Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, January 18, 2009

Crooks and Liars: President-elect Barack Obama's election continues to spur a surge in gun sales, firearms retailers and enthusiasts say, as gun owners brace for what they believe will be a new era of gun control in Washington. An electronic news service that covers outdoor news has even named Obama its "Gun Salesman of the Year."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

dethspud

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

Obama has a long history of anti gun support.

It's not "tighty righty" paranoia, it's documented fact.

Nice try at race baiting spud.

The NRA sued NO over this matter.

The twin idiots, Schumer and Lautenberg are salivating over their increased gun ban prospects.

If we're not vigilant, we could be neutered like the Canadians.

Babuenthal

You should have protested the last USSC ruling about gun ownership. The new second amendment says your right to bear arms can be infringed in any way the government sees fit---and the NRA called it a victory.

What new Second AMendment Buffalo Bob?? The SCOTUS just reaffirmed an INDIVIDUALS Right to Keep and bear arms. They didn't make a new amendment with their ruling. Please do try again Buffalo Bob

Larry

"You should have protested the last USSC ruling about gun ownership."

I was happy. They reaffirmed the right of private citizens to bear arms, unlike the idots who maintain it's a collective right.

What i protest is the 5-4 decision.

It should have been 9-0.

Hopefully it's just the ultra leftists on the court that retire or die.

Really? I thought it was Clinton who turned $190 AK's into $4500 collectables.

Silly me.


Ironic part fer Spud is the fact that it was the BushCo regime who actually used corporate mercenaries to disarm the population of NOLA after Katrina but not a whisper of this from the right.

Guess the fact that most of the folks who were disarmed weren't white make it alright in their books, eh?

Actually, you're wrong. Pretty typical though.

Most pro-gun folks don't really give a shit about race when it comes to weapon ownership. There are a few ignorant bastards who think black people shouldn't have guns, but those people also think black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

They're marginalized.

The rest of us are concerned that the "authorities" used an event such as Katrina to test out their gun-grabbing. It worked. Not many people in the US actually know about it, the rest of them can't be bothered to lift a finger in protest.


The increased gun sales prolly have more to do with people uncertainties over the tough economic times ahead than any threat of disarming by the incoming Obama administration

Again, wrong.

everyone I've talked to has been buying up weapons and ammo because of the worry that Obama will ban one or the other or both.

Why do they have this feeling? Well, it probably has something to do with the influence of the people he has surrounded himself with in his administration. Quite a lot of former Clinton staffers in the mix.

Rahm Emannuel doesn't really help his case much either. And finally, there's this. Obama's Record


Really? I thought it was Clinton who turned $190 AK's into $4500 collectables.

Companies that build parts and completed AR-15's have 6 month backlogs. Clinton can't touch that with a stick.

"The fear being whipped up by the NRA and the gun fanatics has no known basis in reality."
What bull shit media spin....

The government wants to teach the people to be afraid of guns, and people that own guns are all right wing nut jobs. At the same time you are supposed to trust and love the militarized police forces in their black ski masks, and automatic weapons.
How about the fact that the police have now killed over 100 people in the past few years with tasers? Is that just unwarranted fear being whipped up by the right wing gun fanatics?

Here's one for a smile.
www.youtube.com

by D'Spud

Ironic part fer Spud is the fact that it was the BushCo regime who actually used corporate mercenaries to disarm the population of NOLA after Katrina but not a whisper of this from the right.
agree ... ya gotta give that guy some credit for having the influence to have the Dem governor twist the Dem Mayor's arm who in turn persuaded the NOLA PD to confiscate guns

Did congressman William Jefferson help too?

Hopefully it's just the ultra leftists on the court that retire or die.

#5 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-01-18 01:57 AM | Reply | Flag


It shouldn't have been 9-0. The USSC is now full of activist judges. This court has said your private property--your home--can be taken by a business agaionst your will.

This court has killed the fourth amendment by saying you can be unreasonably searched at any time---there are no restrictions to being searched except by the limit of the investigating officers imagination. eg "I thought he looked like a poster I saw at the post office.".

This court has killed the second amendment. The second amendement used to read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment now reads:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit.

Your view that it is ultra leftists on the court that is the problem is mistaken. It is the activist rightists that are tearing apart the Constitution.

Since you obviously hate the Constitution and America--especially half its citizens (liberals)---why not find a country that fits your style a bit better. Iraq is nice I hear, and you can have all the weapons you can carry, and I hear there are very few liberals walking around--just your kind of country.

Got an invite from some friends (who, unbeknownst to us were uber gun zealots) to a Christmas party 2 years ago. They were watching a video of themselves on a "training" mission in the woods.(they all wore Camoflage outfits and were playing war) They all owned AK47s and M16s and other assorted automatic weapons, and they were obsessed with obtaining lots more fire power before the dems took power. They went on and on about how they all needed to get lots more 'guns and ammo' cause the Dems (Presumably Hillary) wanted to take away their gun rights.

These were not 'protect my home' guns, they were assault weapons.

They were not members of a well ordered malitia.

More than a little creeped out were we.

Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth were not the sentiments on display.


Your view that it is ultra leftists on the court that is the problem is mistaken. It is the activist rightists that are tearing apart the Constitution.

Ah! So it's the right that has been trying, for the past few decades, to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans!

How could I have not noticed that people such as Rahm Emmanuel, William Jefferson Clinton, Joe Biden and others are all REPUBLICANS?

I do not disagree with you on the "Activist Judges" Bob, but you're full of shit if you think the left has not played its part willingly in the demonization of gun owners in this country. Meanwhile, the NRA just caves in and gives ground little by little.


These were not 'protect my home' guns, they were assault weapons.

Wow.

There's just no words to use to respond to the one-sided silliness of your post. I hope you never need the assistance of an "Uber gun zealot".

I'll let Suzanna Gratia-Hupp say it for me.

"Your view that it is ultra leftists on the court that is the problem is mistaken. It is the activist rightists that are tearing apart the Constitution."

WRONG!

If it was up to the leftists on the court, there would be zero right to individual gun ownership.

"Since you obviously hate the Constitution and America--especially half its citizens (liberals)---why not find a country that fits your style a bit better."

Wrong again.

I spent 8 years in the Marines defending the constitution.

Why would i spend so much time defending something i hate?

Half the citizens are liberals?

You're crazy, but thats been obvious for some time.

They'll never get my guns or car antennas.

