Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, February 09, 2008

Vice President Cheney signed on to a brief filed by a majority of Congress yesterday that urged the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, breaking with his own administration's official position.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I guess Dick is just tired of having to go out of town to shoot somebody in the face.

Think of how many secret service people would have to go around protecting using tazer.

It probably is unconstitutional. I believe in common sense restrictions on guns just like the common sense restrictions on freedom of speech---yelling "fire" in a theater.
An outright ban on guns is going too far even for this liberal.

I believe that Dick Cheney is Unconstitutional.

"In order to make his dramatic break with the administration, Cheney invoked his rarely used status as part of Congress, joining the brief as "President of the United States Senate, Richard B. Cheney." It is a position he has used at times to make the point that he is sometimes part of the legislative branch and sometimes part of the executive. "

This is ironic. He is defending the Second Amendment, something I agree with him on, but he is doing in it a way that demonstratse his ignorance of the Constitution. The VP president preisde over the Senate and break ties, sure, but he is still part of the Executive Branch only. The VP is chosen along with the Prez in elections and his function is to substitute the Prez in case something happens. The fact that he is a link to the Legislative Branch doesn't make him part of the Legislative Branch, he can't initiate legislation, only breake ties.

No matter if it is unconstitutional, more importantly, has the gun ban improved anything???

Despite the ban, crimes where guns are involved are still WAY high in Wash D.C., much much higher than most other Metro areas. D.C. also has one of the highest gun murder rates in the country.

The gun ban, imo, is prolly unconstitutional, but just as important, the ban has done exactly NOTHING to reduce gun crimes or gun related deaths. I've been to D.C. a couple 100 times, in some of the worst parts of town, despite the gun ban, you can get a gun as easy as you can get beer if you want one. The ban does nothing but punish law abiding persons, 'cause the scum that want guns & have historicy used gun in their various crimes, still have them & still use them.

But hey, if we can all feel good about doing something, even if it has served 0 purpose, I guess it was worth it. /sarcasm off

He's damn right it's unconstitutional.

DC residents don't forfeit their rights by living there.

I bet Schumer, Laughtenberg and their ilk are apoplectic over this.

This will be a 5-4 split either way.

He's damn right it's unconstitutional.

DC residents don't forfeit their rights by living there. babuenthal
Just their vote.

Since D.C. is a posession of the United States and not a state, the residents are not entitled to full Constituional rights; they are second class citizens.

Just like Peurto Rico, American Samoa, Guam. etc.

Since D.C. is a posession of the United States and not a state, the residents are not entitled to full Constituional rights; they are second class citizens.

Just like Peurto Rico, American Samoa, Guam. etc.
Vernon

Damn Vernon, I am agreeing with you again. I better go hit my bong.

Dick should leave his cave and walk around DC for a few minutes and see if he changes his mind. Without Secret Service, he'll be in favor of gun control.

Since D.C. is a posession of the United States and not a state, the residents are not entitled to full Constituional rights; they are second class citizens.

Just like Peurto Rico, American Samoa, Guam. etc.
Vernon


Sure you want to give them guns? Americans, even "second class" ones, don't like to be treated like shit just because of lines on a map.

I lived in DC for 12 years. I paid my taxes, showed up for jury duty, and tolerated the worthless scum the rest of the country sent there to represent them. As a thanks, we have to listen to worthless fucks from the backside of nowhere act superior because the Founders got tired one day and didn't realize people were going to live in the city they hadn't even built yet. Fuck you.

Why won't Dick Cheney shut up. Better yet, why doesn't he finally die already. If it is possible to believe, he is even more despicable than Bush. (God, I hate this administration.)

I love my guns..I think Cigars are more dangerous. Cigars break unhappy families..opps Hillary. Does Bill use Black and Milds on you?
Leave my Guns alone you idiots..take away drugs and porn from liberals..I need my guns to protect myself from the enemies if Barck Hussein Obama or Hillary Rotten Clinton is elected...

"If Barack wins I know a lot of virgins in hell are going to loose their virginity.."

Makes a very powerful argument for women to lose their virginity before dying.

Hans

Terrorist believe they have 7 women waiting for them after the explode themselves. Well when Barack win islam is going to acquire more power in America...

"Well when Barack win ..."

And they denied that you were an optimist.

Hans

I love my guns..I think Cigars are more dangerous. Cigars break unhappy families..opps Hillary. Does Bill use Black and Milds on you?
Leave my Guns alone you idiots..take away drugs and porn from liberals..I need my guns to protect myself from the enemies if Barck Hussein Obama or Hillary Rotten Clinton is elected...

Posted by cmsa1r at 2008-02-09 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think Cigars are more dangerous. Cigars break unhappy families"

Guns break both happy & unhappy families. I think having your spouse go to work one day and never come home because they were killed would seem a greater loss than finding out they were sleeping with someone else.

p.s. Yes, you are a racist. Are you calibrating your rifle scope?

This ban is only working on honest good people. The criminal element sees the ban as a money making prospect. The price of easily available guns went through the roof. The availability of guns is only slightly affected.

I think having your spouse go to work one day and never come home because they were killed would seem a greater loss than finding out they were sleeping with someone else.
* * * *

You sure about that? Either way, she's dead to me.

"Lawyers said it may be unprecedented for a vice president to take a position in a case before the high court that is at odds with one the Justice Department puts forward as the administration's official position."

