in the debate over federal laws regulating guns came on election night, when Gore lost West Virginia, Arkansas and even his home state of Tennessee. Many of today’s candidates blame the gun issue, in part, for Gore’s defeat in those states and others. Gephardt said there’s “no doubt” it “hurt” Gore.

__________________________________________

The tide is turning for us - Democrats and gun-rights supporters alike. Democrats are recognizing this is a losing issue and soon (hopefully in November) we will begin winning elections again and have the chance to push the issues that really matter and make a difference.

[MrBenchley]

16. Too too funny...

The only votes gun control costs us is the votes of those who hate blacks, gays, liberals, Jews and uppity women as much as they love them guns.

[goju]

48. Right, because

Anyone with a gun "hate blacks, gays, liberals, Jews and uppity women as much as they love them guns."?

Scary that you think that way.

[library_max]

49. MrBenchley was talking about single-issue RKBA voters.

Not everyone who has a gun. Many gun owners are in favor of gun control, and many others are not single-issue on the subject.

[goju]

50. I hope that is the case

But from everything Ive seen, mrbenchely is the only single issue voter here. From his constant juvenile attacks against "pro gun democrats" to his enthusiasm for pushing gun owners to the fringe, Im left with no other conclusion.

I think deep down he despises ANYONE who owns a gun. You never hear him say anything conciliatory toward those of us who do own guns but are as loyal to the party as anyone.

[MrBenchley]

51. Jeepers....that IS funny....

One can go to any gun owner's forum and see the sort of bigoted right wing mushbrains lurking there...those people wouldn't vote Democratic unless Strom rose from the grave, seized the nomination by occult means, and promised to reinstitute Jim Crow...

"You never hear him say anything conciliatory toward those of us who do own guns but are as loyal to the party as anyone. "
Would those be the folks childishly crowing that "nobody can make them" say anything proDemocrat on a gun owner's forum?

Or would those be the one out of three of our "pro gun democrats" who announced they're not voting for Kerry?

Some swell loyalty there to be conciliatory toward....

[goju]

54. Nope, its these folks

South Carolina Sen. John Edwards stressed that he "grew up in small towns where gun ownership was a way of life. I have deep respect for that way of life, and I believe the Second Amendment protects it."

At the same time, he added, "I believe we must support gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. To achieve these goals, I support modest changes in federal gun laws -- closing the gun show loophole and requiring trigger locks on new weapons -- which we should take while honoring the right to own guns for hunting, sporting or personal protection."

In his response, current frontrunner Sen. John Kerry said, "I am a gun owner and hunter, and I believe that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands."

Kerry said he supports "all of the federal gun laws on the books, and I would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced. I will also close the gun-show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background-check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child-safety lock."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,568903,00.html

[library_max]

55. Wait a minute . . . John Edwards and John Kerry post in JPS?

What are their usernames? I'll bet they aren't JayS and Bowline.

You were complaining that MrBenchley isn't conciliatory toward RKBAers in JPS. You, and not MrBenchley, seem to be the one determined to conflate a few posters on a message board with every gun owner in America.

Regarding the Kerry/Edwards ticket, MrBenchley and I and the other pro-control regulars on this board have supported it right along, and never said a single word against it. It's the RKBAers on the board who gripe and snipe and grumble about our nominees. And more than a third of them said that they wouldn't vote for John Kerry, a figure I think MrBenchley may have mentioned once or twice.

[MrBenchley]

56. It's the RKBAers on the board who gripe and snipe and grumble

Amen to that...

By the way, check out the deafening roar of enthuiasm here this afternoon...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=74906&mesg_id=74906


"I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit...."

[TX-RAT]

57. Wait a minute . . . John Edwards and John Kerry post in JPS?"

Damn, and i didn't get an autograph.
It's Luna's fault.

[MrBenchley]

58. I guess the secret is out....

Teresa and I'll be having luna and the gun grabbers to dinner at the White House after the inauguration....let me know how you like your filet (snicker)

[goju]

63. Well I dont see how

"You were complaining that MrBenchley isn't conciliatory toward RKBAers in JPS. You, and not MrBenchley, seem to be the one determined to conflate a few posters on a message board with every gun owner in America."

First, show me where mrb has been at least respectful of gun owners, we can work on conciliatory later. Im new here, but I havent seen it yet. Second, how am I trying to "conflate" a few posters with every gun owner? Which statement gave you that idea and what issue was I addressing, according to you?

"Regarding the Kerry/Edwards ticket, MrBenchley and I and the other pro-control regulars on this board have supported it right along, and never said a single word against it."

Clarify "it" please. You failed to provide a context.

"It's the RKBAers on the board who gripe and snipe and grumble about our nominees. And more than a third of them said that they wouldn't vote for John Kerry, a figure I think MrBenchley may have mentioned once or twice."

I dont gripe OR grumble about our candidates, but a few here have no qualms about lumping me in (and others Im sure) with every stereotype they have! Very progressive! As I have said, there is no perfect candidate. If you find yourself so numbed to thinking that everything someone says becomes your "gospel", you might want to take a break, take a walk, do something else aside from swallow everything you hear without question.

Unfortunately, a few here would rather not hear anyone even remotely critize anything about the candidates. If you are not in lockstep with what those posters feel is the ideal mindset, they attack you in every way they can. Not very effective in persuading people to change their minds nor is it healthy for our "team".
But they continue for some perverse reason.

I will continue to support and/or critize everyone and everything that I see is worthy of my time and consideration. I dont care what anyone thinks of that attitude and I dont really care how many attempts some posters make to "disqualify" my vote/opinions because of THEIR ideology. Thats not what made be a Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

68. Hahahahaha....

"show me where mrb has been at least respectful of gun owners"
For what?

"I dont care what anyone thinks of that attitude"
Yeah, it shows......

[iverglas]

93. grammar lessons for you too??

Regarding the Kerry/Edwards ticket, MrBenchley and I and
the other pro-control regulars on this board have supported
it right along, and never said a single word against it.
Clarify "it" please. You failed to provide a context.

Ye gods and little fishies, again.

Try this one:

Regarding the tree in my yard, I have watered it all along, and never torn a single leaf from it.

Now, say "Clarify 'it' please. You failed to provide a context." And try not to feel foolish as you say it.

Failed to provide a context?? You appear to mean "a referant" (for the impersonal pronoun "it"), and to be saying that there is none in the vicinity, even if not in the sentence.

What did you imagine the function of the introductory clause in the sentence itself, "regarding the Kerry/Edwards ticket, to be??

