<p>
</p>
<p>Note the complete lack of cogent argument here. <em>plonk</em></p>
<p>Here’s a tip: name calling <> debate.</p>
<p>Btw, that quote above from Condy “Mrs. Bush” Rice is total bilge , the one about Democrats not registering her in 1952, but the Republicans did. </p>
<p>Those were Southern right-wing Democrats who left the party after the Civil Rights Act. If Condi REALLY hated those people she would be a Democrat because you can bet all those old closeted segregationists like good old Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott are all die-hard Republicans.</p>
<p>And, btw, this argument is going the wrong way. I am waiting for the right-to-gun people to explain the part about “resisting tyranny”. If these loons want to right government why not give people tanks and rpg’s?</p>
<p>I think this point has been made at least once before. </p>
<p>But I’ll make it again and try to include a few more items to help those struggling with the concept: artillery, cannons, WMDs (this includes nuclear weapons), RPGs, missiles of significant design, land mines and more are not permitted under A2.</p>
<p>Under federal law I believe A2 will be interpreted to guarantee the right to “arms”. “Arms” means the common personal weapons that would be issued to a soldier. Note especially that “arms” does not mean only those arms that were state of the art as of December 15, 1791. </p>
<p>It means the common personal weapon(s) of a soldier perpetually similar to the constant improvements of the technology that constitute speech as guaranteed by A1. A1 does not guarantee only those technologies used in rights of speech as of December 15, 1791. This is an amusing suggestion that inevitably pops up in a discussion of A2. </p>
<p>“Arms” includes rifles, pistols, shotguns including machine guns. Machine guns must be acquired only through certain procedures which are quite specific, lest you commit a felony (a serious crime) for unlawful possession.</p>
<p>I think aspects of this will be defined as time passes. Like any personal right, I suspect the SCOTUS will occasionally plumb the so-called “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights for amazing new variations of the right.</p>
<p>A2 will be applied to every state, including the District of Columbia, through A14 as usual.</p>
<p>For examples as to how effective mere “arms” could be in resisting a powerful army I think history has many examples of what could occur in the highly unlikely event it would be necessary.</p>
<p>A2 is one thing that makes America unique. I am always interested in hearing how Americans are some variation of barbarians as a result of things like A2…especially by folks from lands where some of the worst wars have been fought in the recent past.</p>
<p>Condy should add to the list that she found a party that would get her name on the board of Chevron and on the side of a ginormous oil tanker.</p>
<p>
Please cite an example from the past half-century.</p>
<p>WashDad, your contribution to the discussion was:
(1) to change what I had written into something else, then viciously attack the straw man created by you and attributed to me; and
(2) to change the language of the second amendment to something different from what the framers wrote, and then point out how it supported your opinion.
I didn’t feel a need to dissect your post “point” by “point” because it was pretty self-revealing. I never said gun nuts were stupid, or cretinous, or any of the other inflammatory things others - in a debate terminating tactic - accused me of saying. I said gun nuts are driven by emotion, not logic: an adolescent hero fantasy which overrides a rational assessment of the risks and benefits of gun ownership. As I noted above, this is not a characteristic unique to gut nuts. The exact same function impels smokers - and SUV drivers who buy that type of vehicle for “safety”. All the statistics in the world won’t convince them, either, in the area of their “nuttery.” I saw the same function at work among those who resisted mandatory seat belts and crash helmets for motorcyclists.</p>
<p>People driven by an irrational motivation freely and frequently substitute pseudo-logical justifications for the real driving force behind their fixation on that one point. That doesn’t mean they’re drooling, unthinking cretins on other subjects - it just means that they are driven by a force they can’t or won’t admit on that one point. That’s what makes them “gun nuts”, and not just “nuts.” I have friends who are gun nuts. Nice guys. But about guns? Well, I know some nice smokers, too. And I know some nice guys who fought crash helmet legislation, too. Doesn’t mean they’re not nuts on that subject. And it doesn’t mean that they will be willing or able to acknowledge the thing which actually motivates their zeal and fuels their dedication to their “cause.”</p>
