Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » As Much As I Dislike Bill Maher…

As Much As I Dislike Bill Maher…

By Mitch Berg

…I actually was mildly encouraged by this bit here.

I said “mildly”.

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 am and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

29 Responses to “As Much As I Dislike Bill Maher…”

peevish Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
The ‘truthers’ are rather nutty, but what exactly is your complaint about them again? That they’re extremists? Gee, aren’t you also? You embrace an intrepreation of the 2nd amendment based not on one single SCOTUS ruling, but on the whacky opinion of a whacky (liberal) professor from New York if memory serves. You tell us that things are going along just ducky in Iraq, and the ‘surge is working’, and the next week Ricardo Sanchez says your underlying opinion is dead wrong – that the ‘surge’ is only working at the edges at best, and that Iraq is a catastrophe that will hamper us for years. I’m sure that you don’t consider your opinion extremist, but the vast majority of Americans do. 75% of the population thinks that things in Iraq AREN’T going swimmingly, and that if the surge is ‘working’ , whcih the majority think it isn’t, it’s only having a marginal impact.

So while you complain about truthers, it’s ironic that you would do so, considering you’re just the other side of the same coin. It’s equally ironic that you’d castigate Maher most of the time, yet when he says something critical of the extreme left, well THEN he’s ok, but only ‘mildly’, while the reality (imho) is that Maher is the one who is far more often reasonable, and occassionally not, and YOU are the one who is far more often unreasonable, but with flashes of logic thrown in every great once in a while. The irony being, you are EXACTLY what you are accusing and believe Maher to be. Biased, extreme, and out of touch.
Yossarian Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Peev, you’re a fine one to comment about “extremists.” You have proven, time and time and time and time and time and time again and again and again and again and again, that you’re about as unhinged and obsessive/compulsive as anything trolling around the Internet. What’s worse is you’re technologically inept, so instead of simply creating your own blog which you can use to bellow your insanity into the ether, you come here and inhabit the comment box, squatting like a sad little fool. There’s no topic you don’t feel compelled to squawk about. Go scrawl your fecal rantings on some wall elsewhere. You’re tiresome. And insane.
Bill C Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
75% of the population thinks that things in Iraq AREN’T going swimmingly, and that if the surge is ‘working’ , whcih the majority think it isn’t, it’s only having a marginal impact.

Thank God that the safety and security of our citizenry and our national sovereignty is not left up to the idiotic 75% of the population of this country who STILL don’t get it.
peevish Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Bill,

Apparently, Gens Abizaid and Sanchez are idiots?

As for ‘getting it’, that’s such a lark! OMG! – we ‘get it’ just fine, what we get is that neo-cons think that they can ‘kill their way’ out of the problem that exists with (pick your poison), islamic extremism, disenfranchisement of third world nations as it relates to monetary policy, the back-sliding of Russia into totalitarianism.. etc.. ect..

What we ‘get’ is that you can’t do any such thing, that cavalier conduct in the occupation lead to the greater insurgency, that lack of preparation lead to the insurgency, that taking the top off the powderkeg “Balkans of the Middle-East” – was as dumb a move as could have been thought of purposefully.

The ‘Third World War” you fear, you are bringing about – we GET that just fine. What you don’t get is that you’re making the situation WORSE not better.

But again, apparently a dozen generals directly involved in Iraq, including the overall commanders, are idiots too.

Maybe the idiots are those who fail to learn from the past, and I’m talking about Vietnam, not the fictional association with WWII. Islamic extremism is about as akin to fascism as was communism. Fascism had several elements that islamic extremism lacks:

1. Hyper nationalism – Islamicists favor only a pan-Islamic state (of course a SUNNI state – thereby excluding Iran).
2. Hyper militarism – Islamicists have virtually NO real military capability – they use “unconvetional wafare” to quote our own military
3. Allegience with Corporate entities to control the goverment – first, Islamic extremists are much more like communists, seeking a communal/governmental control of industry, second, they don’t favor any single goverment, other than a restoration of the Turkish/Ottoman Caliphate model
4. Subornation of the middle-class to steal political power and will for themselves. By and large, islamic extremism has no particular designs on the middle class itself, but rather seeks a theocracy.