Dixk Cheney's afraid his homeboys on the court -- Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia -- might not realize how the puppet-master wants them to rule on this matter. So he's gone ahead and taken the unprecedented step of representing the Vice-Presidential Branch against the Presidential Branch. Seems like a clear signal to all concerned!

You sure about that? Either way, she's dead to me.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-02-09 11:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you saying that you'd rather have your girl die violently at the hand of a criminal with a gun than for her to decide she wants to fuck someone other than you?

Remember, the original poster used the word 'family'.

Would you,rather have to explain to your children (this is hypothetical) that mommy was killed and they'll never see her again or that she doesn't want to be with their father anymore.

I'm thinking that still having a mother (or father) around for the family is less devastating.

D.C. Gun Ban Unconstitutional


Finally, ONE thing I can agree with Dick Cheney on.

Make it against the law to have a gun and only criminals will have guns.

Make it against the law to have a gun and only criminals will have guns.

It would be more accurate to say that everyone with a firearm would be labeled a criminal.

That's actually the argument. Possession of a firearm implies no intent to violate the law.

We'd better off turning DC into a theme park and move the capital to North Dakota, or some place we can keep an eye on things.

"Possession of a firearm implies no intent to violate the law."

Excuse me, but if you carry a chain saw, you likely will want to cut something down. herm

"Possession of a firearm implies no intent to violate the law."

Excuse me, but if you carry a chain saw, you likely will want to cut something down.


No, it means you're prepared to. Also, there are mostly legal things to cut down, it doesn't mean you're going to commit a crime with it.

150 million+ guns in the US, only a fraction of a percent are used to commit crimes.

150 million+ guns in the US, only a fraction of a percent are used to commit crimes.

In one year (1997), firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. Yes 5285 means only a fraction of a percent from 192 million guns (1994).

"In one year (1997), firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. Yes 5285 means only a fraction of a percent from 192 million guns (1994)."

Those figures are skewed. They reflect all the gang killings with with 17, 18, and 19-year old gangsters considered to be "children."

The vast majority of the guns in DC were sold a short distance down I-95S in Va. There were several gun shop that would sell any amount as long as you had the cash. At the time DC asked Va. for help curbing the unlimited sales, did not happen. I think there was a change after the federal gov't got involved.

On a side note....

I saw Dick Cheney in my toilet this morning.

It was the strangest thing !!!

The 2nd amendment doesn't say a fucking thing about private gun ownership. Doesn't support it, doesn't prohibit it. I wish people would just stop waving it around. If you like guns, great, if you don't great, just please stop abusing the Constitutin to make your little point.

The Swiss know what it means. So do the Israelis.

en.wikipedia.org

The Swiss military??? Other than killing striking workers and shooting unarmed demonstrators, can you name any battle the Swiss military has ever fought?

Why would the Swiss ever have to fight a battle?

The Effluent and Elite from every country on the face of the earth have their money stuffed in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Every Country on earth (United States being first) would defend Switzerland from attack from the outside.


Get Real man !!!

Mr. Constitution hisself speaks from the mountain.

Tell you what, dick...when you can decide what branch of govt you actually work for, we'll give a shit about your opinion on legal matters.

I wonder if Dick's wounded hunting buddy feels the same way. herm

Let the gas station owners & convenient store owners start guarding their stores with a 12 gauge pump and the thugs will either die or go elsewhere.

Seriously though, One would not want to walk down some of the alleys on a hot summer night. What a shame it's our capital!

Since D.C. is a posession of the United States and not a state, the residents are not entitled to full Constituional rights; they are second class citizens.

Just like Peurto Rico, American Samoa, Guam. etc.

Posted by vernon

They arn't the same. DC is a withdrawl for the seat of our government.


The Swiss military??? Other than killing striking workers and shooting unarmed demonstrators, can you name any battle the Swiss military has ever fought?

Posted by Redman at 2008-02-10 11:46 AM


I didn't say anything about wars or battles, and I dind't even say I liked them. Read the link dude. The Swiss have a genuine armed citizenry, a state-run militia just like the folks that gave us the 2nd Amendment wanted us to have.

And afaik, Israel has one, too.

I did read the link. Maybe you should have read the entire thing before you posted it.

Are you saying that you'd rather have your girl die violently at the hand of a criminal with a gun than for her to decide she wants to fuck someone other than you?

Remember, the original poster used the word 'family'.

Would you,rather have to explain to your children (this is hypothetical) that mommy was killed and they'll never see her again or that she doesn't want to be with their father anymore.

I'm thinking that still having a mother (or father) around for the family is less devastating.

Posted by COMMONSENSE
* * * *

I'm not expressing a preference either way, and I certainly don't believe that a cheating wife (I've had two) should get something like a death penalty or anything like that--it's a free country, and I'm glad I found out about it then, rather than in 15 years.
No, my point is that it doesn't matter. She's gone, the family survives. Surveys and studies show that in most cases divorces are more traumatizing than the death of a spouse; in the latter case, you're at least able to be left with good memories and good times, and there's a suddenness that you eventually get over, sooner rather than later. With infidelity and divorce, the bitterness lasts for years, the kids are confused and they're zipped back and forth every weekend. Be thankful you've never had to go through it. Then, you would understand my point, poorly expressed at first.

People shouldn't read too much into this. It's not so much that he's disagreeing with the administration, it's just that he really, really wants to go turkey hunting with an Uzi...

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable