The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that the Chicago hand gun ban is unconstitutional. I agree that it is as I know many people who live there who have been assaulted way too many times. Of course, they bought guns and, up until now, have had them illegally. One of my friends there has been attacked several times, bought a gun, and then successfully repelled a would be mugger after she introduced him to her new friend. The Chicago police didn't really care that she had a gun illegally and told her that it was probably a good idea that she had one. At least now, it will be--or eventually be--legal.
The real question, though, is whether or not any of this will matter to the Cult. Can they actually be happy for yet another victory? Or will they continue to believe that Obama is "ready to pounce?" And that liberals are going to send them all to be fitted for brown shirts and re-education camps?
I'm betting on the latter. They always have to have someone agin' em!
51 comments:
And which way did Obama's appointee decide?
Here's a hint:
It went our way IN SPITE OF Obama's pick for the Supreme Court.
"In McDonald v. Chicago (08-1571), the Court reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Alito. The vote is 5-4. Justice Stevens writes a dissenting opinion, and Justice Breyer writes a separate one, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor."
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that the Chicago hand gun ban is unconstitutional. I agree that it is as I know many people who live there who have been assaulted way too many times.
That says everything that need be said about you, Mark. You agree, not because of what the law says, or what the framers of the Constitution intended, but because you care about the result.
In other words, your opinion of pretty much any law can be reduced to "justice" = "a decision in your favor".
What are you crowing about - the Administration didn't file an amicus brief in this case, and argued against Heller. Congrats - they are only oh-for-one.
I know this is probably much too nuanced for you, but there are a number of pro-RKBA scholars who have pointed out that there is still a lot of room for regulation short of a ban.
Then again, I recall that you don't understand that a ban on a type of firearm actually is a B-A-N, even if it isn't a ban on ALL firearms.
Of course extending Heller via incorporation is a good step. We are finally headed in the right direction! The bad news is that we are still only one SC justice away from reversing course.
Anyone think our right to keep and bear arms will become more secure by the confirmation of Elena Kagan?
Anyone? Bueller?
No, anon, I agree because what the law says AND because it has a practical application in reality. Does the 2nd amendment protect the right to own an automatic weapon? Yes. Does owning a machine gun have a practical application in reality? No. Bartlett will never know how right he was when he drew a comparison between the conservative of today with the liberal of the 60s.
Of course, none of this addresses the issue of state's rights which have been usurped in this case. While I do agree that the ban is unconstitutional, the same people who argue for state's rights really don't give a shit about them when it comes to guns. Remember, I think reasonable federal power is OK. But not the Cult member. So...federal power IS OK as long as we agree with it!! It's not ______ when we do it:)
Obama doesn't need to be Ready To Pounce - his SC nominee just needs to be...or the local officials in the City of Chicago need to be.
Now we're debating the next nominee who wanted the military banned from college campuses and you dems apparantly don't see anything wrong with that. Didn't she also say she didn't mind if the govt banned books? What was the reaction on here when a certain someone else was thought to have banned books?
Why are you still asking so many questions? Your folks were elected because they supposedly had all the answers.
If the ban was unconstitutional, then how is it a "state right" to enact such bans?
Ed, it is THEY who have questions for US, not the other way around!
State rights are always usurped when they are deemed unconstitutional Mark and nobody except you cares about "what the cult thinks". It doesn't really matter who agrees with it...this isn't a popularity contest.
Federal power is not ok if it is unconstitutional.
Talk to us, not the voices in your head that tell you "what conservatives think".
Regardless of your idiocy regarding "The Cure", why don't we all stop and realize:
The second amendment was voted on, and it passed 5-4.
Doesn't that scare anyone else?
Let's rephrase it:
The SCOTUS affirmed that Mormanism was not the official religion of these United States in a 5-4 decision.
The SCOTUS agreed with the petitioner's claim that burning at the stake for parking violations is inhumane, and upheld the 8th amendment 5-4.