Do you suppose that, just possibly, the sentence could be rewritten as:

Regarding the Kerry/Edwards ticket, MrBenchley and I and the other pro-control regulars on this board have supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket right along, and never said a single word against the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

? (Note that I have replaced both impersonal pronouns with their referants, rather than use "it" in the second instance, just to avoid confusing you.)

Let me put it this way. Can you offer some alternative meaning for the sentence that apparently troubles you, and not thereby cause anybody listening to fall on the floor in hysterics?

[MrSandman]

18. Costing votes especially in states other than...

California and the Northeast.

And for Votes for House seats

[iverglas]

94. will no one answer?

Gun control costs us votes
And especially considering that there is no evidence supporting that these additional gun control laws have done anything to reduce violent crime, it is quite prudent to drop it, adopt a serious pro-gun rights stance and use it against the gun-grabbing GOP.

Opposition to the violation of women's rights costs you votes.
And especially considering that there is no evidence that defending women's rights has done anything to reduce ... oh, let's say, single parenthood and child poverty ... it is quite prudent to drop it, adopt a serious anti-choice stance and use it against the soft-on-abortion GOP.

Especially considering that exactly the same thing can be said about Republicans in respect of opposing abortion as you say about them in respect of supporting "gun rights": they have no more acted on their anti-choice rhetoric than, you say, they have acted on their pro-"gun rights" rhetoric.

Why not cut 'em off at the knees and get all those votes? I'm pretty confident that there are at least as many anti-choice votes to be had as there are pro-"gun rights" votes.

Will no one tell me?

[iverglas]

96. oh, and btw

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. <emphasis added>

Is it just the "bans on specified firearms or ammunition" you're recommending be eliminated?

How 'bout those child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance for firearms in schools?

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of those laws on "violent outcomes". Obviously, they need to go. Right?

What is it about

(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

that you (and apparently a whole lot of other people) don't understand?

If it were possible to find evidence that the laws in question are ineffective, don't you think someone would have found it by now?

Do you not notice the black sheep in the flock --

"shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws

-- *not* laws restricting the ability to carry concealed weapons -- and how no evidence was found of the effectiveness of those laws "on violent outcomes" too?

Should those laws be repealed too? Guess so ...

[iverglas]

97. and one more thing ... about those votes

From the MSNBC report cited:

A key turning point in the debate over federal laws regulating guns came on election night, when Gore lost West Virginia, Arkansas and even his home state of Tennessee. Many of today’s candidates blame the gun issue, in part, for Gore’s defeat in those states and others. Gephardt said there’s “no doubt” it “hurt” Gore.

I have a bit of experience in a comparable situation.

In 1988, the Mulroney government in Canada was running for its second term, and had committed Canada to the first Free Trade Agreement. The Liberals, with Chrétien as their new leader, campaigned against the FTA. My party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, had the rug pulled out from under its feet on this issue. Only an idiot would have believed that the Liberals (historically the party of free trade, although more recently the more nationalist party, but still full-blown capitalists and dominated by continentalists) would ever make good on that promise to "rip it up".

But free trade was not something the average voter understood. I know, I knocked on a couple of thousand doors, and quickly learned that asking "so, what do you think about free trade?" had the same effect as saying "I'm here with your pop quiz on quadratic equations." The constituency in question was one that hadn't elected a Conservative for decades. The Conservatives hadn't even run a credible candidate, and the Liberals hadn't won less than 50% of the vote (in a multi-party race) in several elections; the NDP had come second in the previous provincial election. But masses of our voters voted Liberal solely out of fear of free trade, paying no attention to the Liberals' record of breaking promises and doing things contrary to the voters' interests, and nationally the NDP lost seats badly.

There simply was nothing we could have done to overcome the perception created by an opponent with lots of money, and a simplistic, untrue message about a policy that voters had a visceral fear and an unsophisticated understanding of: that the Liberals would end the Free Trade Agreement.

Does that sound at all reminiscent of anything that might have gone on in the 2000 election in relation to Gore's / the Democrats' firearms control agenda? Bags of money being spent to deliver a simplistic, untrue message about something that voters had a visceral fear and unsophisticated understanding of -- maybe firearms control?

Here's a pretty accurate assessment of what happened in Canada in 1988:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/federal/top-five/1988/campaign.html

New Democratic Party Strategy

Although the NDP was not plagued with the divisions facing the Liberals on free trade, the focus on the single issue did not play to the NDP's strengths. Generally speaking, the NDP was not perceived as being strong on economic issues, limiting the extent to which the NDP could capitalize on the issue.

As the election developed into a single issue election with two sides, the Liberals outmaneuvered the NDP in the debate. The NDP tried to capitalize on Broadbent's personal popularity, but to no avail.

So what happened next? Large segments of the party turned on Broadbent. ... And who were they? The ultra-left intellectual élite of the party.

Now, I'm a lefty as compared to the party, but I also recognize the exigencies of electoral politics. We really can't become the Socialist Workers' Party and expect to win seats. In that context, Broadbent really was the best thing we had going for us. But our failure to capture the anti-free trade vote was the hook for people who opposed Broadbent to hang their hats on.

So my question really has to be: who are these people who blame Gore's firarms control discourse for the Democrats' "defeat"?

Are they people who support the Democratic Party's core positions ... or are they people who want the Party to do what they want it to do?

The situation is different in your case: it isn't the left of the party turning on the (former) leader, it's the right. But I see the same thing. I see an element of the party conveniently blaming the leader for the party's possibly unavoidable inability to deliver its message and persuade people that their interests overall lay in voting for that party. The right is blaming Gore for not doing what they thought he should do, and that's nothing more than taking one's sour grapes, about not getting one's own way inside the party, public.

I believe Gephardt wanted the 2000 nomination. I understand that Gore endorsed Dean against him for the 2004 nomination, while Gephardt endorsed Kerry when he withdrew.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031229&s=nichols
(you should forgive the liberal source)

And Gore, openly critical of advisers who counseled ideological and stylistic caution in 2000, is now closer to Dean on the issues than the talking heads recognize. The former Veep's public criticisms of the war on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Bush Administration's economic policies match the tone and content of Dean's campaign far more than they do those of Lieberman or Gephardt.

Gosh. How odd. The person who advocated tougher firearms control is also left-er on the other stuff.

I see the possibility of a little more here, by way of internal party politics, than a completely disingenuous assessment of Gore's campaign discourse.

[Wickerman]

12. I wish you would've been aroudn the other day when I was taken to task

for saying that we should enforce existing gun laws and a pro gunner told me no one here ever says that. :sigh:

I'm afraid its such a contentious issue that everyone, both sided, has their own threshold of what is acceptable and what isn't.

