Carnivore at TvM notes a little bit of fun psychology:
I like to do all my converting of anti-gun or ambivalent people by inviting them to empty a 30 round AK-47 magazine at the gun range. The big smiles on their faces tell me that a little safe fun is all it takes to convince them that guns aren’t evil. The blacker the rifle, the bigger the smile.
…but the real “beef” of the post is some good news from the Giuliani campaign; Hizzoner seems to have gotten his head a little straighter about the Second Amendment, in time for his invitation to speak at an NRA special convention:
[Giuliani] said his thinking on gun rights also was influenced by a federal appeals court decision that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington on the grounds that the Constitution gives individual citizens the right to own guns.
“It is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them,” he said of the ruling, adding it “sort of maybe even did more to crystalize my thinking on the whole gun issue in light of Sept. 11.”
He no longer argues, as gun control advocates do, that the right to bear arms applies only to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias. He now says that right also applies to individuals as well, and he cites the court ruling, Parker v. District of Columbia, that said the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns.
Carnivore – who may be the only blogger in town more pro-gun than I – approves:
… if it takes 9/11 and the Parker decision to change Giuliani’s mind, then I welcome him to the club. As a person who grew up and was a product of New York, with its (originally anti-Italian) gun laws, dating back to the early 1900s, I can see how he might have lived his life with his previous view of the Second Amendment and the feeling that it’s not important since most New Yorkers can’t even exercise that right.
So one of Giuliani’s big sticking points for this conservative seems to be getting a little less sticky.
Flip, meet flop.
When have I ever flipflopped on Rudy?
I was always interested, and have always had trouble with a couple of his stances.
That’s my smooth-talking Rudy!
The dude knows we don’t have time anymore to argue about national gun registration laws, so-called waiting periods, and frivolous suits blaming the gun industry when some dirt-bag criminal breaks the laws already on the books. It’s not like they’re obeying the laws against murder, are they?!
We’ve got to focus our fire on the evil Irano-Syrian Axis and take THEIR guns away!
Oops, wife calling, gotta run.
/jc
Not you, Mitch. Rudy.
As with the abortion issue, I can live with someone who doesn’t totally agree with me as long as they aren’t pro-the other side. Meaning Rudy would nominate judges who will interpret existing laws, precidence and the constitution.
The Democrats want judicial types who have pre-decided cases and will legislate from the bench.
AC, I don’t have a problem with a flip. It’s the flop where I draw the line. Meaning your postion can evolve, you just can’t hold two opposite positions at the same time.
Pre-flip flop, Rudy was probably the most pro-gun control Republican in the country. Suck on that, wingnuts. You may be able to forgive Rudy, if selling out your “principles,” such as they are, offers the only shot to keep the White House. But normal voters generally look askance at politically motivated flip flops that occur, conveniently, right before an election.
Chuck upchucked: “AC, I don’t have a problem with a flip. It’s the flop where I draw the line. Meaning your postion can evolve, you just can’t hold two opposite positions at the same time.”
The prospect of President Hillary suddenly has you wingnuts believing in evolution.
AC, I’ll go you one better, with your indulgence..
Mitch-
I’ve been waiting for a post on Gun Rights from you to bring up two questions.
First, do you believe the 2nd Ammendment is self-included under the 14th, similar to the 5th and some would say, the 6th?
Second, do you believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that the usage of the words ‘the people’ means individuals and the right to arm separate from the need to arm a militia? If so, why? There has never been any such finding that I know of, even the recent DC case didn’t carve out the right separate from the overall right to arm a militia, it was simply silent on the point.
BTW – depending on your follow-up, I’ll have a reply..
I have asked a few very competent lawyers, including very highly regarded, top of their class types, and one friend who does constitutional law.. they all have a single opinion about the consequence of a yes answer to both questions… I’ll pass that along once you answer.
The Second Amendment says what it says. And it says you can’t infringe the right of people to keep and bear arms. Of course that meant muzzle-loaded single-shot guns, but what are you gonna do? The guys who drafted the First Amendment didn’t have cable either.