In a stunning 5-4 decision, SCOTUS affirmed that citizens have the right to peaceably assemble in accordance with the 1st amendment.
I'm just starting to read the decision, so perhaps I will be enlightened... but shouldn't all of the fanciful cases above have been 9-0?
dw
It doesn't really matter who agrees with it...this isn't a popularity contest.
"Lies are still lies even if everyone believes them. Truth is still truth even if no one believes it."
Sweet Jebus. Stevens' dissent is frickin unreadable.
Let me save future readers the pain. Just skip to section V of his dissent. Love this gem:
"First, firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty."
Which is true, if the 'bad' guys and the 'good' guys both have guns. Justice Stevens seems to have forgotten that the point of the case is to allow the 'good' guys to have a gun.
How about:
"The handgun is itself a tool for crime; the handgun’s bullets are the violence."
I'd rather watch Judge Dredd, cold sober, twice, before I tried to read that opinion again.
dw
"If the ban was unconstitutional, then how is it a "state right" to enact such bans?"
But this is the same argument that conservatives make all the time...if they don't like federal laws, they scream about federal power and how it should be up to the states to decide. What is there is a community that wants to ban guns? They aren't allowed to according to the federal government. That's fine by me because I think federal government should have that power to change laws that don't make sense or, in this case, don't allow people to protect themselves.
But why doesn't the conservative? It seems like they only yelp about federal power when it's about something they don't like.
Federal Laws are not the same thing as the Constitution. Congress can pass laws and the president can sign them...that doesn't mean the laws they write are constitutional or automatically become constitutional amendments.
I hear your argument Mark, and agree to a certain extent. For example, I think Federal prosecution of marijuana growers -legally licensed to do by the state of California - is reprehensible.
Your statement makes me think. Well played, sir.
dw
ps. In an effort to make fun of you, I will now refer to your "The Cult" as "The Cure".
"But this is the same argument that conservatives make all the time..."
Oh fer' cryin' out loud! I'd think that even you would learn something after years and years of arguing with us! How, oh how, do you managed to be so frikkin' dense?!?
(BTW… this is why I accuse you of demonizing conservatives. YOU claim we think something bears almost no resemblance to what we ACTUALLY think. In other words, you lie about us; apparently to yourself as well as others. It's one think to look at evidence and reach unreasonable conclusion, it's an entirely different level of bizarre when you look at something that is directly observable—such as our arguments—and see something which is entirely different than what you're observing. It's as if we've built a race car, but when you look at it, you see a pterodactyl.)
What things do we say the Federal Government is legitimately permitted to do?
And what things do we say they are not legitimately permitted to do?
Where is that difference defined?
Here's a hint: Our "likes" have nothing to do with it.
Here's another hint: We've been trying to explain this to you FOR YEARS. Stop listening to the little voice in your head and try paying attention to what our ACTUAL arguments are!!!
DW, how about calling it "The Köö1t"? Or maybe we could just borrow Marxaphasia's tactic and start calling his "Köö1t" meme what it is: The Alinsky.
And just after posting all that, I came up with much simpler questions which make the same point?
What is the definition of a states' right?
Where does "The Köö1t" get that definition from?
Correction:
Not "point?", "point:"
No, anon, I agree because what the law says AND because it has a practical application in reality.
You're a lying sack of shit.
It is the Constitutional duty of the Federal government to secure the border. It most certainly does have a practical application in reality, since people are dying for lack of it.
So there you are, a law that is not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required, whose application in reality puts people's lives on the line. And your response is to applaud those who refuse to obey or enforce that law.
Excuse me if I don't fall for such an obvious line of horseshit. Your own positions define you as a liar.
But this is the same argument that conservatives make all the time...
No M, and this is PRECISELY what makes you a cargo-cultist. You think you understand the argument but you don't - you just ape the gestures and wait for the goodies, so terribly disappointed when they don't arrive. You never bother to examine WHY what you are doing doesn't work. If I were feeling less charitable at the moment, I might argue that you were incapable of understanding - but I actually believe you are. It's just more work than spooling up a good rant and so for you, not really worth it.