Yeah, i guess who you consider a regular - not meaning to pick on you Op - I replied to you as the originator of the thread, not for comments you made.

[MrSandman]

19. I thought I posted this...

http://www.hardtimeforguncrime.org/didyouknow.html


"Under federal law felons, drug dealers and other specified individuals can face up to life in prison for illegally possessing a gun or ammunition. Enforcement helps reduce gun violence in several ways:

It reinforces the message that the community will not tolerate gun violence.
It removes serious violent offenders from the streets and from our neighborhoods.
It increases the risk faced by potential offenders."

Or, alternatively:

Gun laws could be enforced like the 55 mph Interstate speed limit. LOL

[JayS]

32. I do like this program and hope that it stays in place no matter...

...who wins the election.

[JayS]

36. More cases involving this program are in the Law...

...Enforcement News section of this website:

http://www.atf.gov/

[iverglas]

98. oh yeah

It reinforces the message that the community will not tolerate gun violence.

Yup, those folks really give a shit about what the community thinks.

The community doesn't spare a thought for them from the time they're born, in many cases, but now has a few words it would like them to listen to.

Whatever the reasons, does anyone here really think that the people to whom this "message" is addressed are listening?

It removes serious violent offenders from the streets and from our neighborhoods.

Yes, and the law of supply and demand just plays no role here. Nobody else will step up to fill the vacuum that removing these offenders from the street(corner)s leaves, and the newbies certainly won't be engaging in violence.

I mean, we are talking about players in the illegal drug industry for the most part, aren't we? Or did we forget?

It increases the risk faced by potential offenders.

Will somebody do the math for us?

Risk of 5 years in prison ... that's cool, the reward is worth the risk.

Risk of 10 years in prison ... that's cool, the reward is worth the risk.

Risk of 25 years in prison ... that's cool, the reward is worth the risk.

Risk of "up to life in prison" ... yikes! That tipped the scales! I think I'll go straight, buy a house in the burbs, and put that MBA of mine to work makin' me some serious bucks the hard way!

I know -- it's that new math stuff, right?

[JayS]

115. Good points.

While this approach to gun control is showing signs of being effective in dealing with gun violence, there are some assumptions that go along with this program that also need to be addressed and dealt with; most likely they will not be, by either political party.

The program is good at getting the current crop of violent criminals that use guns off the streets but there will always be a new batch to take their place sooner or later. It is mandatory that this area receive attention.

I've noticed that killings by other than guns appears to be way up but there will not be much hard data on this until about April of next year. This shift of weapon choice is to be expected and means that we will still be dealing with some violent hombres.

Note that gun issues are pretty much the only area where I support mandatory minimums, and harsh ones at that.

[library_max]

47. And yet, it's strange.

The RKBAers on JPS are constantly knocking the Democratic ticket and other Democrats, while you never hear a negative words about the ticket or Democrats from the pro-control people. Op, you yourself for example were just saying last night that Kerry would have four years to earn your vote, otherwise you wouldn't support him again. I don't see any of our pro-control posters saying stuff like that.

[FeebMaster]

52. Why don't you quote us some posts where

RKBAers are knocking the Democratic ticket and other Democrats?

[library_max]

59. Anything to oblige a Feeb.

Bowline: "If he (Kerry) introduces ANY anti-gun legislation I'll do everything in my power to get him booted out of office in 2008."

OpSomBlood: "The way I see it, Kerry has my vote in 2004. He has 4 years to earn it. Getting Bush out of office is my highest priority right now, and I'm willing to vote for an imperfect Democrat to accomplish that. But in 2008 the situation will be very different, and Kerry will have had to have proven that my doubts about him were wrong."

JayS: "No, I have a growing dislike for Kerry, along with an already strong aversion to certain other Democrats. You have a problem with that? I don't." And in the same thread: "Sadly, the only choice this election cycle is Kerry: I can tolerate him for four years and hope to see a Democrat running for office in 2008."

And that's the three best ones from the last few days. I didn't even go back to the thread we all remember when you guys were all dogpiling on Kerry because of some photoshopped pictures that called his gun safety practices into question.

[FeebMaster]

60. That's the best you can do? Where is the knocking?

All I see are three people apparently voting for Kerry.

[library_max]

61. If I were your optician, I'd make a fortune.

Or else not, come to think of it, because clearly you don't want to see.

[FeebMaster]

62. No you wouldn't.

Maybe it's just me, but knocking seems to imply something a bit more than saying that you won't vote for a candidate a second time if he works against your interests while in office after voting for him a first time.

[-..__...]

20. Well...

if he can't grip a baseball correctly why should we have any faith in his ability to handle a firearm correctly? (unless he's just showing off?).



<insert sarcasm tags somewhere>

[MrSandman]

11. Not meant to mock, belittle, or question...

Simply to point out that the candidate has a different take on public opinion than the weaponless pots crowd.

[MrBenchley]

15. Telling, isn't it?

[Township75]

21. How long have you been mod here?

More than a few days if memory serves me correctly, but that response seems like it came from someone who is new here.

It is not uncommon to respond to a politician's quote, even when it supports one's views, in a manner that highlights disagreement with our opponents here...it is often sarcasm.

[MrBenchley]

24. Hey, when don't the trigger happy amongst us

belittle Democrats?

[FatSlob]

37. I'm quite pleased.

However, I've heard that Senator Kerry has signed on to a bill that would outlaw all semiautos. Is this true?

I found it. S.1431 would give the Attorney General the authority to ban any gun that is "procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency".

This would mean that my 1929 Remington 11 could be banned, my Remington 1187, my Eagle/Rock River carbine, my brother's Beretta AL391, the M1A, etc.

Why is Kerry giving ammo to his opponents?

[enfield collector]

14. Good for John Edwards, now let's see him walk the walk.n/t

[MrBenchley]

17. I wonder if that's all he said on the subject...

"Someone needs to let him know that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard."
The man's a trial lawyer...I'm sure he knows the difference between what ignorant yokels believe and what the courts have said...just as he knows that a handful of soothing blah won't keep the gun lobby from lying their asses off about him and Kerry....

[hansberrym]

22. Pity the poor anti-individual-RKBA enthusiast....

The Democratic Party platform is against him,

the Democratic nominee for President is against him,

and now the Democratic party nomineee for Vice-President is also against him.



I quess you'll be rereading your tattered copy of Silveira vs. Lockyer
and wondering why the party has rejected that pile of crap, while the rest of us ignorant yokels are tuning in to the convention.

[MrBenchley]

23. That's REALLY hilarious, Hans...

The platform calls for a ban on assault weapons and closing the gun show loophole...as do both the next president and next vice president....