<p>Gun nuts do tend to be more belligerent, though. Your conversion of my post to a straw man and then attacking me for making the argument you wrote is a pretty standard example of the genre.</p>
<p>Here is one analysis of how effective a rifle can be in military conflict in the last fifty years: [Weapon</a> Of Mass Destruction - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400788.html]Weapon”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400788.html)</p>
<p>Note that a technically superior force can be fought to a virtual standstill by people with rifles that are willing to do whatever it takes to win.</p>
<p>In the United States it is extremely unlikely such events, as related in the article, would occur because we have orderly methods for resolving conflict short of war. However, I think it is important to point out that we have developed such methods because the government is held in check by the people, should the need ever arise, as guaranteed by A2.</p>
<p>
Are you suggesting that the sole, or even primary reason for political stability in America is individual gun ownership? What makes you think this statement is true?</p>
<p>Kluge, I think you DID say gun nuts are stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know how else to interpret these comments.</p>
<p>What I usually find is that it is easy to demonize or marginalize those with whom we disagree, if we don’t actually know a member of that group. For example, anti- military people seldom seem to have served or know anyone who is currently active duty.</p>
<p>I really don’t like guns, and was quite vocal about that opinion for a long time. But I know people who own guns, and who support the right for a law-abiding citizen to own guns. They are not stupid people. Oftentimes, they are quite articulate about analyzing the 2nd Amendment. </p>
<p>In any debate, the conversation should be about the merits and/or facts involved – just calling people stupid, or evil or “Busheviks” or “Ayatollahs” never furthers any understanding. It just raised walls between differing parties. JMO.</p>
<p>Yes. I believe A2 has played an important, yet understated, role in the establishment of a responsive and stable government in the United States.</p>
<p>This would be a great area for political or legal or historical research. Great idea for a thesis or dissertation.</p>
<p>For example, just off the top of my head, at least two of worlds most stable governments have widespread firearms ownership - the US and the Helvetian Confederation. At least two of the worst types of government had strict gun control - Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.</p>
<p>Sjmom: Do you think all smokers are stupid? If not, how do you explain the fact that they smoke? Is acknowledging that they are being driven by a thought process that is not based in logic or reason name-calling? Does it make sense to engage in reasoned discussion with smokers about the risks and benefits of smoking? Sometimes it is important to understand why a group of people cling to certain beliefs, rather than restricting yourself to a superficially logical debate over the issue itself (such as when a majority of Republicans who got their information from Fox News thought WMDs had actually been found in Iraq in 2003.) </p>
<p>I was responding to Parent2Noles post suggesting that the issue would be “resolved” by a Supreme Court decision. It won’t be. You and I might discuss the historical and lingusitic debate over what the second amendment should be interpreted to mean, and might accept a decision which we feels is unwise, simply because we could accept that the answer is different than we might prefer.</p>
<p>But gun nuts will never, ever accept a “resolution” which threatens their position on gun ownership because their position is not grounded in a logical or rational thought process. Suggesting that a Supreme Court case - or any other reason-based process - will result in a “resolution” of the issue ignores that uncomfortable reality. I can engage in the linguistic and/or historical debate over the meaning of the text of the Constitution (it’s what I do for a living.) I’m sure you can too. And there are interesting and valid arguments on both sides. But gun nuts drive this “issue”, and they aren’t interested in a rational resolution, they’re interested in having their desire to possess lethal weapons ratified. Anything that fails to do that will not be accepted by the pro-gun contingent.</p>
<p>I think the basis for our disagreement is that you seem to believe that anyone who supports a right for gun ownership in the Constitution is a “gun nut.” I think it’s possible to believe in a strict constructionist interpretation without being a gun nut, or having an irrational love for guns.</p>
<p>Some people, not necessarily you, seem to conflate belief systems – if one is liberal then one must be in favor of gun control, or abortion etc. I don’t believe that. I know conservatives who favor gun control (me!) or support abortion rights (NOT me!). I know liberals who are pro-life and pro gun ownership. </p>