The far right small dicked gun nuts will always raise the spectre' of their rights being trampled upon, no matter how light the gun laws are -- wow, background checks, how horrible!. Idiots. You will keep your guns, and you will hunt, or you will showcase them to prove what a hairy chested alpha male you and your big titty wife are. God bless you and your infantile infatuation with things that go boom.
It's your right. And it will not be taken away in reality, only in the fund raising pronouncements of the imps that suck at the gun lovers teat for sustenance -- the GOP and NRA. What saps. Then again, if you feel the need to shoot something for pleasure, having some slight to be enraged about makes perfect sense. Children...

"They all owned AK47s and M16s and other assorted automatic weapons,"

Unless they had a federal license, they didn't have automatic weapons.

"These were not 'protect my home' guns, they were assault weapons."

What better weapons to protect your house?

I have an AK-47 and a semi-auto 16ga shotgun as my primary home defense weapons.

"They were not members of a well ordered malitia."

Irrelevant to the right of private gun ownership.

"More than a little creeped out were we."

Of course you were, wimp.

"Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.

Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer"

Ray Davies

Hate guns? You do not have to have them. BUT, as my brother who was a deputy officer in MD always told me: He won't be there in your bedroom in the middle of the night to stop a home invasion. All he could do is show up afterwards and try to find out who did it. ONLY YOU can protect yourself and your loved ones. If you do not want a gun, have a baseball bat or knife [but it really sucks to bring one of those to a gunfight].

"The far right small dicked gun nuts will always raise the spectre' of their rights being trampled upon, no matter how light the gun laws are -- wow, background checks, how horrible!."

What gun rights groups are against background checks? Not the NRA.

We're against registration that leads to confiscation.

"You will keep your guns,"

Tell that to the people of CA.

One of the pathetic things about the right is how it still views those of a liberal bent as pansy-assed, pointy-headed pacifists eating granola out of a Jerry Garcia Lunchables box. Pathetic because it just makes them seem stupider than dust. This dunder-headed perception is one of the reasons the right got trounced -- by a smarter, tougher, wittier, lets take it outside and see who's got the balls, group of people. If the right wants to continue the charade and make themselves FEEL tough by holding onto an outdated, was never 100% true in the first place, view of the left, so be it. They will just continue to be trounced.

Me, I'm a lib, like most of the folks I associate with, and we pretty much all subscribe to the Malone theory from the Untouchables. They brings a chain, you bring a knife, they bring a gun... and so forth.

Only we do it with real honor, and a sense of the world at large beyond the John Wayne late movie limitations of most so called conservatives these days.

Ps -- I went targer shooting in Tyler Texas and dug it.

"target shooting"

"Ps -- I went targer shooting in Tyler Texas and dug it."

I'm surprised you had the strength in your wrist to hold the weapon.

See, Babuenthal, either you're parodying the parody, or you really are setting yourself up here by falling for the old BS. Oh, well, like I said, the misconception makes you feel better about your self, God speed.

NRA keeps calling me even though I asked them not to. I don't want to join and I want to be left alone. However they want me to join and give them money. What fools..........They're pissin' in the wind as far as trying to get me in with them......They just keep calling.........

The gun control theory is probably nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to Democrat power. You really can't blame folks for worrying about this. They're just basing their concerns on history, that's all.

However, there may be an real concern even if there has been no mention of gun control during the campaign. If you consider the impending collapse of the Fed over a financial bankruptcy, the last thing the Government needs if for it's citizens to try to cast them off like the Declaration of Independence suggests.

But Bush had nothing to do with ripping up the Constitution for the past 8 years.

"See, Babuenthal, either you're parodying the parody, or you really are setting yourself up here by falling for the old BS."

Parodying the parody.

Countering your ridiculous rhetoric with my own.

Having enough guns is not the problem, it's having enough ammo. Obama may inspire people to come and get our stuff, but we will be waiting.

Fully Weaponized Thom

If it was up to the leftists on the court, there would be zero right to individual gun ownership.

You are mistaken again. The right to bear arms is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept. You are PROVEN wrong by the rightists on the court who said that the government can infringe on your right to bear arms any time it pleases.


Since you obviously hate the Constitution and America--especially half its citizens (liberals)---why not find a country that fits your style a bit better.

Wrong again.
I spent 8 years in the Marines defending the constitution.

No you didn't. You spent 8 years in the marines because it made you feel like a macho man. You know nothing of the Constitution, or what it stands for---or what America stands for.

Why would i spend so much time defending something i hate?

Simple ignorance. You fail to realize that the Constitution is full of liberal philosphy, that this is a liberal country, and that anti-liberal is anti-American.


Half the citizens are liberals?

According to the last election, the majority of Americans voted for the liberal candidate.

You're crazy, but thats been obvious for some time.

Says the guy who thinks the USSC isn't full of activist judges.

They'll never get my guns or car antennas.

Who wants them you paranoid little twit? You've been so brainweashed I'm surprised you know what day it is. Need Proof? Tell nme the name and show me the quote of one politician that wants to take your guns away. Just one. Can't do it? Then STFU. Simple isn't it.

#14 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-01-18 01:01 PM | Reply | Fla

I think it is more paranoia than prudence that is causing this.

Obama may inspire people to come and get our stuff, but we will be waiting.
Fully Weaponized Thom

#28 | POSTED BY FWTHOM AT 2009-01-18 02:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG: crazy batshit paranoid

Fully Weaponized Thom
#28 | Posted by fwthom


Fully lobotomized and enuchized Thom

Cowardly dimwit,liberal yuppies think guns are bad and scary. If they see a free citizen with a gun in their handbag, belt, car, or house they cringe in horror, as if the gun itself has a will of its own. Oh no a gun! Call 911, call homeland security!
But when they see black masked federal forces with weapons of mass destruction they feel as comforted as a baby suckling momma.
Now that's brainwashing.

"I think it is more paranoia than prudence that is causing this."

When you review Obama's 2nd amendment record, it's definately prudence.

I've read a report of people shopping the local k-marts, and sporting goods store dry of all their shot guns, 22s, 30.06, 302, all the ammo they could load in the shopping carts. One grandmotherly elder lady had her shopping cart completely full of shotgun shells. When she was asked why, she said "Obama's coming!".

Sure, fully automatic M-16s are not "legal" to be owned by the general public. However, finding out how to convert a semi-automatic M-16 to full-auto is only a Google search away.

Right-wing, NRA, nut-jobs have all stocked up on these weapons. Why, that's anyone's guess. I don't see why anyone would need a semi or fully auto capable weapon in their home. Then again, I'm a reasonable thinker.

Jeff they have K-Mart in Denmark? why do you care about America when you have managed to escape to the good life?

It seems to me that on an intellectual level a lot of people haven't caught on to what's happening yet, but on a gut level a lot of people are going into survival mode.