But hey, if this soft soap fools even a handfulk of gun loonies it's worth it...and it will show what is REALLY lurking under that "gun rights" sheet.

"Silveira vs. Lockyer"
Oh, yeah, that's the case that showed what a steaming pantload this "gun rights" crap is....

[hansberrym]

26. Thanks Benchy. BTW: How many is a "handfulk"?

Steaming pantloads(just a few, maybe a handfulk) from Silveira:

Reinhardt uses "State militia" 49 times in Silveira but can not find that phrase even once in any of the the contemporary sources that he cites.

Reinhardt insists "militia" is a reference to a "state military Entity" and not the persons capable of bearing arms. Not only is this a direct contradiction with US v. Miller, but Reinhardt is unable to keep up the ruse:

(From Silveira)
"On the one hand, the Constitution granted Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.

On the other, the states expressly retained the power to appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.
(end quote from silveira)

Not only does Reinhardt insert "state militias" for the word "militia" in that clause of the Constitution cited, but he uses the word "militiamen" in interpreting that same clause. His own interpretation negates his argument that the word "militia" refers to a "state military entity" everywhere in the Constitution. Clearly art. I, § 8, cl. 15 is a reference to training of persons, and not a reference to the militia as an entity, so Reinhardt's key argument is BULLSHIT by his own words.


Reinhardt also feigns ignorance of the meaning and significance of the word "keep" on pages 36,37 but forgets, that he himself used the word to mean possession, as did the Miller Court, when he discussed the Miller decision on page 13.


Silveira indeed "shows" what a steaming pantload the "Collective rights" theory really is.

[MrBenchley]

27. Still peddling that rubbish, eh, hans?

The rest of us will stick with what the court ruled....

[hansberrym]

33. You and "state militia" Reinhardt are sticking with what ...

Reinhardt said, but "the rest of us" are pledging to uphold an individual's RKBA as stated in the second amendment.

The "rest of us" being the Democratic nominee for President, the Vice-presidential nominee, and the Democratic party (as evidenced by the party platform).


Maybe you can write Reinhardt a letter pledging your continued support. After all, Reinhardt must feel foolish having lied so transparently and then having the party turn its back on him and all.


Please do me a favor and keep posting more about Silveira vs. Lockyer.
That decision is a stinking pantload and the more people who read it the better.


What, in your opinion, SPECIFICALLY is the strongest argument Reinhardt makes in favor of a Collective RKBA?

[Romulus]

29. don't forget what the "court" said in Korematsu

"Govt." can segregate out some of its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and corral them in concentration camps indefinitely, as long as the govt. can come up with a self-described "compelling reason" for doing so.


Don't you feel better now that the "courts" have ruled on something like this?

[MrBenchley]

30. Don't forget Brown vs Board of Education...

But hey, no argument is TOO desperate or ridiculous for the RKBA crowd...

[hansberrym]

34. Brown vs. Board of Education UPHELD the 14th amendment,

Both Hickman and Silveira deny it.

But then no argument is too ridiculous for that lying jackass "state militia" Reinhardt.



From the Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his dissent in Adamson v. People of Californina.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)




From the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill written by the same congress that gave us the 14th amendment:

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)

[MrBenchley]

35. Go peddle this rubbish to somebody else, hans...

[Romulus]

38. great job, hans!

watch the meltdown -hee, hee :headbang:

[hansberrym]

41. Thanks, Romulus. You were doing pretty well yourself, I just

couldn't resist jumping in when Bench brought up 14th Amendment.

[library_max]

43. I guess if you can't find an actual court case that supports your position

you have to scrum around for this kind of irrelevant verbiage.

All the actual court cases restrict the relevance of the Second Amendment to the militia. And the Fourteenth Amendment has got exactly nothing to do with it.

[MrBenchley]

44. Yeah, but hans has got to do something

to uphold his thesis that liberal judges are lying...

[hansberrym]

67. Is it your thesis that the Democratic Platform, John Kerry, and ...

Edwards are lying? Oh wait you've said as much already when you said they were trying to "fool" people into voting for them by putting out some "soft soap".


I say Kerry, Edwards, and the party platform are telling the truth, and it is Judge Reinhardt is lying.

But then it is easy to say this when Judge Reinhardt tells so many transparent lies that he often trips himself up.

Examples:
-The meaning of Militia as per the Supreme Court in Miller versus
judge Reinhardt's claim which even he can't maintain for long.
-The meaning of "keep" as in "keep and bear arms" as per the Supreme Court in Miller versus Reinhardt's discussion of that ruling which he must have forgotten when he claimed later in the same opinion to not know the meaning or significance of that phrase.

-his treatment of J.Adams "Defense of the COnstitution"

-his treatment of "Address of the Pennsysvania Minority"

and the list goes on.

[MrBenchley]

69. It's my thesis that there's nothing in the RKBA creed

that isn't 100% crap...

"it is easy to say this when Judge Reinhardt tells so many transparent lies that he often trips himself up"
Ah, yes....good thing he can't escape the eagle eye of hans (snicker)....if only anyone else agreed or cared.

[hansberrym]

70. What is it that you admire so much about that lying jackass Reinhardt?

What argument of his do you find the most compelling?

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee, hans...I love that he annoys the fuck out of you so much

and the freepers scream in rage when his name is mentioned...

It's always instructive to see our "pro gun democrats" rage against liberal judges...

[hansberrym]

72. On the contrary, Reinhardt is such a lying jackass, that the more the

gun-grabbers cite him, the better for the individual rights side.


I would appreciate it very much if you would post more of his crap, more often.

That is why I keep asking what do you consider to be judge Reinhardt's best argument in Silveira.

I WANT you to post it so everyone can see what crap Silveira is.
But, then that is why you do NOT post any of Reinhardts arguments, because you know they are crap, and you do NOT want to defend them.


I don't see anything liberal about lying about the Bill of Rights.
I do not refer to that lying jackass Reinhardt as a liberal.

[MrBenchley]

73. Gee, ask me next what he thinks of you...hahahahaha...

[hansberrym]

74. What is Reinhardt's most compelling argument?

Surely you find his arguments compelling, because you would not support someone you knew was lying- would you?

[MrBenchley]

75. Hans...ask me next

if I care what you want...

I don't think it's Reinhardt that's lying, either....

[hansberrym]

76. Hey, I'm getting exactly what I wanted from you...

keep dodging, it demonstrates my point.

But then you are in a pickle, since you can't post anything of Reinhardt's that is not a half-truth or an outright lie.


So, hey do what YOU want, either way, you ARE doing what I want you to.

[MrBenchley]

77. Whatever floats your boat, hans...

You're not doing anything but showing how silly you are...