Lefties believe in nine amendments in the first ten, wingnuts just believe in the one. But let’s not pretend it says you can ban guns, cause it doesn’t.
I support the right to arm bears, make hunting more fair. I also support the right to bare breasts…
AC –
The second amendment reads:
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.
Self-inclusion means that it extended to the individual states. That concept is generally regarded as an outgrowth of the 14th amendment, interestingly, a well-hated amendment amongst right wing kooks.
If you agree that muzzle loaders were the military grade firearm of the day, and oh by the way, individuals also privately owned cannons.. then extend that thought a moment.. the weapons of today are and include, tanks, Jets, nerve agent. bio-agent. The Congress of the United States is PROHIBITED FROM INFRINGING on the right to own muzzle loaders (by your comment) but really on arms considered viable for militia.. meaning in a modern context, arms suitable to a state’s militia, which could easily include ANY armament.
So let’s not pretend is says the States can’t ban guns, because it doesn’t, but if it does, then any militarily suitable arm, is open for ‘individual’ ownership. I don’t believe ‘Parker’ says anything about individuals to be honest, it just said you can’t keep a citizen from owning armaments because of the 2nd amendment AND because no state has jurisdiction, and the House of Reps/Senate DO and they ARE prohibited from passing such laws, then people in DC cannot have laws passed prohibiting ownership of militarily suitable armaments.
THAT’s what Parker actually implies… at least, that’s what it would seem to. MvT and others are simply legal neophytes who don’t grasp that since DC is NOT a state, and IS governed by Congress, many things don’t apply, or are weird, and further, that Parker didn’t speak to ‘individuals vs. Militia’ it spoke to restricting lawful ownership vs. infringement.
Ok, having just re-read Parker, I retract much of that.. though I would say the finding of the Court, in that case, is both startingly away from anything ever found previously, and not actually supported whatsoever in the Constitution in any form. They quote the Federalist papers (or writings of the Federalist times) and invent, wholecloth, rights to hunt and such that are not in any way enshrined in the Constitution. If you neo-cons despise activism, you should abhore Parker. It deviates from the concept of restrictions against Congress.. it unilaterally implies self-inclusion without any prior finding by the SCOTUS.. it’s an abortion of a ruling, to be clear.
But here’s what it also says, no state, no agency, no government, can make ANY restriction – including any restriction against owning armaments necessary to arm a militia – to oppose both foriegn agenst/countries, but also a tyranical government..
Meaning, Bio-weapons,you bet.. WMD of any form.. You bet. Better release Jose Padilla, he had EVERY RIGHT to own/make a dirty bomb, or anything else.. I guees though he’s been found guilty of consorting with terrorists now, but apparently the orginal charges were out of line.
And felons, no infringement, mentally disturbed, same deal. get your WMD here folks. Parker says so.
Thanks for teaching Angryclown about this mysterious thing called “the law” Peev! 🙂 Though Angryclown is more used to using the term “incorporation” to describe the idea that the 14th Amendment makes some provisions in the Bill of Rights enforceable against the states. But yes, the wingnuts do hate the 14th Amendment – or have done since the Lochner era met its end in the New Deal.
In Grutter vs Bollinger the SC narrowed the scope of the 14th amendment — a highly unusual outcome. Yet the left applauded the narrowing of the application of equal protection while the right criticized it. Yet somehow, by Peev’s tortured reasoning, the left champions the 14th amendment while the right “hates” it.
Was it here? Where someone commented that since the Minnesota courts ruled that abortion is a consititutional right, and therefore the taxpayers had to fund it……using that logic, shouldn’t the state fund guns for low income people?
The 14th a hated amendment?! Puh-shaw. It’s a beautiful amendment. Coming out of the ashes of the Civil War, it addressed the rights of former slaves, and three other issues of that era.
What we kooks hate is how activist judges have conjured up rights that aren’t in this amendment.
As just one example, but a biggie, from the Roe v Wade decision:
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
Please enlighten this knuckle-dragging kook as to how a Civil War amendment was intended to protect abortion.