I saw some Ingram Mac-10's at a gun show recently. Overheard a buncha 'noid nuts fantasizing about the day they git to have a shoot-out with the government when they come to take the guns away.

I still favor intelligence and psychological testing and strict background checks for anyone who wants to buy guns, from a shop or a show. Hell, make it mandatory for all citizens when they turn 18 to take assessment tests, and use those tests to help gauge the subject's fitness for ownership of a deadly weapon.

They don't have K-Mart in Denmark, and a pair of 501 levis cost 100 bucks.
This isn't just about the US. This is about the globalist bakers are in the process of the bringing under their control, and breaking the middle class, and the nouveau riche of the whole western world.
The new world order...
It seems like a lot of people inside of the US can't see outside of the US box.

""I saw some Ingram Mac-10's at a gun show recently. Overheard a buncha 'noid nuts fantasizing about the day they git to have a shoot-out with the government when they come to take the guns away.""

I will bet you even money they were federal agents.
They are at all the gun shows now posing as KKK wingnuts trying to find local idiots that are stupid enough to follow their lead.
More false flag operations.


Right-wing, NRA, nut-jobs have all stocked up on these weapons. Why, that's anyone's guess. I don't see why anyone would need a semi or fully auto capable weapon in their home. Then again, I'm a reasonable thinker.

Being a reasonable thinker, it might be strange to you that quite a few of the first-time gun buyers visiting the gunshop and range I frequent has said they were obama supporters.

When you stand around and talk about guns, ammo, self defense and preparedness, you find out a lot of things about people. Just remember. When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

I'm not a member of the NRA. I'm not a right winger.

I have 3 weapons in my house. One is for fun, the other two are for personal protection. One I carry with me at all times unless it is banned on the premises I am about to enter.

Unlike a lot of the folks who are, indeed, nuts; I am not gearing up for a fight with federal forces. I have no desire to fight what would be a losing battle. My gear is for the protection of myself and my family members.

If that upsets you, I don't give a fuck.


I will bet you even money they were federal agents.

***sarcasm***

Come on Jeff. You know our government has never, ever attempted to do anything of the type you are suggesting. Government is out for our best interests and they only want to protect us from ourselves


I still favor intelligence and psychological testing and strict background checks for anyone who wants to buy guns, from a shop or a show. Hell, make it mandatory for all citizens when they turn 18 to take assessment tests, and use those tests to help gauge the subject's fitness for ownership of a deadly weapon.

I still favor intelligence and psychological tests for allowing people to vote. If they can't make rational decisions in their daily lives, how can we expect them to rationally decide who our representatives should be.

Be careful of the slippery slope on which you wish to tread. Denying a constitutional right based on someones standards could net you some really nasty results.

Just imagine if the Bush administration and the republican congress had decided that people who describe themselves as liberals suffer from a mental disorder.

Obama had nothing to do with the gun sales. It's just another way for gun-nuts to try to throw it in Obama's face all while they display a level of paranoia that rivals 'end of days'.

Using the original logic, I guess we should be praising Osama Bin Laden for being the the best Military Recruiter of the Bush years.

I owned a quite a few nice guns from when I was a boy up until I moved to Denmark.
Now I am an un-armed socialist slave.

Obama has a long history of anti gun support.

~Babs

Obama has a long history of trying to pass some common sense laws as regards guns along with some miscues on the issue.

Gun registration is a good idea and so is the ban of assault weapons and so are child proof locks on guns and so are gun safes and so are background checks to prevent madmen like Cho from buying a gun legally and then using it to go on a bloody rampage.

Obnama's support of concealed carry was a good move.

That all sed, Obama was wrong to support the DC handgun ban and to even consider it remotely "Constitutional" was a real fuck up by Spud's lights.

It's not "tighty righty" paranoia, it's documented fact.

No, it's pretty much RT paranoia gone wild.

Nice try at race baiting spud.

Pointing out the racism inherent in the GOP is not "race baiting".

It's a well documented fact.

See also: homophobia, sexism and anti-scientific tendencies.

If we're not vigilant, we could be neutered like the Canadians.

Canadians own as many if not more guns per capita than the US we just don't kill each other with them at the same rate.

America should take a page out of Canada's book on gun legislation. You kids would end up with far few tragic gun deaths like all these stories we read here at the Retort about kids grabbing a gun the family keeps unlocked and loaded and then wasting one of their family or friends with it.

Americans who support strict gun control laws often point to Japan and Great Britain as models. Gun control laws in those countries, however, border on prohibition, and it is not likely the heavily-armed United States will agree to adopt controls even closely resembling the British or Japanese models. Canada, on the other hand, has a uniform federal firearms control system that, while more strict than the controls in United States overall, is more lenient than some American jurisdictions. Indeed, Canada has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. There are almost as many rifles per capita in Canada as in the United States.[1] Although there are important cultural differences, Canada and the United States "probably resemble each other more than any two nations on earth," observes sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset.[2] It is therefore somewhat surprising that American gun control advocates have not placed more emphasis on the Canadian model.

www.guncite.com

That all sed Spud is the proud owner of an FAC or Firearms Aquisition Certificate and finds shooting stuff to be more fun than a barrel fulla monkeys.

Guns are also, in this day and age, a neccessary component of home safety but when the thing that was supposed to keep you safe is the thing that end up causing unneccessary deaths to occur you really have to rethink and take another try at walking the fine line between the rights of gun ownership and the responsibilities of gun ownership.

Also, Spud has always held to the tenet that "a government should be more afraid of it's people's wrath than a people should be afraid of it's own government" and the "great equaliser" (as guns are sometimes called) works well in that regard.

Spud also thinks the Founding Fathers in their verbiage "a well regulated militia" understood that the right to bear arms is not a willy nilly process. Common sense restrictions on their use and sale are neccessary in order to avoid preventable tragedies.

"Happiness IS a warm gun. Bang Bang, Shoot Shoot"

~John Lennon

/Shout out to Snark fer that Kinks tunage.

Spud seriously luffs that one.

Be Well.

Me thinks spud is also an un-armed socialist slave..

Obama had nothing to do with the gun sales. It's just another way for gun-nuts to try to throw it in Obama's face all while they display a level of paranoia that rivals 'end of days'.

~Common Sense

The "End of days craziness" has a co-relation with this "Moron Labia" craziness?

Hmmm, true dat.

Way to make the connection, CS.

While Obama's record on gun control is not a realistic reason for gun ownership to soar nobody ever accused the paranoid right of being particularily well grounded in reality.

The percieved threat of Obama "coming to take their guns" is a large part of the phenomenon however as is the dire economic times we are entering into.

Speaking of which...

Using the original logic, I guess we should be praising Osama Bin Laden for being the the best Military Recruiter of the Bush years.