And it's a sure bet nobody actually thinks Reinhardt is anything but a respected judge....

[hansberrym]

78. What is the most respectable argument that judge Reinhardt makes...

in Silveira?


Is it silly of me to ask you that?

[MrBenchley]

79. I think the whole argument is just ducky, hans...

I agree with the verdict and find it consistent with what courts have ruled again and again and again.

[hansberrym]

80. It must have taxed you to your intellectual limits to come up with that...

response on such short notice! It surely taxed me trying to plumb the depth and many nuances of that argument.

If only we on the individual RKBA side were so lucky, we might have Ducky on our side.


Bravo! And good night.

[MrBenchley]

81. Yeah, hans, I often rack my brain trying to figure out

if the courts have actually ruled as the courts have ruled...especially on an issue I'm familiar with.

"If only we on the individual RKBA side were so lucky"
Perhaps if it wasn't a cause championed by shitheads like John AshKKKroft, Trent Lott, Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt, you might be "luckier." But it's a lie being promulgated by some of the scummiest politicans and public figures around, and not a very convincing one at that.

[hansberrym]

82. If your're so familiar, why can't you post a single argument ...

from that lying jackass Reinhardt that actually supports his conclusion?

[MrBenchley]

85. Because your contention that he's lying is crap

and a disgraceful slander of respected LIBERAL judge...

[hansberrym]

86. Respected liberals such as Kerry, Edwards, and the writers of the...

Democratic platform support the truth and support the individual RKBA.


Lying jackasses such as Judge Reinhardt are not respectable.

[MrBenchley]

88. Sez you, hans...

The facts say different.

But it's always nice to see a "pro gun democrat" insult a respected liberal jurist....

[hansberrym]

90. I take it as a given that the platform supports the truth, you are free

to argue otherwise if you wish since you apparently believe Kerry, Edwards, and the platform are only "trying to fool" gun owners into voting for them.

But on the question of whether Kerry and Edwards are supporting individual right or collective rights, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The collectives rights argument denies that the second amendment is about "owning guns" or "hunting". But Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor Kerry/Edwards' stated view of the second amendment is compatible ONLY with the individual rights interpretation, so there is no ambiguity as to which interpretation they support, despite your "soft soap" claims.



From Silveira v. Lockyer:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.

[MrBenchley]

91. Gee, I take it as a given

that the gun show loophole ought to be closed, and that assault weapons ought ot be kept off the market...and that the courts' ruling on the Second Amendment carries weight, whereas Wayne LaPierre's lies on the subject carry none. Seems to me like the platform does too, which is why I unreservedly support it....while the RKBAers can't resist sniping at the ticket.

"Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates."
B-b-b-but aren't the RKBA crowd always telling us that the collective rights view is revisionist and that the Second Amendment has always always always been individual rights? Guess we can see now THAT claim was horseshit.

It's also worth noting the sterling character of those individual rights advocates (AshKKKroft, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Marilyn Musgrave) and what OTHER fuckwit causes they champion.

[hansberrym]

100. As I said before, please keep citing Silveira it only makes my point.

You cite a statement of that lying jackass Reinhardt as if its the gospel truth. However your "argument" could not be any more circular.
Your citation is an assertion from the same lying jackass that ignores the Miller court's use and definition of "militia", "Keep and bear arms", and the fact that the Miller court REMANDED Mr MIller's case for further proceedings.



http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
Yoou posted:
Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates."
B-b-b-but aren't the RKBA crowd always telling us that the collective rights view is revisionist and that the Second Amendment has always always always been individual rights? Guess we can see now THAT claim was horseshit.
(end quote)


How long? all the way back to Hickman? What bullshit!

Why is it that Reinhardt could not find a single citation from the founding era to support the Collective Rights argument?

Why did the lying jackass have to doctor quotes from John Adams to make it appear that Adams did not support individuals owning arms for private self-defense?

Why did the lying jackass snip the line immediately preceding his citation from the proposal of the Pennsylvania Minority that in Reinhardts own words "would have unambiguously established a personal right to possess arms for personal purposes".

Why?, because he is a lying jackass that has no facts to support the Collective rights case.

Why don't you argue his side in any of the above arguments we have had over the last year, because you KNOW he is lying.

[library_max]

103. There's a difference between a politician trying to attract votes

and a jurist deciding matters of Constitutional law. Has Kerry or Edwards or anyone on the platform committee said anything against Judge Reinhardt or the Silveira decision? No.

The political issue and the Constitutional issue are two separate issues. Just because gun control measures are Constitutional doesn't mean they're going to be introduced or passed. Kerry and Edwards are reassuring gun enthusiasts that they have more important items on their agenda, which is fine with me.

But the Constitutional issue is what it is, and judges like Reinhardt, not politicians, will be the ones to decide it. And you can say "lying jackass" all you want and I will call it projection. The fact is that there is no valid legal argument to be made against Silveira - otherwise, it would have been successfully appealed and overturned.

[hansberrym]

110. Are you saying Kerry, Edwards, and the platform are lying to

attact votes?

Funny that is exactly what the NRA is saying about Kerry's statements.

[library_max]

116. No. The language of politics and the language of law are not the same.

You're the one who insists on using the term "lying" for everything you don't agree with.

Kerry and Edwards are trying to reassure gun owners that their agenda does not include aggressive gun controls. That's not a lie. The fact that they use inexact legal language to make their point is irrelevant. When either of them says anything against the Silveira decision or Judge Reinhardt, you'll be sure to let us know, won't you?

[library_max]

102. Silveira stands.

Whether you like it or not, it stands. It is the determinate legal precedent on the subject at this time. Emerson, which you love so much, actually decided nothing except that the Second Amendment did not apply to Emerson's case.

You can keep up this tired old garbage of "lies, lies, lies" all you want, and it doesn't change the facts. Silveira is as of now a matter of settled law.

[hansberrym]

111. What argument do YOU think is most persuasive in Silveira?

Might makes right?
Resistance is futile?


Those are the mantras of totalitarians. But then that is what I would expect from someone who claims the militia exists ONLY to serve the purposes of the state. Why not just have a standing army if that were the case?



(From Federalist #46; Madison)
RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.




BTW: Silveira is only "determinate" in the Ninth Circuit.

[library_max]

113. The most persuasive argument, of course

is that it has not been overturned and is therefore a settled matter of law.

I'm not going to play your little game of "which argument is most persuasive". All the arguments are persuasive, and the ruling is correct. You're just trying to get me to help you set up a straw man, and I'm not going to.