So – your word SHOULD be Islamic Theocracy, but I do GET that you want to evoke unreasoned fear and so use, incorrectly, the word ‘Fascism’ to describe Islamic extremism. (and yeah, I get YOU didn’t Bill, but the right wing does, the same right wing that claims we don’t GET how big the threat is – and so it should be addressed here).

Ultimately, you don’t get you’re not helping, you’re hurting the solution. This ‘war’ isn’t really worthy of our troops, and if you truly supported them, you wouldn’t want them in this position.
Mitch Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
The irony being, you are EXACTLY what you are accusing and believe Maher to be. Biased, extreme, and out of touch.

Well, now that you’ve established that beyond the shadow of a doubt, can you possibly pick a new line?
peevish Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Mitch,

I’ll try to craft a reasonable reply, but yes, I have a new line, and it’s not sarcasm, if you agree that your point is one-sided presentation of issues – what purpose do you really believe can be solved by such an approach?

As well, is the reason you present things in such a one-sided way because you don’t trust others to be fair or honest, and so refrain from being fully forthcoming yourself?

If that’s the case – and I don’t genuinely know – please understand that the vast majority of people TRY to compensate for flaws, they don’t embrace them, accentuate them. Certainly political operatives do, but aren’t you better than that?

I’d be interested, sincerely, in having you answer (and maybe you did but I moved on) the question I posed about the 2nd amendment. Do you believe ANY law restricting armaments ownership is Constitutional, including whether a State (rather than the Federal Goverment) can pass such a law? If you don’t, then why is it not reasonable to conclude that someone like Charles Manson, or some diagnose schizoid personality – what lawful process would exist to restrict them from owning ANY form of military hardware?

The point being, it is EXTREME to aspouse a position that never allows for comprimise. Sometimes, such positions are valid – other times, like assuming the crafters of the Constitution intended for us to let whacked-out nutjobs own Sarin Gas – that’s illogical. The 2nd amendment fight seems to be between those who get a kick out of firing AK-47’s and those who think ‘all guns are bad.’ The former don’t seem to get that the position they try to argue has some pretty ugly consequences, the latter don’t get that firearms ownership is fundamentally NOT supported by the average person, and despite Bill’s deprication of the will and wit of the average American – I happen to think that if the average American has a position, they are, in a Repupblic, nearly always entitled to see that position supported by law.

I’m not looking for an argument, I’m looking for a reasonable/reasoned position that keeps military firearms out of the hands of felons or mentally unstable people.

The point is, is your goal reasoned discorse, or is it to be a right-wing ‘truther’. If it’s the latter (which I doubt), then you have no grounds for complaint, because Maher (or the truthers) are only doing what you’re doing, or is that the private domain of only one particular group?
Yossarian Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
One more time, for the slow kids in the class, in this case, PEEEEEEV:

Bloggers blog about what they’re interested in, longwinded commenters be damned.

See how I can explain that and be so concise? You should try it sometime. You WON’T, of course, but you should.

Fart.
Troy Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
I was going to quote peevish, but really his argument is too nonsensical and self contradictory to address in a rational way. I mean getting a “kick out of firing an AK-47” is a position in the second amendment debate?

No. *shrug*

If he took your advice, Yossarian, he could reread what he writes and maybe, maybe, maybe … make it make some sense. It does not look promising.
peevish Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 am
Troy – I don’t read, and will never reply to, Yoss.. sorry bud.

Peev.
Yossarian Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
It’s true, Troy. I’ve achieved a blessed shunned status from Peev.

Of course, he strill replies to me by replying to other commenters, as per the rules of the shunning process.

It’s amusing AND pathetic at the same time. Pathmusing? Amthetic?