<p>I don’t think your analogy to smoking is valid. Smoking has been shown to be detrimental to one’s health, regardless of who uses it. Gun ownership MAY be detrimental to a gun owner’s well-being, or it may not be, depending on how it’s used or stored. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I agree that those in favor of a strict view of the 2nd Amendment will not sit by idly if the Supreme Court supports it’s limitation. It seems to be part of the American identity to own guns. I don’t really get it, but that’s what I see.</p>
<p>Sjmom, you’ve conflated two things I posted and glued them together with a “if he said it it must be wrong” gloss of your own.</p>
<p>Point 1: Gun nuts are driven by emotion, and won’t be convinced or deterred by a supreme court decision or any other reason-based means of persuasion. </p>
<p>Point 2: The WSJ article purporting to support a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the second amendment is an outrageous fraud, not even approaching the level of internal logical consistency or integrity that is worthy of respect. How else do you explain an article that starts with “We’ve certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it’s beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say” and proceeds to assert that the term “well regulated militia” refers not to - well, a “militia,” well regulated or otherwise, at all, but rather to “the people” as individuals? Mind you - I don’t consider the WSJ to be gun nuts - I put them in a different category - the voice of the manipulative economic right wing.</p>
<p>The difference you perceive between smokers and gun nuts is a matter of your opinion, not fact. Smokers will point out to you other smokers who have lived to a ripe old age, and non-smokers who have died of lung cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and the like, and say “See?” The fact that statistics demonstrate quite convincingly that smokers are likely to die sooner (and be sicker while alive) than non-smokers doesn’t matter because the only life that matters to them is theirs, and they are convinced that they will be the long-lived smoker laughing at the dead non-smokers. And they could be right, in their particular case - you can’t prove otherwise. Gun nuts will insist that gun ownership is logical and useful for self defense, and that they and their families will not join the long list of people who have accidentally or impulsively killed or wounded themselves, familiy mambers and friends with their own guns. Just as with smokers (and SUV drivers), the statistics are against them - but that doesn’t matter, because they won’t assess the risks and benefits rationally; they will believe the heroic defense fantasy, and deny the actual risk of accidental or impulsive misuse of a deadly weapon in their home. Just like smokers deny that the statistics apply to them. The difference is that those pesky liberals kept at the tobacco companies – despite vilification and ridicule – long enough to turn the tide on smoking. You’re now a believer, and figure everyone else is, too. 30 years ago you’d have been wrong on the second point, and it wasn’t additional evidence which turned the tide, it was people calling a spade a spade despite ridicule and abuse from the dominant opinion of the country. Guns are a tougher nut to crack, because gun nuts are a valuable tool of the economic right wing. </p>
<p>The economic right wing has figured out that if you take a middle class guy who has been absolutely economically raped by the economic changes championed by the WSJ and enacted by the Republicans and “moderate” Dems over the past 30 years, and wave abortion, guns and homosexuals in front of him long enough, you can get him to vote to support politicians who are actively working to take his money away from his family and give it to Paris Hilton - and he’ll do it over and over again. That’s why I don’t think the WSJ cares that their article makes no rational sense - they’re just pushing the same old sound bite buttons: liberal judges, strict construction, guns guns guns! The fact that a “strict construction” of the second amendment means the exact opposite of the position they claim to support doesn’t mean anything, it’s all in the repetition of the proven hot buttons.</p>
<p>Are there people without an agenda who believe that the second amendment has been incorrectly interpreted for the past couple of hundred years? Probably - somewhere. But they are so much on the margin as to be insignificant. The Supreme Court case, and all media coverage of the issue, is agenda driven, and the actual street level arguments are directed at the gut, not the mind…</p>
<p>
Sorry, Kluge, but your argument just strikes me as emotional and irrational hatred of the right.</p>