Jeff and Terry,
AC and the Peev are dead on, and you’re not (neener)..
Here’s the thing, the 14th is hated because an actually competent SCOTUS judge, someone you may have even hear of, named Brandeis (spelling may or may not be right Chad, go get in a stew) – used it to enshrine the idea of privacy, i.e. right to privacy. Further, it expresses that the government simply doesn’t have the right to intrude upon the rights of citizens without due process and cause. Since the whole NSA wiretapping thing is a violation of that fundamental principal, since abortion is an extension of that fundamental principal via privacy then YES, I’ve repeatedly heard the right bash both the 14th AND of course, Brandies.
And Jeff – as far as conjured rights go..
Parker implies a RIGHT TO HUNT as a reason for a right to own firearms separate from the militia requirement. Where exactly is your outrage? exactly? Is there a right to fish too? How about a right to wipe your hind end?
And Jeff, I don’t need to enlighten you further than the estimable Louis Brandies did so eloquently in establish right to privacy. The expressed right is the right to freedom from intrusive goverment, and the freedom of domain over one’s own body and health extending from that right of freedom from intrusion.
But let’s go further… since you believe the 2nd to be self-included – or as AC rightly points out incorporated – you understand – and LET’s STAY ON SUBJECT FOR ONCE – that it means, using Parker, that David Koresh, or AC for that matter, is Constitutionally entitled to own ANY class of firearm that could reasonably be used to arm a state’s National Guard contigent. Any firearm whatsoever (per 1937 Clark – which ruled in the obverse – thereby establishing the point as about military firearms) – So, since the Congress, nor, by incorporation, the States, cannot Infringe, not in any way , not even to keep a mass-murderer from owning firearms of any sort- and that’s the ludicrous claim of the right that NO LAW is allowed – then it means anyone – any looney – anyone can own anything.
Including – oh you so hypocritical righties – Saddam Houssien – that is, if you believe our Constitutional liberties are worthy of supporting globally – as the President has said in the recent past – or at least as Houssien would be were he a US Citizen. Since “Guns don’t kill people, People Kill People” – well “WMD don’t kill people either” and since no weapons can possibly be deemed illegal under your interpretation of the 2nd and 14th – at least not within our own borders – well then, now perhaps you begin to understand how extreme, how ludicrous your stance is on the 2nd. No laws preventing the ownership of weapons not meant for sport, but for war, can be passed, even to keep such weapons out of he hands of those who are totally incompetent from owning them.
THAT’s why I find the right such a bunch of goofballs.. you don’t have a clue what you are really bringing about (wiitness Iraq).. and as for adherence to the Constitution.. sure, Parker enshrines the right to hunt.. where’s your outrage? Further, it declares, in the absence of a single SCOTUS ruling, that “The People” means individuals, again, where is your outrage?
Peevish,
A word of warning: Angryclown actually is a lawyer.
But feel free to continue arguing.
First, do you believe the 2nd Ammendment is self-included under the 14th, similar to the 5th and some would say, the 6th?
Not really sure what you mean by this sentence. Please clarify.
One of the original cases that led to the 14th Amendment was, as a matter of interesting historical trivia, one of America’s first gun control laws; a group of Klansmen had gotten the hell shot out of them by some black ex-slaves and Union Army veterans; Texas responded by passing a law barring blacks from owning guns. This, among many others, was one of the moltivations for the Equal Protection Clause.
Second, do you believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that the usage of the words ‘the people’ means individuals and the right to arm separate from the need to arm a militia? If so, why?
Let me answer that with a question: if the Second Amendment right “of the people” refers to a collective right, then why isn’t the First Amendment right to free assembly (another right “of the people”) assumed to refer to legislatures? Or the Tenth Amendment reservation of rights to “the people?” NOBODY has ever made such an interpretation. So why is the Second Amendment special?
Case law is catching up with reality (or at least legal scholarship) on the Second Amendment. Parker was a relatively narrow ruling on a single law.