As for the Ninth Circuit, there is no contradictory decision in any other circuit. The Ninth Circuit is the only one in which there has been a definitive decision, and it is not being reviewed. Looks like settled law to me.

[hansberrym]

117. Isn't there even one argument in Silveira that is not bullshit, and which

you would defend?

Your might-makes-right routine is not exactly an example of progressive thinking.


You refuse to argue any part of it.
The Ninth Circuit refused to hear it en banc.
What are you collective rights advocates so afraid of?
What sort of argument is Silveira that it can not withstand the disinfecting rays of sunlight? Why must you hide Reinhardt's "logic" from public discourse?


If it is such a logical and reasonably argued opinion, why won't either you or bench defend any part of it?



Never mind I'll go first.
Lets start with the cornerstone of Reinhardt's argument.


(From SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER)
We believe the answer to the definitional question is the
one that most persons would expect: “militia” refers to a state
military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that
is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously
enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the
word “militia” consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding
of words used in the Second Amendment in part
because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by
the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that
appears in that amendment — the word “people.”25 That same
interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we
construe the word “militia.”

“Militia” appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles
of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent
that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the
second of two government-established and -controlled military
forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and
navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the
president and Congress,26 and, second, the state militias,
which were to be “essentially organized and under control of
the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to ‘federalization’ at the command of the president.

(also from SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER)

On the one hand, the Constitution granted
Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming
and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.


On the other, the states expressly retained the power to
appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their
training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.
(end quotes from Silveira)


Reinhardt can not keep up the ruse for long. Even he must admit that the cited clause gives the states the power to train the militia , meaning (in U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.) ” militiamen” and not some entity or force. One does not train an entity, to march, shoot, etc.

Reinhardt's argument for ignoring yet another Supreme Court opinion is disproved by his own words. The term "militia" clearly does not mean a "state military entity" everywhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was correct and Reinhardt is wrong- by his own words.

But why does Reinhardt lie about the meaning of the term "militia"? Because he needs a way around the meaning of the words "the people" which the Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez has said means the same everywhere in the constitution.



Has "something changed" since Verdugo-Urquidez? Has the Supreme Court reversed that opinion?, has the Constitution been amended?

No! Verdugo-Urquidez stands! But for one who lies as shamelessly as Reinhardt, facts and Supreme Court precedents just do not matter.

[library_max]

121. All your verbiage changes nothing.

Silveira stands. It isn't being reviewed because there's nothing wrong with it. All of the arguments are valid. You just don't like them. You can grasp at straws and scream "liar" all you want, but Silveira is the main precedent on the subject at this time.

:nopity:

[hansberrym]

66. US v. Miller defines the term militia ....

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)



But according to that lying jackass Judge Reinhardt in Silveira:
We believe the answer to the definitional question is the one that most persons would expect: “militia” refers to a state military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word “militia” consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment — the word “people.”25 That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word “militia.”

“Militia” appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress,26 and, second, the state militias, which were to be “essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to ‘federalization’ at the command of the president.


However the lying jackass Reinhardt can not keep up the ruse for long.(Also from SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER)
On the one hand, the Constitution granted Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.

On the other, the states expressly retained the power to appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.
(end Quote From Silveira)



Note that even the lying jackass Reinhardt has to admit that the cited clause gives the states the power to train the militia , meaning ”militiamen”, and not some "entity" or "force".

The Supreme Court was correct in its conclusion on the meaning of the term "militia" because the meaning the Supreme Court gave fits ALL of the uses of the term in the US Constitution. On the other hand, The meaning given by Reinhardt clearly does not fit all of the uses, as his own words demonstrate.

Reinhardt's justifaction for ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the use of the term "the people" is built on a lie that he could not maintain for even the length of the bloated Silveira decision.



I suppose you are going to make your usual reply that "things have changed" since the Miller decision.

However "things" do not change the Constitution, amendments do.

Why do you think statements made in Congress during the debates on the 14th amendment are meaningless verbiage, but your insistance that "things have changed" is some kind of Big Medicine that sweeps away the meaning of the second amendment and of the Supreme Court's decision in US v. MIller?

[library_max]

104. The inconsistency is a figment of your imagination.

None so blind as they that will not see.

Miller referred to citizens "enrolled for military discipline." Where would this discipline come from except the state (i.e. the government)? And every example in Miller was a militia formed by the state, organized by the state, and regulated by the state, for the purposes of the state.

The point, of course, is that there is no such militia any more. Not anywhere. Not for many decades. No state organizes and trains its citizenry for military purposes. We don't even have a draft any more.

You can argue about it all you want. Fortunately, you're not a judge, so your interpretation (unlike Reinhardt's) doesn't matter.

[hansberrym]

112. Reinhardt is doubly inconsistent. He disagrees with the Supreme...

Court and also he disagrees with himself.

Inconsistent with US v. Miller:
The term "Militia" in Miller referred to citizens "enrolled for military discipline." But in Silveira, the term "militia" refers not to persons, but to a "state military entity". That IS inconsistent no matter how desparately you want to spin it, but the lie was necessary to maintain the collective rights ruse.


Reinhardt is also inconsistent with himself. In his own words he demonstrates that the argument he uses does not hold water.


He loses the argument with himself:
(from Silveira)
We believe the answer to the definitional question is the
one that most persons would expect: {b]“militia” refers to a state
military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that
is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously
enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the
word “militia” consistently use the term to refer to a state military
entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look
to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding
of words used in the Second Amendment in part
because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by
the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that
appears in that amendment — the word “people.”25 That same
interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we
construe the word “militia.”

“Militia” appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles
of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent
that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the
second of two government-established and -controlled military
forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and
navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the
president and Congress,26 and, second, the state militias,
which were to be “essentially organized and under control of
the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to ‘federalization’ at the command of the president.


(also from SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER)

On the one hand, the Constitution granted
Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming
and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.

On the other, the states expressly retained the power to
appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their
training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.


That lying jackass can not keep up the ruse for long. He shows that the cited clause gives the states the power to train the militia , meaning (in U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.) ” militiamen” and not some "state military entity" or "State military force". The Supreme Court was clearly correct.


But why does Reinhardt lie about the meaning of the term "militia"? Because he needs a way around the meaning of the words "the people" which the Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez has said means the same everywhere in the constitution.

The Judge concocts a lie to justify ignoring yet another Supreme Court decision, but he can not even maintain the ruse to the end of the his own opinion.