Actually, the dire economic circumstances previously alluded to are a bigger factor than the so-called War on Terror. Recruitment was actually down significantly after the truth about BushCo's war for oil began seeping into the nations conciousness but then rose again after the economy went to hell.

That sed there is a very real connection there.

At the end of the day, the economy circling the toilet bowl is definitely connected to BushCo's war and Osama Bin Laden (that old family pal of the House of Bush) is connected to that so in an odd way yer kinda right.

Except fer the praise part, of course.

Bin Laden and Bush should both be reviled as having innocent blood on their hands.

/Although it should be noted that Bush stands atop the higher pile of dead mouldering corpses by a large factor.

From the other perspective Bin Laden should be praising Bush for being the biggest creator of Jihadist recruits and the largest fund raiser Al Quaeda ever had.

Well, again, except for the praise part.

And yeah, Spud did catch the snark in yer post.

Just saying.

Be Well.

/Gotsta get. Not really here. Maybe back later
stage left.

I'm curious about this statement?
"Spud also thinks the Founding Fathers in their verbiage "a well regulated militia" understood that the right to bear arms is not a willy nilly process. Common sense restrictions on their use and sale are neccessary in order to avoid preventable tragedies."?

Are you suggesting that citizen organized militias should be controlled by the state?

Are you suggesting that citizen organized militias should be controlled by the state?

Spud suggests that the Founding Fathers, although they lived in a time far different from the modern era, were prescient enuff to see the neccessity of some level of regulation on guns.

a understood "right" balanced with common sense "responsibilities".

Hence "well regulated".

To not see or acknowledge that is to be be willfully blind to reality.

Be Well.

/Really gone now.

SPUD-
Off topic now... I added the NHL Center Ice package to my DirecTV package. Now I get most every decent NHL game played. In HD. Thass wha I'm talkin bout.

~OohRah

Awww yeaaaaah, man!

HD RAWKS!

Hockey Kicks Ass!!

And yer just in time to watch the Canucklehead finally at long last WIN the Stanley Cup too!

How fortuitous.

^_^

/Do NOT remind Spud that they've never won the damn thing before.

//Spud indulges in a little willful ignorance from time to time too. Is blissful!!

///Seriously gotsta get. Late now. Back later.

Be Well.

In HD.

#50 | Posted by OohRah

I've been thinking about upgrading my Dish Network to HD but I keep getting conflicting opinions about whether it's worth the money.

I've been thinking about upgrading my Dish Network to HD but I keep getting conflicting opinions about whether it's worth the money.

#53 | Posted by Whatsleft


The question is dependent upon the quality of your TV.

Would you upgrade the speakers on your stereo if you had a lousy receiever; or vice versa?

If you have a good quality flat-screen TV, upgrading to HD is definitely worth it IMO.

I've also got a 46" Bravia, and a PS3 so I can play Blu-ray. Is HD satellite comparable to Blu-ray?

Would you upgrade the speakers on your stereo if you had a lousy receiever; or vice versa?

#55 | Posted by JeffJ

Funny you should mention that. I just ordered a new Yamaha 7.1 receiver to replace my already good, 6 year old Kenwood 5.1 receiver. I've been using the same front and surround speakers for 25 years because I don't think anything in the store sounds significantly better. I could use a new center channel. That one's kind of weak.

I think my wife would like me to replace all of the speakers, because they are LARGE. I may have to relent eventually, any suggestions?

No one has trashed our constituional rights more than Bush. Without ever providing a coherent reason. The ability to bring the majority in on your decisions matters.

WHATSLEFT

Is it just for TV or are you running an entertainment center - CD player, etc?

This used JBL set is a good sounding system if you don't mind used, but saving a few hundred bucks in the process.

cgi.ebay.com

JBL, Bose - stick with name brands like that.

Are you suggesting that citizen organized militias should be controlled by the state?

#49 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-01-18 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag


I think he's reading the second amendment which states well regulated militias are necessary for the protection of the state. The states would regulate the militias.

Babuenthal seems to run from the tough questions like all republicans. What a waste of oxygen.

Maybe he's still looking for that politician that wants to take away his weapons.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's easy to modify an M-16 from semi automatic to fully automatic, but remember unless you are being completely overrun by welfare types, firing on fully auto is not very accurate and will overheat the barrel after a few clips.

Fully Weaponized Thom

"welfare types"

Wall Street investment bankers?

Do you for investment advisors Danforth?

speak*

Do you (speak) for investment advisors?"

No. I've never repackaged bad loans, got them re-rated, leveraged bad paper against bad paper, or asked for a trillion-dollar bailout.

But I do know the Wall Street Welfare Queens will get a lot more government largess than all the "welfare types" FWThom is referencing.

So that's a 'no'.

Wow...you can read the first word in my response. Good for you.

Thanks AU,

I'm not in all that big of a hurry. Here's what I've got now.

www.positive-feedback.com

They've probably have some collector value. Even though they're vintage they are still in excellent condition and actually sound very good. Since my wife loves old wood furniture, these sort of blend in. Four of them occupy considerable space, so eventually they may have to go.

Spud likes to link gun ownership to racism, but does Spud realize that the first gun laws in the US were directed at black people? Slaves aren't allowed to own guns.

BTW, Obama's new gun bill is a complete gun ban.
The bill gives the attorney general the right to determine what is legal and what isn't.

"Obama's new gun bill"

Could you provide a link to the text of "Obama's new gun bill"?

Thanks, I'll wait.

by D'Spud;
spud suggests that the Founding Fathers, although they lived in a time far different from the modern era, were prescient enuff to see the neccessity of some level of regulation on guns.

a understood "right" balanced with common sense "responsibilities".

Hence "well regulated".


spud's current day context sounds sensible,but waaay off track
the context of the founding fathers was much different - -
they were drafting a documemt whose sole purpose was to "PROTECT CITIZENS FROM GOVERNMENT"
and strictly limit Fed powers, hence allowing citizens to bear arms & States to keep a militia NOT under Fed control

nice try tho

they were drafting a documemt whose sole purpose was to "PROTECT CITIZENS FROM GOVERNMENT"


Brrrrrrrrrring! Wrong.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's the preamble. The whole thing. Kit and kaboodle. Fity-two words. No more, no less. And not a peep about protecting citizens from the government.

That's the preamble. The whole thing. Kit and kaboodle. Fity-two words. No more, no less. And not a peep about protecting citizens from the government.


You are correct, Doc.

Protecting citizens from government was an after-thought; hence the Bill of Rights.