I refer you to this piece by Dr. Sanford Levinson, The Embarassing Second Amendment, which is a Yale Law Review piece (written by a gun-disliking self-admitted bleeding-heart lefty) from about 1992 that spelled out the “individual right” case. This article was the beginning of over a decade worth of debate among legal scholars that culminated with Laurence Tribe finally coming around to admitting he believes that the Second Amendment refers to an individual, not group right.
Tell your “constitutional lawyer” friends to take their cases to Levinson and Tribe.
There has never been any such finding that I know of, even the recent DC case didn’t carve out the right separate from the overall right to arm a militia, it was simply silent on the point.
As Levinson notes, there isn’t a huge body of case law based on the Amendment, largely because for the first 190 years of this nation’s existance, nobody really cared to control the access of law-abiding people to firearms. United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first actual case involving the Second Amendment, the court stated that the right to keep and bear arms “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon thatinstrument for its existence.” In other words, like speech and religion and due process, it’s a right endowed to us by our creator. US V. Miller (1939) muddied the waters.Everyone involved knows that Parker is only useful in that it’s going to lead to a SCOTUS case, eventually, that will have to further define the interpretation of the Amendment (and finally excise the last stinking remnants of the 1939 Miller decision.
If the Second Amendment means individuals can own machine guns, why, that would be like the First Amendment meaning individuals can dance naked smeared with chocolate. Anything would go! There’d be freedom and personal responsibility all over the place. The horror.
.
peeved,
If you can convince me that the authors of the 14th Amendment, writing in the 1860s, were thinking of abortion, I’ll proclaim your superior legal knowledge throughout the land.
Otherwise, the amendment had nothing to do with abortion, and a judge decades down the road just saw what he wanted to in the amendment.
I believe the technical Latin legal term for that is “making it up.”
You and I, seeing that the matter was not addressed in the Constitution, didn’t get to decide through our elected representatives.
People,
Rudy’s not concerned with what Justice Boogeyman wrote in the 1896 decision of Mumbo v. Jumbo. That’s activist judging talk.
Rudy cuts through. Rudy clarifies.
Rudy knows that when an Iranian Airbus is coming over the horizon carrying a Pakistani nuke, law abiding Americans need to be in a position to return fire.
Happiness is a full clip,
/jc
Mitch defamed: “A word of warning: Angryclown actually is a lawyer.”
Angryclown has endured some base slanders on this blog, but this is by far the worst. Angryclown is no lawyer. Angryclown makes his living by bringing joy into the lives of average New Yorkers, entertaining on the streets of Manhattan. Angrily.
Mitch reminisced: “As Levinson notes, there isn’t a huge body of case law based on the Amendment, largely because for the first 190 years of this nation’s existance, nobody really cared to control the access of law-abiding people to firearms.”
I guess you didn’t see “Unforgiven.”
Happiness is a full clip
No. Hope is a full magazine.
Happiness is an empty magazine, the jingle of spent cartridges on the floor, the “snap” of gunsmoke in the air, and a bunch of holes in the “10” ring.
I guess you didn’t see “Unforgiven.”
You are correct!
Dude, it was directed by Clint Eastwood. I thought his films were like porno for you guys.
Not JUST directed by Clint Eastwood. And don’t all the bad guys end up shot in the end? No wonder clown is angry. Being accused of being a lawyer would set anyone off.
Yeah right, and Clint is like the only guy left alive at the end. There’s all manner of shooting deaths. How does that not give you guys a huge woody?
Ah, Unforgiven. I had it mixed up with Pale Rider. In the first, though I don’t think anyone with the exception of the Clint Eastwood character got shot who didn’t have it coming. His character came thru unscathed and a good case could be made that he, more than anyone, had it coming. Been a number of years since I have seen it though. Pale Rider was just on cable.
Mitch-
You’ve should rent “Unforgiven”. It’s a film even people who never watch westerns enjoy. It didn’t win four Oscars for nothing.
But then I think Mary Poppins is one of the greatest films of all time (5 Oscars!).
Carnivore – who may be the only blogger in town more pro-gun than I –
Ahem.
