Contributors

Friday, February 22, 2013

Good Words

I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them. I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation.

---(Republican Representative Joe Heck from Nevada)

And the tide continues to turn...

10 comments:

Nikto said...

The whole idea that "the government" is going to use gun registration information to go after people is silly. Why would a Democratic administration target Democrats who own guns?

If the tyrants were really after their enemies, they'd use party registration for their hit lists. The most rabid Republicans and gun owners are the ones who vote in Republican primaries and caucuses year after year. Which means voter registration information would be a far more reliable way of finding your enemies, because they will almost certainly have guns that they bought years ago or obtained through illegal means.

A group that was planning a tyrannical coup would be busy arming their side to the teeth, all the while trying to prevent the other side from exercising their rights to vote. They'd be trying to figure out ways to increase their power in government beyond their actual numbers.

Like, say, gerrymandering their districts so that they gain more seats in Congress even though they got fewer total votes than their opponents. They'd be figuring out a way to use that same mechanism to get their presidential candidate elected even though he got a minority of votes. Like the Republican plan to eliminate the winner-take-all electoral college and apportion those votes by congressional district instead. Rather than the infinitely more obvious and democratic method of a presidential popular vote.

The tyrant would introduce precedent-breaking legal tactics such as spiriting suspects away to secret overseas prisons, torturing suspects, building prisons where those suspects are tortured in places where US law doesn't apply (say, Guantanamo), wiretapping Americans without court warrants and detaining American citizens indefinitely without trial. All things that George Bush did.

By any measure, it is the Republicans who are running full-tilt toward authoritarianism and tyranny. Obama is using drone strikes against Americans overseas, but only liberals like Jon Stewart seem to be bothered by this.

There is no reasonable argument against universal background checks for gun purchases, or for destroying the records of such checks. The lack of checks allows criminals, terrorists and Mexican gun runners to legally arm themselves at any gun show, while the lack of permanent records makes it outrageously easy for straw buyers to supply weapons to those criminals and terrorists.

If James Holmes or Jared Loughner had been Muslim terrorists acting in the name of jihad the Republicans would be all over the Obama administration, the FBI and the CIA for not stopping a horrific act of terrorism on American soil. But because Holmes and Loughner were just run-of-the-mill American whack jobs bolstering their pitiful self images, the Republicans see no need to change anything.

We should try just as hard to stop acts of mass murder no matter what the murderer's motivation.

Anonymous said...

he tyrant would introduce precedent-breaking legal tactics…

Such as…

- bypassing the Senate's advise and consent power.

- ignoring the Constitution's requirement to pass a budget every year.

- bypassing the Constitution's requirement of a trial by jury to apply the death penalty.

Those are just some recent highlights.

Mark Ward said...

Brilliant comment, Nikto. Interesting that the side most heavily armed is the one concerned about tyranny. No doubt, they want everyone to live by their rules or else. Their behavior is far more authoritarian than that of the left so it makes sense that they would do the redirect, as they always do, to deflect attention from what they are up to out there.

ignoring the Constitution's requirement to pass a budget every year.

Lie.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/02/yeahnonot-really.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm still waiting for anyone to give me the clause in Article I that empowers Congress to demand universal background checks.

But apparently that is childish.

Mark Ward said...

ignoring the Constitution's requirement to pass a budget every year.

A whole day and still no admission of fault from someone who berates me about the Constitution. There is no such requirement in the Constitution nor are your being honest about how budgets are passed.

Anonymous said...

Okay, it appears that I was somewhat wrong. The Constitution does not actually require the Senate to pass an annual budget. At least it doesn't say that verbatim.

What it does say is that appropriations must be passed into law before any money can be spent. That means passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President.

So how do you account for money being spent for which the Constitution requires the passage of an appropriations law, when no such law has been passed? (Well, the House has passed such bills, but Harry Reid refuses to bring them up for a Senate vote. More details here.)

So yes, I got something (else) wrong. Now it's your turn, Mark.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (45 days and counting)

Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (31 days and counting)

Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (13 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (7 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (5 days and counting)

Mark Ward said...

So how do you account for money being spent for which the Constitution requires the passage of an appropriations law, when no such law has been passed?

Also, not true. Such laws have been passed. You could start with the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and work your way up to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Here's an explanation of that bill and why it is legal appropriate money in such a way.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-34.pdf

Further, the Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the parameters for spending for the next few years so any budget resolution out of the Senate would be redundant.

Juris Imprudent said...

Hey M, did you find the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress a general police power while you were looking for the part about the budget?

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to spend any more time on the budget thing because I really don't have the time. Besides, Juris, DJ, Grumpy Old Fart, and John Pryce know more about the subject than I do. I'll just leave you to their tender mercies.

So what about the other two actions, Mark? No comment on them? I did, after all, admit when I was wrong. (That's twice this week. You're still at no admissions since, well, ever.)

- bypassing the Senate's advise and consent power.

- bypassing the Constitution's requirement of a trial by jury to apply the death penalty.

----------

Given the following…

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
Markadelphia

and this…

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes? (31 days and counting)

Mark Ward said...

So what about the other two actions, Mark?

If you don't have the time for one, why would you have time for the other? Or perhaps you just want me to comment so you can critique that without putting in an real effort or thought yourself. No thanks.