Jeff, I'd have to dust off some books read long ago, but as I recall it the Constitution might well not have been put into effect---as in, it might've fallen short of the required number of ratifying states---without the Bill of Rights. Having fought one revolution to rid themselves of a capricious government over which they had no influence, many newly-minted Americans were loathe to empower an unrestrained national government.

You'd have thought they'd have bought guns well before this to stave off the Muslim Hordes. The intrusive erosion of every other Civil Right that's been attacked the past 8 years wasn't a real reason. Nope. In fact, if you were one of "those" that criticized the destruction of basics such as Habeas Corpus, you were called unpatriotic or a "waste of breath."

Fear's a great motivator, and the best thing about it? No need to be rational. Buy your guns. If the Government we have these days decides you will be subservient, your gun won't help you.

You already sold your liberty for an illusion of security.

I just had a conversation with an acquaintance who sells guns.

His gun business is a side business that he he runs in the same location as his primary business.

Our conversation started as a discussion of the economy and I asked him how business was going.

His primary business, which is related to automotive and heavy equipment repair, is down significantly. Business is just not spending.

His gun business is up by a fair amount. A very high percentage of his customers cite Obama's election as their reason for purchasing additional guns and ammunition at this time.

I do not think that the Obama administration has gun control as a high priority. At the same time I think that many on the left want to severely limit the right of citizens to own guns. President-Elect Obama owes these people and does not appear to strongly oppose their attitude. I expect a strong effort from the left to enact much more stringent restrictions on gun and ammunition purchases. I do not expect an Obama administation to support gun owners rights. His comments regarding 'clinging to guns' and his record as an Illinois legislator argue against it.

Doc,

but as I recall it the Constitution might well not have been put into effect---as in, it might've fallen short of the required number of ratifying states---without the Bill of Rights.


Historically speaking, you are correct on this; to the best of my knowledge. The Federalist Papers help substantiate this.

When I referred to the Bill of Rights as an after-thought; I wasn't being as accurate as I should have been.

When we review how quickly the Bill of Rights got passed relative to the following Ammendments it becomes clear that while an afterthought, those concepts weighed heavily on the founders' minds.

". . .those concepts weighed heavily on the founders' minds."

Absolutely. I think most historians who specialize in that period of US history would agree the Antifederalists might never have come on board without the Bill of Rights.

I think most historians who specialize in that period of US history would agree the Antifederalists might never have come on board without the Bill of Rights.

All of my readings second that.

We can argue all day long about the positive and negative effects of our large, central government. What I find interesting is that the founders debated extensively regarding the degree in which government should be limited. Even Federalists like Adams never imagined the monstrosity we have today. Anyhow, I don't make that comment to rip on liberals - I appreciate your discussion on this. If anything, it's a testament to their foresight and wisdom that they created such a binding document that allowed for true change in order to adjust to the ever-changing times.

"If anything, it's a testament to their foresight and wisdom that they created such a binding document that allowed for true change in order to adjust to the ever-changing times."

Here's to the amending process. Which tends to undercut the "what would the Founding Fathers say" line of reasoning, since they obviously realized the country would change over time. You gotta hand it to them: they lived in a very different time, in a very different country, and they were definitely not dummies.

We can argue all day long about the positive and negative effects of our large, central government. What I find interesting is that the founders debated extensively regarding the degree in which government should be limited.

I was going to leave this alone but after the dick posted AH deflections I can't.

If you repo righties actually supported the constitution when your hero started encroaching on small removals our government would have no need to grow larger.

Now we need more government for wire tapping, and I know this is beyond your faculty.

I'm completely on board with Doc and Jeff on this.
Excellent posts, both of you!

Jeff--killer final comment. Folks, read the founding documents before you spout off. I think it's interesting (remembering that the founding documents are eminently interpretable, which is largely why we even have a Supreme Court) that the Second Amendment refers to "a well-regulated militia," not to individuals protecting their homes from home invasion (a reflection of society at the time and of the reason the documents were written). One common interpretation is that the amendment was written to protect the rights of citizens should they need to protect themselves from a government run amok. And of note here is that there was no standing army at the time. Farmers and merchants and other regular citizens needed to band together to overthrow the British Empire, remember? So let's talk about how this connects, since it was why (or so the most common interpretation I know of has it) the thing was written and adopted.

Too, I'd like to see some stats on this home invasion business. How many home invasions are there per year in the United States? How many feature armed interlopers rather than idiots just breaking in? What are the weapons of choice for these armed interlopers? I fully understand the theory behind "if you bring a knife, you better be sure he doesn't have a gun" and all that. But how common and how realistic is this? Oh, and I'll take a baseball or hefty stick (I have a very solid walking stick) over a knife any day, unless that knife-wielder is a trained special-forces operative or some other very serious expert. If Joe Home Invader is carrying his little ole knife and I pick up my walking stick (in which use I am not trained, but it's long and heavy), I'm fairly confident that unless he's faster than I am and wakes me from a sound sleep, I can beat that fucker. And then there's this: I bet a high-quality recording of a shotgun being racked will scare a large number of home invaders the fuck outta my house. You gotta be one desperate burglar to take on a shotgun. But maybe that's a myth perpetuated by liberal pantywaists.

But okay, let's accept that guns are necessary or advisable for home protection. I have no problem with people owning guns as long as they're smart and safe about it. I grew up in a gun-owning, hunting household, and my stepfather, for all his many flaws, was an extremely responsible gun owner. But why in the world does anyone _need_ assault weapons. Unless you're being invaded by people with shotguns or assault weapons, a simple shotgun or handgun should suffice as protection, I think. I find it revealing that one friend said, in response to my question as to why anyone needs, say, an AK47, "Cause it's fuckin' cooool." Yes, it is. I won't argue that for a second. I love action movies and I can enjoy blowing shit up. I also might note that my farthest left buddy (makes me look rightwing) owns several guns, not all of them legal, I don't think. This is not a liberal/conservative issue, folks. So many Americans like to boil down issues into right/left or other stark dichotomies. It is never that simple. Abortion is not a right/left argument. The Iraq war is not a right/left issue. Gay marriage is not a right/left issue.

We LET OURSELVES be manipulated by the politicians and the media (not the lamestream liberal-bias media, ALL the media, from Air America to Rush Limbaugh, from CNN to Fox News).

I'm off to the gun store.

BTW, Obama's new gun bill is a complete gun ban.
The bill gives the attorney general the right to determine what is legal and what isn't.

#69 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-01-19 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag


I doubt you know what you are talking about. However, the new second amendement says that Americans have the right to bear arms, but that that right may be infringed any way the government sees fit.

The new second amendment came from the USSC, not Obama.

It would be more accurate to say Rush and people like him are the ones selling these guns as they are the ones who convinced millions of idiots that Obama is after private gun owners.