And ac is, alas, right on Rudy — he was virulently in favor of “gun control” laws when he was mayor of NYC. He’s moderated that stand, somewhat, and while I’ll assume that it’s a rethinking, and not opportunism, it is a flip flop, and a flip flop can easily be followed by a flip flop flip.
On 2A issues, the clear leader among the have-a-shot candidates is Fred. The clear leader among the Dems is Richardson, but he doesn’t have a chance in hell, even if Hillary is found in bed with a flaming Larry Craig.
Unforgiven, by the way, is a terrific movie. It’s remarkably un-pat, and if it glamorizes anything — and it does, just a little — it’s friendship. Violence? Nah; quite the opposite.
And, no, ac, Billy Munny isn’t “like” the only guy alive at the end. The Schofield Kid is alive, and disgusted by killing — and afraid of Munny; that’s why he runs off. W.W. Beauchamp is alive, to — as is pointed out, relentlessly — continue to glamorize thugs with guns, something the movie argues is morally bankrupt. English Bob is alive, driven out of town, crippled, by a thug who was even meaner and tougher than he was.
Terry, I sometimes get “Unforgiven” and “Mary Poppins” mixed up.
Is it before or after Eastwood shoots Hackman, he dances with Dick Van Dike on the London rooftops? My mom always loves that part.
You are quite the literal-minded wingnut, Jor-El. You forget that the kid who tied up the horses in Scene #19 was also not killed. Nonetheless, there was a pretty impressive body count.
Chuck, how cool would it be if, instead of breaking into song every 10 minutes, the Mary Poppins cast would just started shooting?
And Terry, you know that being into Mary Poppins is about 105 percent gay, right?
ac, when you’re wrong in both fact and general thrust, the thing to say is, “Oops; my mistake”; it’s not to further embarrass yourself and the rest of the clown car.
HTH.
>> Happiness is a full clip
>
> No. Hope is a full magazine.
Forgive a poor Rudy supporter for getting this wrong.
Until this year, we backed Rudy’s call for national gun registration.
Thankfully, now we’re marching on to war.
/jc
we backed Rudy’s call for national gun registration.
In what field of humanity is “growing less stupid” considered a bad thing?
Jor-El said: “ac, when you’re wrong in both fact and general thrust, the thing to say is, “Oops; my mistake”; it’s not to further embarrass yourself and the rest of the clown car.
HTH.”
Thanks, Rain Man. Hey, while we’re being all precise and whatnot, you want to make clear to your fellow wingnuts that Saddam Hussein had dick-all to do with 9/11?
Saddam Hussein had dick-all to do with 9/11?
Actually, I have yet to meet a single
wingnutReal Americanconservative who actually believes that.Come on Mitch. 118% of those who watch foxnews think Hussein was the guy driving the minivan that was dropping those guys off at the airpoint on 9/11. Just ask AC. Or Peev. Probably should stay away from an actual fox viewer. It would be like learning there is no Santa Claus.
Well, yeah.
I mean, the left’s been gadding that alleged “poll” around for years, but I have never seen the “poll’s” methodology – especially if there was any control questioning to determine if that’s what the supposed respondents really meant.
And that’s probably good – for the lefties!
In the meantime, last year there was an NYT poll (IIRC) that showed that a solid third of Demcorats believed that Bush was behind 9/11. Who’s jumping up and down over that?
Thankfully, now we’re marching on to war.
So what’s the matter? Is it a slow day over on T5chat? Or have you just needed someone to poke at now that Bovious, Davejames and I are outta there?
Go ahead and call Marsha “little lady” for me; maybe it’ll lure her over too.
Re Mary Poppins:
There is some serious weirdness in the films that Disney made. I mean Disney the man, not the corporation.
“Mary Poppins” can be critiqued in the same way a classic work of literature can be critiqued. Try doing that with “Pirates of the Caribbean”.
Precise? Is that what you fantasize yourself as being, clownzie?
Well you’re being a little Asperger’s, big fella. Apply a cinderblock to the temple and see if it passes.
Has any commenter at SITD ever thought that a slash post was written by a conservative?
Another tedious lefty, entertaining himself with his “humor”.