<p>Rudy Giuliani stands a good chance of becoming the GOP nominee – he is pro-choice, pro guncontrol, and doesn’t seem to have a problem with homosexuality. So, there goes your case.</p>
<p>Both Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz both support an individual, not a collective, right in the second amendment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Individual</a> Ruling: D.C. Gun Ban Goes Down](<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8133]Individual”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8133)</p>
<p>Sjmom - What on earth makes you think that Giuliani’s candidacy has any relevance to what I wrote? Did you just read every fourth word or something? </p>
<p>I don’t hate anybody: I just call a spade a spade. Over the past 25 years our nation has seen significant economic growth. Yet, in a significant change from the past national experience of “a rising tide lifts all boats” not one penny of that growth in wealth trickled down to the 50th percentile of taxpayers, let alone below that economic strata. Yet the voters in the most economically abused areas of the country continue to vote for the people who have engineered that massive transfer of wealth from the lower-middle class to the wealthy. How do you think they’ve managed to pull that off?</p>
<p>No, Kluge, I read every word that I highlighted. You seem to suggest that middle class, average Americans are too stupid to recognize that they are manipulated by those who support a pro gun, pro life, anti gay agenda. Usually, I interpret that to mean that conservative, average Americans would be liberal if only they were smarter. Is that not what you are suggesting?</p>
<p>Finally, a rising tide does lift all boats, but those who start higher end up higher. If you earn $1m a year and I earn $100K per year, and each of us has an increase of 10%, then you have earned an extra $100k and I will have earned $10k. The income gap would have increased, but we’d each be better off. How is that bad? </p>
<p>Have you been to the mall lately? I was shopping this past weekend, and not even at the mall – just some stand alone stores. I lasted about an hour, but couldn’t stand the crowds and noise. If this economy is so bad, why can’t I get a parking space?</p>
<p>Or, how about the freeways? When I was growing up in So Cal, most families had one car. Now, it seems, each member of most families has a car. We can’t get into our driveway sometimes, because so many neighbors are parking on the street. And I’m not talking about beaters – I almost never see a rusty car, or anything more than 5 years old, unless it’s a primo collectible antique.</p>
<p>How about cell phones? Is there anyone here who doesn’t have one? Or have one for every member of the family? Are all of you rich?</p>
<p>How about the mania for selective colleges? Look at the number of applications to need-only elite colleges – and the number of full freight families. </p>
<p>If this economy is so bad, I hope it stays bad or gets even worse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/income_confusion.htm[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/income_confusion.htm</a></p>
<p>Kluge - 0
SJMom - 1</p>
<p>:) (Sorry, it was too tempting - a bit of fun here)</p>
<p>However, SJMom tends to post credible references for her posts.</p>
<p>
It’s not bad at all. If that’s what was happening I’d be happy. But it’s not what is happening. I don’t know where “Realclearpolitics” gets its info (“credible references?”) but here’s a link to the actual IRS data: [SOI</a> Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile](<a href=“http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]SOI”>http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html)
Go to the section marked:
You won’t find anything there which even remotely resembles your blog’s claims. Example:
Reality, from the IRS charts: The top 1% of taxpayers saw their total income climb from $736 Billion to $1.6 Trillion from 1996 to 2005. The minimum income to be at the 99th percentile increased by 29% - adjusted for inflation - over that same period. The share of national income of the top 1% increased from 16% of the nation’s total to 21.2% - in just 10 years. In the meantime, the share of national income received by the bottom 50% declined from 14.1% to 12.8% during that same period. The inflation adjusted income at the 50th percentile has fluctuated by no more than 5% up or down from the level it was at in 1986 - it currently is less than 1% higher than it was twenty years ago, while the inflation adjusted income at the 99th percentile has increased by 69% over that same period.</p>
<p>That’s the reality shown by the IRS statistics. Don’t believe me? Download them yourself, and read 'em and weep. The rising tide hasn’t lifted the little boats for a long time.</p>
<p>P2N: Sure you don’t want to look at that one again on the slo-mo replay camera? :)</p>