Twice I've seen this comment about the "new second amendment." What is meant by this? Do you mean that the SCOTUS appears to have interpreted the amendment in the way you suggest? Then say that, please. The SCOTUS does not have the power to rewrite any amendment or law. It has the power to interpret and to set precedent. And those decisions can be overturned by later iterations of the SCOTUS. For a good model of this, see the history of civil rights in this country.

I don't follow the decisions of the SCOTUS well enough to know the decisions to which you are apparently referring, but I did pay attention in Civics class. : ) (Oh, and yes, you can make the argument that there is a "force of law" in place. But please, let's use language that is accurate, especially in contexts in which precision of language is something on which much turns.)

While I'm at it, I didn't see a link to "Obama's new gun bill." I'd be interested in that.

I still think what a lot of the anti-gun people are missing is that a gun is an inanimate object. They are tools, and like other can be misused but it is the person not the hunk of metal and polymer. There is no way to take away all implements of death. By denying that they are are no more then tools you deny that man has a choice, you cannot regulate the irrational people.
Then there is the massive amount of misinformation about guns out there. I have come across so many people that think that any semi auto is just a few quick file strokes away from becoming a full auto weapon. This just is not the case, the process is very involved and even the you are just making the weapon work improperly. Yes, you can get a full auto trigger group for an AR-15 but they are not easy to come by and are pretty much illegal most places. So to do this you prove that you will not follow the law. If you will break this law why not the one that would prohibit any other weapon?
But instead of reason all to many will just call any semi-auto an assault weapon even though they are not nor have ever been. Assault rifle is a term thrown out by groups try to create fear and panic without regard for truth. An assault rifle is usual defined as a medium caliber rifle, with a detachable magazine capable of select fire. Most ak's and AR-15s do not match this description but they still have the term thrown at them in effort to produce fear.
It boggles my mind at the fear generated by these tools. You constantly hear people saying this crime or that random killing could have been avoided as if a gun was the only way to kill someone.
Guns will always be necessary to protect our freedom and our families. Unfortunately that is just the way the world is. I t does scare me when you look at the viciously anti-gun stance obama has stood for and even biden is one of the biggest opponents of gun rights we have seen in Washington. However, there will not be enough support for them to do anything about it, people have come to like their freedom and will not give it up. I for one feel safer knowing that if i was in a situation where i need to protect my family that i would have the upper hand. So i keep a semi-auto short barreled rifle next to my bed, when it comes to my family i won't play fair. I do not like anyone trying to take that away from me.
So i wait to see if obama will try to do what he has in the past and take more of my few remaining rights away or if he will cave to pressure like he has shown so far. Either way i completely understand so many wanting to do what they can to protect what one was a guaranteed right.

Thanks for some clarity, Salamandagator, on the definitions of assault weapon, etc. I'm the first to admit that the jargon of weapons manufacture and classification is beyond my ken. I will continue to disagree, however, with certain of your stances (like that guns are necessary to protect our freedom and our families? from what? see my earlier questions). But that's cool. Reasonable people can disagree. And up until the end of your post (take away rights, cave to pressure), I found your post eminently reasonable. Even given that, would we could have more posts like yours on this site. Even with that strong language, with its embedded accusations, you weren't hateful or vulgar. Thank you.

That said, while guns don't kill people, people kill people, a gun is probably the easiest death-dealing tool to use (not to use well, but to use). It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife or a club or bare hands than with a gun. And guns are dehumanizing--it's a lot easier to shoot someone from far away than it is to kill with a knife or club. You have to want to achieve that killing a lot more with the less effective death-dealing device. Which of course is the point in the home-invasion argument: one wants a weapon that will bring down the intruder fast and easily. I would think that most burglars want easy and without interference, and that many would run away simply upon being confronted, and I would think that most B&E perps are not armed with guns, except in fairly large cities, but I don't have stats to back that up. Does anyone? In discussions of this nature, where both sides use loaded language ("assault rifles," "home invasion," "take away my rights," "protect my family"), I wish people would use some hard data...

Oh, and btw, I've lived in New York City and I've lived in towns ranging in size from 300 to 13,000. I've never had my home broken into (though two summers ago, someone broke into my car in my driveway and stole loose change but left the printer and other tech devices which I had foolishly left in there). I'm forty years old, and I've never seen a need to protect my family in the ways people talk about. Are crime rates of this kind really so much higher than my experience would dictate? (Yes, I know, one or even one family does not a representative sample make.)

Do you mean that the SCOTUS appears to have interpreted the amendment in the way you suggest? Then say that, please.

Sure--no problem

The USSC has rewritten the second amendment to say:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed as the government sees fit.

The second amendment used to read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The USSC ignored---A well regulated Militia,

The USSC ignored---being necessary to the security of a free State.

The USSC changed---the right of the people to keep and bear Arms---to---The people have the right to keep and bear arms.

The USSC changed---shall not be infringed---to---but thatright shall be infringed as we see fit.

He also said the government can strictly regulate when and where people have guns. For example, he said guns may be prohibited near schools and in or near government buildings.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia said.

That means it can be infringed as they see fit. Like what and how many and how large, and registration. Infringed.

articles.latimes.com


The SCOTUS does not have the power to rewrite any amendment or law.

As shown, you have been proven mistaken. They rewrote the second amendment. Last week they rewrote the fourth amendment. First they rewrote the eminent domain laws.

Even members of the USSC say they rewrote law.

Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the dissenters, said the 2nd Amendment "was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several states to maintain a well-regulated militia."

He read the whole sentence--and he understands English--unlike the majority of the court which is composed of activist judges.

"The court is making new law today" to extend this right to individuals acting on their own, Stevens said.

articles.latimes.com

The Supreme Court also recently said "you have the right to be secure in your property and effects from unreasonable searches and seziures...unless we happen to find something," but that is certainly NOT what the 4th amendment says to anyone literate.

Sorry Bob, I resaid what you did. I really need to read all posts before jumping in.

You are so full of shit on this Buffalo Bob Your hair follicals are oozing brown shit. The Second Amendment has ALWAYS protected the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms. My God dude do You have some sort of mental fucktional problem. WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS COUNTLESS TIMES. I ain't no brainiac but even I can comprehend it.

Larry

Larry, that is the debate because nowhere does it say "individual," there are no limits on what defines an arm (are nuclear arms considered arms and can I own one), nor has anyone really worked out the first part about maintaining a proper militia.

Kanrei the first 9 amendments protect the Individual from their Government. At least that is what it USED to be. The rest was left upto the States or the people in the 10th amendment.