"What things do we say the Federal Government is legitimately permitted to do?"
This says it all, Ed. You (along with many others) have set themselves up as the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And the Bible, for that matter. Take, for example, the comment above. In anon's eyes, anon and only anon knows what securing the border means. This flies in spite of changing laws over the last 40 years regarding immigration.
It is because of this conceit that you completely fail to see (or understand) that "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." I know no such conceit and am willing to submit that there are many diverse ways of looking at just about anything...some of which can be superior to my point of view. Can you say the same thing?
Words mean things you damned fool!!! The authors of those words are the "ultimate authority" on the meanings, and the words they chose carry those meanings and authority!
There is what the author of those words was intending to get across, and then there's everything else. In other words, there's the true meaning, and incorrect meanings. And incorrect meanings applied deliberately are called "lies."
"I know no such conceit and am willing to submit that there are many diverse ways of looking at just about anything...some of which can be superior to my point of view."
In other words, you claim there is no truth, no meaning intended by the author. And even if there are "better" views of the meaning, you will stick to your own anyway.
"Can you say the same thing?"
HELL NO!!!
I start with the position that the author of particular words is attempting to communicate a particular concept. It is my job to try to make sure I understand that meaning with as little distortion as possible. Imposing my own desires and meanings on the text are invalid. Period.
There are several tools we can use to accomplish that goal.
1) Always examine the context. This includes the immediate sentence around the words or phrase at issue, the surrounding paragraph, the full context of the statements (a speech, a book, a discussion, etc.), and even broader contextual clues such as the situation where the statements were made, the person's pattern of conduct, current events, common worldviews, etc.
2) If the meaning is unclear, read it again. If it's still unclear, read it again. Continue rereading until it's clear, or it becomes clear that the meaning cannot be understood.
3) If it's important, check with the author to make sure I've understood the statement correctly. If the author is accessible, ask them directly. (I've asked you to clarify statements in the past. Those where cases of using this technique.) If they're inaccessible, read other things they've written on the subject, which frequently clarifies the uncertain statement.
In the case of Constitution, we have numerous writings by the men who wrote the thing in the first place. For example, there's the Federalist Papers, and there are numerous letters written by the framers of the Constitution clarifying what they meant by what they put into it.
I do not set myself up a "the ultimate authority" on the Bible or the Constitution. Nor does anyone else. (God is the ultimate authority on the Bible, and the Founders were the same for the Constitution.) But I do set out to educate myself on them so that I can understand them better. (As a teacher, isn't that what your life's work is supposed to be about?) In other words, I study them—and commentaries on them—to develop expertise.
Obviously, even experts on subjects frequently disagree with each other in areas where there is uncertainty. But in other areas where is clarity (say, physics), those who try to deny things which are obvious (say, claiming that gravity doesn't exist) quickly, and deservedly become objects of ridicule.
Which is why I have zero respect for you. You frequently look at clear, unambiguous statements in the Constitution and Bible, and come up with something that bears little resemblance to the plain meaning.
When you say to your wife, "I love you", do you really want her applying your reading methods to what you said? Not if you want to stay married!
Or put more simply:
The Constitution is the STANDARD of law in this country. What it says, goes.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
— U. S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2
The Bible is the STANDARD of beliefs for Christianity. What it says, goes.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16–17 HCSB)
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong in relation to those STANDARDS, not in relation to you. If I'm shown to be wrong, or discover that I'm wrong in relation to those STANDARDS, then I have a duty to correct my thinking, as do you.
"The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures."
(2 Peter 3:16 HCSB)
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
— James Madison
" Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
What does "pride" mean?
What does "haughty spirit" mean?
In relation to what?
I know no such conceit
Suddenly I am feeling much less charitable.
You have declared yourself a superior authority on the Constitution to the man who for the most part wrote it. And you dare say you have no conceit? It would be a conceit for you to claim to understand it better than I do, let alone better than James Madison.