(From Silveira)
To determine that “militia” in the Second Amendment is
something different from the state entity referred to whenever
that word is employed in the rest of the Constitution would be
to apply contradictory interpretive methods to words in the
same provision. The interpretation urged by those advocating
the traditional individual rights view would conflict directly
with Verdugo-Urquidez. If the term “the people” in the latter
half of the Second Amendment must have the same meaning
throughout the Constitution, so too must the phrase “militia.”27
27Professor Jack Rakove, an eminent historian, in criticizing the logic underlying the traditional individual rights position, observes that“ ‘people’ is routinely defined (by advocates of the traditional individualrights position) intratextually, by reference to use in other amendments, but ‘militia’ leaps beyond the proverbial four corners of the document, and is parsed (by those advocates) in terms of a historically contingent definition of what the militia has been and must presumably evermore be.” Rakove, supra, at 124.


But it is not the "entity" that the states have the authority to train, it is the militiamen. One does not train an "entity" to march, shoot, etc.

[library_max]

114. All in your imagination, still.

You are fussing over distinctions without differences. You are obsessing on minutiae of verbiage that don't mean anything. I know you don't like the decision, but your objections have zero weight in the law. This issue will be decided by judges like Reinhardt, not people like you. That's the fact, like it or lump it.

[hansberrym]

118. "Resisitance is futile" has forever been the mantra of totalitarians (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

119. Which is why we hear it again and again from the RKBAers....

[library_max]

122. The law is the law, and that's what we're arguing about.

If you want to express your personal opinion about what the law should be, go ahead. No one here is "totalitarian" enough to object to that. But you need to learn to distinguish between your opinion of what the law should be (which carries no more weight than anybody else's), and what the law actually is.

[MrBenchley]

25. Well, lookee here!

Funny, this is how the LA Times described Edwards appearance...

"North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, appearing on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopolous," was asked to explain to conservative, rural voters his stance against limits on abortion, a constitutional ban on flag-burning and support for certain gun controls.
"I don't think somebody should be able to walk out of prison, convicted of a violent crime, walk across the street and buy a gun," the vice presidential hopeful said of his vote, along with Kerry's, in favor of gun show sales restrictions."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-demwrap26jul26,1,5564027.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Here's how ABC News itself delivers the transcript...


"On … closing the gun show loophole, which I voted for, John Kerry voted for, I don't think somebody should be able to walk out of prison, convicted of a violent crime, walk across the street and buy a gun. But I believe in the second amendment. I believe in gun owners having the right, and having their rights protected by the second amendment. "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Vote2004/john_edwards_dnc_040725-2.html

An artful dodge, seems to me...and emphasizes closing the gun show loophole.

[smelcher]

39. a political grand slam

vowing to close the gun show loop hole. It would have the same affect as banning cold fuss ion and stopping them damn fairies raising a ruckus under my garden

[MrBenchley]

40. Too too funny....

Yeah, that's why the gun lobby is fighting tooth and nail to keep it open...it's so ineffective (in a pig's eye)....

SSDD....

[Romulus]

28. why I voted for Edwards in the primary

After living the first nine years of my live in NYC, followed by the next 7 in TX, followed by an unwanted return to NYC to finish high school in the late '80's (in turn followed by an escape to the USMC and living in the south since 1991), I can confidently say that I am a "native" Southernor who despises the elitist, materialistic, Northeastern/big city mentality that many so-called "liberals" hold up as the gold standard or something of being a Democrat.

To keep this from being a South vs. North/west Coast bashing post, and keep it on Gungeon topic, I'll stop here.

Edwards is my kind of guy who shares my populist, anti-busybody mentality. His remarks here are right on the money. Talk about someone who shares my values . . . :toast:

[JayS]

31. Good man, that Edwards. It is a shame that he is not in the...

...running for the top job. All Democrats could stay home and not vote and he would still win. :)

[EconGeek]

42. Then why support the AWB?

One of the few characteristics of the "banned" weapons is that they tend to be of a class that is particularly useful for self defense... at least in situations where you'd use a rifle.

Thought the AWB bans cosmetic and safety and ergonomic features, these are features that are developed for situations that are applicable to self defense.

(They aren't machine guns.)

So how can he support our right to protect ourselves, but want to take away the effective tools to do so?

[library_max]

46. So . . . wait a minute . . . the AWB bans features that are "effective"?

I thought it was supposed to be a joke because it just bans cosmetic features that don't make any real difference. But now you're saying that guns will be more "useful" and "effective" if and when the ban is removed.

Interesting, especially considering what guns, generally speaking, are designed to be "useful" and "effective" for. (HINT: it ain't putting holes in paper targets.)

[FeebMaster]

53. Maybe you should read the AWB

then you could decide for yourself whether the features it bans are functional or effective or not.

[EconGeek]

65. Ignorance is Bliss!

I think they're just going to continue avoiding defending this absurd ban...eiother they are to ignorant to do so and so they just make rhetorical statements, or they do know its absurd but don't care.

[iverglas]

84. gee, library_max

Are you the first successful human clone?

You seem to have become plural ...

[library_max]

105. Well, make up your mind.

(I don't ask Feeb to make up his mind - what would be the point?)

First you say that the AWB restricts "useful" and "effective" firearm attributes, and then you call it "absurd." Well, which is it?

The theory, of course, is that extended clips, more stable grips, etc. etc. are not particularly important to self-defense (however convenient you may find them in target shooting), but they are important to criminals, allowing more effective attacks on a larger number of targets in a shorter period of time.

The counterargument we hear is that the AWB is ineffective because the features restricted are purely cosmetic. If so, there's no more reason to sunset the ban than there would be to continue it. Nobody needs "purely cosmetic" features on his or her gun. But you're saying that they're not purely cosmetic, that they are functional and important. That would mean that the AWB is not "absurd," but in fact restricts potentially dangerous features of dangerous firearms.

[FeebMaster]

108. Boo hoo.

"(I don't ask Feeb to make up his mind - what would be the point?)"

Well my mind is obviously made up, but then I've read the AWB and the NFA and can tell the difference between them.


"First you say that the AWB restricts "useful" and "effective" firearm attributes, and then you call it "absurd." Well, which is it?

The theory, of course, is that extended clips, more stable grips, etc. etc. are not particularly important to self-defense (however convenient you may find them in target shooting), but they are important to criminals, allowing more effective attacks on a larger number of targets in a shorter period of time.

The counterargument we hear is that the AWB is ineffective because the features restricted are purely cosmetic. If so, there's no more reason to sunset the ban than there would be to continue it. Nobody needs "purely cosmetic" features on his or her gun. But you're saying that they're not purely cosmetic, that they are functional and important. That would mean that the AWB is not "absurd," but in fact restricts potentially dangerous features of dangerous firearms."

Maybe you should read it so you could make a reasonably well informed decision for yourself.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

83. nobody answered last time

So I'll ask you.