Larry

#95 | Posted by LarryMohr

No Larry, the first 10 are to limit the power of the Federal government only. Nowhere does it give individuals anything. It says Congress shall pass no law restricting free speech, not that the individual has free speech: the second part is implied, but never stated.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


The History behind the need for the Second Amendment.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


The Reasoning behind it.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


Who the Second Amendment applies to. The INDIVIDUAL

#43 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-12-24 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

adams.patriot.net

You are so very wrong on this Kanrei the first 9 AMendments pertyain to the INDIVIDUAL the 10th AMendment pertains to the States. It is the rights the people have that is PROTECTED by the US Constitutions bill of rights. If it's not found in the first 9 then it is reserved for the States.

Larry

Note the mention of the "militia" in the second amendment. It is there because the issue at that time was whether the U.S. should have a standing army or whether its protection should come through the use of militias. The individual is secondary, as the source of the militia.

Way too much interpreting is done through the prism of our times rather than that of the reality of the times that the Constitution was drafted.

No Larry, you are the wrong one, but we can go round and round and get nowhere so I am bowing out before the merry-go-round begins. If you wish to claim victory, you may do so, but I believe you to be wrong and you believe me to be and that is all there is to it.

It is there because the issue at that time was whether the U.S. should have a standing army or whether its protection should come through the use of militias.

If one looks at other things Thomas Jefferson said, it appears that a militia in this case would be used to defend the states from a Federal army. In that point of view, it would be simply that the Feds cannot take away guns.

The 10 Amendments build upon one another, each lessening the power of the Feds. It starts with speech and religion and protest, then makes sure the states keep their guns to ensure free speech. It next forbids Federal forces from law enforcement to further weaken the feds. It goes all the way up to finally making it very clear that any power not expressly given to the feds is a state power. No thought ever went to individuals in the Constitution.

No Kanrei use Your common sense sometime maybe it will be useful. The first 9 amendments apply to the Individuals rights that are protected from the Government. The 10th is what the rights of the People or the States exclusively. Go through them and see if Your wrongheaded beliefs hold water. I can promise You they won't hold water any better than a seive.

Larry

Larry,
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make you right, it makes you redundant. After reading your kind and thoughtfull responses to my words, you can go screw yourself.

The State Militias were for reprisals rfrom other States of the Union and for defense from the savages(The Native AMericans) That is why the Second amendment was for. It applied to every able bodied Free male to have and be proficient with a rifle or arms at the time.

Larry

The First nine amendments Kanrei You try and tell Me that they don't pertain to the Individual and the Individuals protections from the Government and You will be full of shit if You do. Thank You

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution


Larry

Larry,
Since repeating yourself works for you, here am I repeating myself. Maybe you can understand it this time and, if not, you can look up any words giving you trouble.


we can go round and round and get nowhere so I am bowing out before the merry-go-round begins. If you wish to claim victory, you may do so, but I believe you to be wrong and you believe me to be and that is all there is to it.

I really don't care enough about you to bother changing what you think.

"If one looks at other things Thomas Jefferson said, it appears that a militia in this case would be used to defend the states from a Federal army." - Kanrei

The issue was militia vs. standing army, which was best, in the new republic, to defend against an enemy. Some of the drafters were for a standing army, others against it. The Jefferson vs. Hamilton argument. The second amendment was the compromise. _Not_ whether individuals should or shouldn't be allowed to have weapons. At that time, carrying weapons was considered a necessity, so no special consideration was given to that question.

"then makes sure the states keep their guns to ensure free speech." - Kanrei

That's the modern interpretation. Not that of the time of the drafting of the constitution.

Larry mohr

You simply can't read English.

There can be no dispute as to what my #90 post said. The proof is---you don't dispute it. You simply agree with the court---you simply rewrite the second amendment yourself. You ignore all that they ignore, and you rewrite all they rewrote. Stevens read the whole sentence and interpreted it properly as did all four dissenters.

Stevens agrees with me---you agree with the acivist judges that rewrote the second amendment to read:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right may be infringed as the government sees fit.

That is the entire meaning of the new second amendment. Period. If you disagree with that---then tell me what else the second amendment says now?

Not that of the time of the drafting of the constitution.

#110 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-01-19 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

bullshit

No I go by what the US Constitution states. I am sorry that You and Kanrei don't comprehend it. It's sad but a las what can I do?? Sighhhhhh

Larry

"bullshit" - BBob

Ok, then supply some evidence to the contrary. Because Jefferson himself indicated that it was an issue of standing army vs. militia. He did not mention free speech in his arguments re this issue.

www.ngb.army.mil

About the National Guard
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

adams.patriot.net

Issue Two: on page 124 of the Love v. Peppersack decision, U.S. v. Miller (83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939)) is used to support the definition that the Second Amendment preserves a collective right vice an individual right. But in U.S. v. Miller


a. the term "collective right" nowhere appears,
b. there is not even a hint of a "collective right" concept, and
c. there is no discussion or hint that "the people" in the Second Amendment means anything different than the use of "the people" in the other amendments.
On the contrary, the discussion within U.S. v. Miller (83 L. Ed. 1209 *[179 and following] (1939)) on the militia concept stresses individual ownership of arms:

a. "the Militia ... civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."
b. "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
c. "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."
d. In a militia, the character of the laborer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of a soldier."
e. "the militia system ... implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms."
f. etc.
And further, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990)), specifically the bottom of the column on page 226, the Supreme Court indicated that: "the term 'the people,' as used in the Constitution's First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the United States to be considered part of that community".

"The first two phrases are related to each other. The fact that the third phrase is separated from the verbal phrase by a comma indicates that the verbal phrase has more than the third phrase as its subject. The abbreviated grammatical construction actually renders the meaning of the Second Amendment as: "Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be infringed." "

The person who wrote that was not somebody who was well versed in sentence construction. It's a bloody simple "if-then" sentence. There is no "neither" included in any way. Talk about reinterpretation!!

The person who wrote that was not somebody who was well versed in sentence construction. It's a bloody simple "if-then" sentence.

I agree it is probably one of the worst written sentences in the history of the written word and could not have been more obtuse if it tried. It becomes how you read the "if/then" statement.

I see it as, if there is a properly maintained militia, then that takes care of the right to bear arms. Others seem to read it as the right to bear arms is what creates the properly maintained militia. That is what I was trying to explain to Larry, but he is obsessed with some concept of an absolute right answer to a question that has been debated for decades.