Now, what is that saying again about motes and beams?
From the CSM:
"The task of reducing gun killings by both criminals and law-abiding citizens requires a constant legal challenge to notions of gun rights and also passing laws to regulate such practices as sales at gun shows."
Note the equation of criminals and law-abiding citizens. I suppose to a truly Christian perspective, thou shalt not kill demands pacificism and renouncing your worldly existence (both property and body), in order not to injure the spirit. Personally I say fuck that. If ever I kill someone it will be either gross negligence or self defense and I FULLY FUCKING RESENT being equated with someone with a criminal history (as the vast majority of murderers have).
Contrast that with this:
"When you stop and think about it, there is no obvious reason why issues like gun control should be ideological issues in the first place. It is ultimately an empirical question whether allowing ordinary citizens to have firearms will increase or decrease the amount of violence."
Which shows why the CSM editors chose to dissemble about actual violence and that the majority of people killed by guns are suicides. It wouldn't comport with their worldview, their ideology - and so they turn a blind eye to the empirical.
In anon's eyes, anon and only anon knows what securing the border means.
Once again, horseshit.
To quote Markadelphia on TSM:
"A porous border isn't the problem."
Followed by several days pointedly ignoring the question of how you can secure the border by anyone's definition if you decline to even identify those who come across that border.
Here's Webster's take on the subject:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secure
Note "Guarantee", as used in the US Constitution. But even aside from that, there is not one of those definitions (as a verb) where anything can be "secured" if you refuse to even identify something to determine whether or not it is a hazard.
If you're going to display your ignorance, you'd probably be better of not immortalizing it in print. You are your credibility's own worst enemy.
...anon and only anon knows...
Do you actually want to know what assumptions I'm using? Because you're right, everyone has buried assumptions in everything they say. Here's mine: I'm assuming that the words in an American legal document have meanings that can be discovered in commonly used American dictionaries.
That makes me an extremist who is Just Like Al Qaeda(tm), doesn't it?
PL, I'm going to use "the strategy" again Thursday night at the track. Is there any info online anywhere about the horses running in the races? Any charts online? Is there still info in the star trib on race day?
Thanks
As for State's rights... I fully expect the Federal Govt to step in and correct things via the SCOTUS and Constitution if said "State's rights" are violating my Constitutionally guaranteed rights. That is a justifiable and legitimate function of the Federal Government. When Federal Government seeks to overstep it's Constitutionally mandated bounds, then yes I support State's Rights. Can you see the constant throughout? If not, let me point it out to you.
The constant is the protection and/or expansion of individual liberty.
Kevin (or anyone), what happens when that individual liberty is threatened or taken away by private corporations?
Mark, imagine I am the robot from Lost In Space, waving my arms.
Danger!
I'll go first, but I'm sure your last comment will be brutalized.
ahem...
Whatever do you mean? What circumstance are you referring to, where a corporation threatened your liberty?
dw
Does the 2nd amendment protect the right to own an automatic weapon? Yes. Does owning a machine gun have a practical application in reality? No.
It doesn't?
I'm sure Arizona border ranchers, like Robert Krentz, will be comforted by that. Perhaps you should write a letter to his widow explaining it to her.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/02/20100402arizona-rancher-likely-killed-by-drug-cartel-scout02-ON.html
For that matter, perhaps you should explain it to anyone who makes their living on the open sea and has a reasonable expectation of going within 500 miles of Somalia... or Malaysia... or the Caribbean.
Just because it doesn't make the news like Somalia doesn't mean it never happens here. The Navy can't be everywhere.
what happens when that individual liberty is threatened or taken away by private corporations?
Oh lawdie, lawdie, you aren't going for another Corporate Abuse are you?
Seriously, that horse is DEAD.
Mark, why are you changing the discussion? You wanted to know for what reason "the cult" did not support state's rights in this case and I gave you mine.
Simple question, simple answer.