One of the few characteristics of the "banned" weapons is that they tend to be of a class that is particularly useful for self defense... at least in situations where you'd use a rifle.

Do you live in an area badly infested with ill-tempered elephants? Or rhinos, or grizzlies, or whatever the local big bad game might be ...


So how can he support our right to protect ourselves, but want to take away the effective tools to do so?

Gosh. How can anybody support FREEDOM, but require that you pay employees the minimum wage, and rent your apartments to people of colours or ethnicities you don't like, or tell the truth in court, or put handrailings on your front steps, or obtain authorization before dispensing pharmaceuticals, or obey the speed limit ...

Damn that whole I'm not the only person on earth stuff to hell anyway.

[OpSomBlood]

87. Fact check.

Do you live in an area badly infested with ill-tempered elephants? Or rhinos, or grizzlies, or whatever the local big bad game might be ...

If you can find a hunter who uses "assault weapon" calibers to hunt large game like that, I'll give you a nickel.

Again perpetuating the stereotype that hunting is the only "legitimate" reason to own a firearm...combined with the stereotype that "assault weapons" are more powerful. After all, if you could use an AR-15 to take down an elephant, who "needs" that kind of firepower?

[MrBenchley]

89. THERE's a laugh..."fact" from op

"If you can find a hunter who uses "assault weapon" calibers to hunt large game like that, I'll give you a nickel."
Jeeze, op, talk about missing the thuddingly obvious POINT.

"Again perpetuating the stereotype that hunting is the only "legitimate" reason to own a firearm"
With the way our "pro gun democrats" obsess about shooting their fellow citizens? Not a chance down here.

"if you could use an AR-15 to take down an elephant, who "needs" that kind of firepower?"
Clearly, somebody who wants to murder his fellow citizens.

[iverglas]

92. actually

If you can find a hunter who uses "assault weapon" calibers to hunt large game like that, I'll give you a nickel.

Who was talking about hunting? Not moi.

Again perpetuating the stereotype that hunting is the only "legitimate" reason to own a firearm...combined with the stereotype that "assault weapons" are more powerful.

Gee, did I do that? I don't think so. Do you think I did that? I don't think so.

I'm just trying to figure out the situations in which this class of firearm would be particularly useful for self defense... at least in situations where you'd use a rifle, which is what the person whom I was addressing said.

A situation in which one was faced with a marauding ill-tempered elephant -- or rhinoceros, or grizzly bear -- came to my mind. Perhaps I was wrong, and the firearm in question would only be useful in situations in which one was faced with a marauding ill-tempered cocker spaniel. In any event, I was just curious whether this was the sort of thing that the poster I was addressing had in his/her mind too.

I'll just keep waiting for that answer: when exactly is a firearm affected by the assault weapons ban particularly useful for self defense?


edit -- damn, there I go asking moot questions again. I guess I'll just have to be quicker next time!

[OpSomBlood]

95. Not that you're listening...

I mean, I'm talking to someone who thinks that "assault weapons" are so ridiculously powerful that they can take down an elephant, but here goes (and this has been brought up hundreds of times):

A folding stock makes it easier to navigate in tight hallways. A flash suppressor prevents the shooter from being blinded when firing in the dark.

A rifle wouldn't be my first choice for home defense, but I can certainly see situations where it would be effective.

[iverglas]

99. Is this your final answer?

A folding stock makes it easier to navigate in tight hallways.

This is the situation in which such a firearm would be particularly useful for self defense... at least in situations where you'd use a rifle?

I think you might want to phone a friend. Like, maybe somebody who has ever been in that particular situation. And who might not have thought that a handgun was more particularly useful for self defense in it.

But maybe you have first-hand knowledge on which you base your answer. Been needing to defend yourself in many tight hallways in which you'd use a rifle for self-defence lately ... or ever?

[OpSomBlood]

101. No, but it's not your role to decide what I "need" either.

If I wanted the government to dictate to me what firearms I'm allowed to own, I'd move to Canada.

[iverglas]

120. if you're gonna answer questions put to other people

(which in this case would seem to be necessary if anyone at all is gonna answer the question, since the person to whom it was asked can't ...)

then pay attention.

This is what the other person said:

One of the few characteristics of the "banned" weapons is that they tend to be of a class that is particularly useful for self defense... at least in situations where you'd use a rifle.

This is what my question was about. I inquired as to what "situations" these might be. You decided to volunteer an answer, all unasked.

So your bit of clever repartee --

If I wanted the government to dictate to me what firearms I'm allowed to own, I'd move to Canada.

just fell particularly flat in this context, I'm sorry to tell you.

it's not your role to decide what I "need" either.

And if you can point out where in this little chat I did so, please do. That fact is that I didn't claim it to be my role to do so, and I have never claimed it to be my role to do so, and I actually don't know of anyone here who has claimed it to be his/her role to do so. Who ya talkin' to, honey child?

You're the one who volunteered that idiocy about having to defend one's self in some dark dangerous hallway and thus finding a firearm with a folding stock "particularly useful". So it would appear to be *your* role to defend that assertion -- if you like. If you don't, no skin off my nose.

If you don't want your bizarre assertions questioned, my advice would be to stop making them.

[library_max]

106. Navigating tight hallways? Shooting at multiple targets in the dark?

Oh I'm sorry. The category was "Things that are done by an attacker." Not defender. Attacker. Too bad, but we do have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[OpSomBlood]

107. I believe the "category" was usefulness for self-defense.

But don't feel too bad, your game show host schtick was almost funny.

[library_max]

109. Explain it to me.

I'm at home at night. I hear a noise. I get my assault weapon with the folding stock and flash suppression out of my locked gun safe and load it (because I practice gun safety, like all responsible gun owners). I still hear the noises, but fortunately I got all that done without anybody breaking into my bedroom. So, to maximize my ability to defend myself, do I A) stay put and keep my gun trained on the one and only entrance to my room, or do I B) leave the room and start roaming around "tight hallways" in the hope that someone will hear me and ambush me or shoot me in the back?

Now if I'm the attacker, I can't stay put, can I? How am I going to rob the house and kill the occupants if I can't navigate tight hallways?

Okay, so back to me in my bedroom. I don't turn a light on because I don't want to lose the element of surprise. The same is true of the burglar. My rifle is trained on the door. He opens it. I fire. I know exactly where he is - where he has to be if he wants to get into the room. But he can't see me and must necessarily sweep the room if he wants to get me. So, which of us needs to fire a lot of rounds without being blinded? Isn't it him and not me?

But, gee, why bother with logic when you can respond with "I believe" and a sneer instead?