Interesting conversation about militia here. I'm glad someone's talking to that point. Perhaps this again illustrates why we have a SCOTUS. It is that group's job to analyze and interpret intent and parse meaning. Few of the amendments are absolutely clear and uninterpretable. But I'm not a scholar, just a literate and somewhat history-knowledgeable citizen. And again, Larry, it has NOT been rewritten. No official can rewrite the Constitution. They can reinterpret it. Again, you may accurately speak of force of law--it is _as if_ they have rewritten--but it simply is not accurate to say it has been rewritten. It has not. The only way to "rewrite" the Constitution is through something called an amendment. And even then it's not rewriting; it's amending, changing or overturning some earlier part (but usually adding to not overturning or taking away). But hang on to your rhetoric if you must. Just know that you lose reasonable readers, and that reiteration and extreme emphasis is not terribly conducive to persuasion. (And for the record, I'm so sick of the phrases "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench." Just more off-putting rhetoric. Our system is built around processes, and using these processes is how we evolve.)

I am not the one who declared that the SCOTUS rewrote the US Constitution. That would be Buffalo Bob.

Oh, shit. Sorry, Larry! I guess I misfired. (Ha. Ha de ha. So clever I am.) Seriously. I apologize.


Oh, shit. Sorry, Larry! I guess I misfired. (Ha. Ha de ha. So clever I am.) Seriously. I apologize.

Posted by pragmatist at 2009-01-19 03:57 PM | Reply


Now that's funny however.

Larry

The militia has nothing to do with the new second amendment.

Well regulated has nothing to do with the new second amendment.

Neither does the protection of a free state have anything to do with the new second amendment.

The right to bear arms may be infringed at any time according to the new second amendment.

Jefferson was for the individual right to bear arms.

Jefferson did not write the second amendment.

You people must think the founding fathers were too stupid to say:

Individuals have the right to keep and beararms.

That's because you are fucking morons.

If you weren't fucking morons--you would pass such an amendment that says what the new second amendment says,

The original second amendment was for exactly what Stevens and the rest of the court says it WAS. Emphasis on past tense.

Yeah--the Supreme Court makes the laws of the land---the New Supreme Court that is, in the New America.

Now STFU or pick a point and show where I a mistaken.

Buzzzzzz wrong answer Buffalo Bob go to the back of the class

Larry


Buzzzzzz wrong answer Buffalo Bob go to the back of the class

Larry

STFU or pick a point and show where I a mistaken.

#122 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-01-19 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag

I won't do it Buffalo Bob I will let James madison do it for Me.

truthammo.com

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition... it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties... It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." 3

Larry Mohr

James Madison is not on the USSC. His words are meaningless. The activist judges on the USSC are the important players now---Madison is dead.

Tell me the part of the well regulated militia in todays new second amendment.

James Madison is not on the USSC. His words are meaningless. The activist judges on the USSC are the important players now---Madison is dead.


Tell me the part of the well regulated militia in todays new second amendment.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-01-19 06:34 PM | Reply

You just sunk Yourself Buffalo Bob. James Madison's words are not useless they are very usefull because He is the one who wrote the fucking amendment for christ sake. Now put up or shut up. Tell Me where in the United States Constitution's Second AMendment where it protects the Militia's right to keep and bear arms?? It doesn't that right is protected by the second amendment for THE INDIVIUDAL. Sorry that You can not grasp that unmitigating fact.

Larry

As a matter of fact I do believe the 14th amendment reaffirms the INDIVIUDALS rights under the Bill of Rights. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Bill of rights that would be the first 9 Hmmmmmmmmmmm I do believe number 2 comes before 9 does it not?? Yes it most certainly does. Now Your goose is thoroughly cooked do You want it blackened too??

Larry

Larry Mohr

The USSC negated Madisons words--get it yet?

Madison may have been in favor of the individual right to bear arms---but that isn't what he wrote.

You must think he could write clearly in the citation you reference, yet was too stupid to be as clear in the amendment. That's because the second amendment means what Stevens and the people who can read on the USSC said it means.

so.

tell me.

Tell me the part of the well regulated militia in todays new second amendment.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS FOR THE INDIVIUDAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The SCOTUS reaffirmed this in their 5 4 decision. It should have been 9 to zero but some of the SCOTUS do not understand it. I am sorry that You don't understand it Buffalo Bob. Obviously You and the 4 Justices need to read what James Madison said about the subject.

Larry

Larry Mohr

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of activist judges. They changed the second amendment for political reasons.

Anyone else?

Tell me the part of the well regulated militia in todays new second amendment.

Live in ignorance. See if I give a flying fuck.

You and the 4 Justices need to read what James Madison said about the subject.


Larry

#130 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-01-19 06:54 PM | Reply


The Supreme Courts job is to interpret the Constitution--not read up on James Madison. They didn't do their job. Those five judges should be impeached.

Second and fourth amendments are casualties as is the concept of personal property since a business may claim your land against your will under the new eminent domain laws these activist judges see int the Constitution.


Live in ignorance. See if I give a flying fuck.

#132 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-01-19 07:11 PM | Reply | F


You're the DUmmy that can't explain the part of the well regulated militia in the new second amendment.

They didn't change the 2nd amendment, moron.

They ruled the DC ban unconstitutional.

The flaming leftists dissented since they obviously don't know what "the people" mean.

Just like you.

Babuenthal

Answer up then dumMy.

What is the part of the well regulated militia in the new second amendment?

There IS no new 2nd amendment, you fucking idiot.

My copy of the constitution still has the same verbiage.

If i get a new one, it will still read the same

Just because there isn't a need at the present for a militia, doesn't mean THE PEOPLE lose their right to bear arms.

You're just pissed the court affirmed the original intent of the 2nd amendment, the people, you and me, the right to be armed.

We ARE armed and there's not much you can do about it.

Go back to your Moon smokestacks, since your idiocy is understandable there.

"You are mistaken again. The right to bear arms is a liberal concept--not a conservative concept."

It's a libertarian concept, which is a far cry from todays liberal.

"No you didn't. You spent 8 years in the marines because it made you feel like a macho man."

You're a pyscho, not a psychic, bob.

I was an avionics tech in the air wing, not a neanderthal, nuckle dragging caricature that you try to portray me as.

"According to the last election, the majority of Americans voted for the liberal candidate."

This makes all of them liberals?

Your typical smokestack "logic".

Answer up then dumMy.

What is the part of the well regulated militia in the second amendment?

#136 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-01-19 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag

The increased gun sales will be directly related to the impending dittohead suicides.

i imagine he'll do quite well in the ammo department as well.

I sold my shotguns when I moved, and never owned a handgun. Figured if I hadn't used them in 5 years, might as well give em to someone who will get some use out of them.

But I did go to a gun show, and see AK-47's have doubled in retail price since last summer. The dealers positioned themselves for this, and are charging top of the market prices....

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

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