I'm not changing the discussion. I do agree that it is the government's job to protect individual liberty and/or expand it. What happens when a private corporation curtails that freedom? Is it the federal government's job to step in?
This is the very crux of a core belief in conservatism so I think an answer is warranted....from anyone, not just Kevin.
What happens when a private corporation curtails that freedom? Is it the federal government's job to step in?
1. The Federal government's job is to limit the use of fraud or force. If a private corporation tries to persuade you or pressure you economically to give up your freedom, it is not the government's job to forcibly curtail your freedom to be a dumbass.
2. I have yet to see you demonstrate where a private corporation has curtailed freedom through fraud or force except through the agency of government. So "step in" and do what, exactly? Defend the corporation that has already bought them out, as evidenced by the fact that they are already able to use government as an agency of force against you?
Yeah sure, that'll help.
What happens when a private corporation curtails that freedom?
Such as?
You've had several months to find another example of this grave and ubiquitous problem. So surely you aren't attempting to make a Frankensteinian resurrection of Centerpoint/RMR?
You got anything but a handful of bullshit?
Wow, Mark. The people that post on your blog live in a fantasy land, don't they?
brendan, if you can think of an example of corporate force not enabled through government, by all means don't be bashful about sharing.
Yo brendan, if you can help M out, go right ahead. Not that any of the other regulars were of much help in the Centerpoint thread. All we got was a cultish "corporations are evil" murmur.
"…anon and only anon knows what securing the border means."
Do you think the guys who wrote the Constitution might know a thing or two about what they intended?
"In a letter to John Adams, George Washington declared that immigrants should be integrated into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."
In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."
In 1801, Alexander Hamilton recommended that we gradually draw newcomers into American life, "to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government."
— from this speech
Notice that the Founding Fathers pointed out that some who want to immigrate into this country should be welcomed, and some should not. Also notice that they stated what that distinction should be.
"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the person they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit [sic] the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."
…
"By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself, goes far towards a denial of the privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of at least a probability of their feeling a real interest in our affairs."
— Alexander Hamilton (Note: Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant. He was born in the British West Indies and immigrated when he was 15-17 years old.)
"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the person they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit [sic] the interests of our own country in favor of another. In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."
…
"By what has been said, it is not meant to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself, goes far towards a denial of the privilege. The present law was merely a temporary measure adopted under peculiar circumstances and perhaps demands revision. But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of at least a probability of their feeling a real interest in our affairs."
— Alexander Hamilton (Note: Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant. He was born in the British West Indies and immigrated when he was 15-17 years old.)
Oops. Sorry about the double post. Google threw an error.
I wouldn't worry about it, Ed. Mark's response is functionally going to amount to "tl;dr" - pretty much as always.
Show me an example where a private corporation has curtailed freedom and we'll talk. Remember, corporations do not have the power to imprison you or kill you if you do not buy there product. Only government has that power. Your past example of Centerpoint was farcical, and has been destroyed in prior discussions.
their not there. D'oh!
'People shouldn't have guns because if I had one I might get mad and shoot up a McDonalds.'
'Corporations are evil because they make me buy the newest iPhone that I don't need.'
Just a variation on the same theme.
Twenty bucks says M's next post is all about what that dumbass Steele had to say about Obama's Afghanistan policy.
Not a word about the actual policy itself, just a pointless, vapid rant about the Republicans. You know, those guys who ARE NOT running the govt these days.
Amazingly, as I surf the web, I see many who like M believe that the 2006 and '08 elections were validations of liberalism, not realizing the enormous element of repudiation of Republican policy and action leading up to those elections. History does indeed repeat itself, first as tragedy and after that as farce. And, like the Repubs of '06, they will not consider that it was their own damn fault.
History does indeed repeat itself...
Indeed it does. Bush followed by Obama is eerily reminiscent of reading about John Quincy Adams followed by Jackson.
Mayor Daley and the Chicago City Council display all the respect for the Supreme Court that you would expect from the party of George Wallace and Orval Faubus.
Post a Comment