Ass. Fart. Fartass.
peevish Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Troy,

Since Mitch clearly has moved on, I’ll put the question to you. To be candid, I’d written a pretty strong attack on Mitch (twice) and deleted it (twice), because it’s hardly fair to ask for constructive dailogue, and then proceed to be destructive.

So, here’s the question – since Mitch finds Maher’s treatment of ‘truthers’ to be good work – because well, they’re wackos and deserve to be tossed from a live program when they become the object of the program, is it not then fair to ask, aren’t you the same sort of wacko, Mitch?

Specifically, and only offered as example – on the 2nd amendment – you believe no law of any form is valid, including at the state level, which restricts firearm ownership. Seeems like a reasonable position, though of course SCOTUS has never embraced it – until you analyze it’s impacts.

Those impacts are:
1. No “abridgement” means none, at all, zero.
2. Clark v US (1937) established pretty conclusively, and Parker even supported – the idea that ‘arms’ means military arms, especially military arms according to Clark, as that decision banned sawed-off shotguns because there ‘weren’t militarily appropriate’ (my paraphrase).

Consequently – if you incorporate the 2nd amendment onto states (again, never supported by SCOTUS) AND you define ‘the people” as meaning individuals – done by the Parker decision (appelate court level) – but not SCOTUS – the outcome is that NO law, state or otherwise, can ever ban the ownership of any sort of firearm.

So the question is – do you support it that interpretation, or if not, what legal reasoning – if you believe that the interpretation is right in general, but some nuance or detail would allow for some kind of restriction, what nuance is that? What nuance exists, given these axioms, that prevents ownership of say, VX by someone as looney as David Koresh and the Branch Davidians?

You see, many arguments seem reasonable, seem logical, until the details are examined – including the argument that the 2nd amendment is ‘pure’ prohibition – and everyone can own anything they like. To believe our founding fathers were so stupid as to support that NO safety or control of military measures was ever going to be warranted challenges credulity.

As for ‘getting a kick out of an AK-47’ being part of the debate – oh how soon they forget – it wasn’t MY point, it was Mitch’s in quoting someone on how to get support for the 2nd amendment – so if the point was illogical, then the illogic was Mitch’s and whomever wrote the original article, and by objecting to it as nuts, you’ve made my point entirely.
peevish Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
BTW Mitch – I’m not actually trying to call you a wacko – but was trying to summarize the point – if extremism is objectionable – and it is – then why persist? If we want a ‘new point’, then the point is – how do we avoid violence if conversation has failed? If two deaf people shout, while they may not hear it, isn’t it still loud? This blog, and it’s counterparts do NOT serve to further debate, they serve to stiffle it, so let’s see maybe, if somehow, we can be the bigger men. That’s the ‘new’ point. Some folks, too many on both sides, don’t want a real discussion – I read it every day, here, at DU, at RWN, at Daily KOS – they SAY they do, but they don’t. Are you one of those people too? Or are you the better man?
Bill C Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Ultimately, you don’t get you’re not helping, you’re hurting the solution. This ‘war’ isn’t really worthy of our troops, and if you truly supported them, you wouldn’t want them in this position.

So what to do then? Bring them home and sit and wait until whichever IslamoFascistTheocrat decides that it’s time to slay the big Satan to enact their global caliphate??

What is your solution? Diplomacy? People who are willing to kill for religious reasons will not accept diplomacy. How do you plan on dragging an 8th century governing society into the 21st century?

If we let them come by NOT keeping them away, we’ll have 3 choices: Convert, Dhimmi or die. I don’t like any of those. Their actions tell me the only thing they understand is force.
Troy Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 3:50 am
peevish,

I read this:

“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.”

and then I read what you wrote above, and I think you assume a binary position on the issue to bring about a false choice.

Is anyone really arguing that no reasonable definition of arms can be made and that it simply has to be “all arms”? No.

Are you really trying to have a discussion, or just trying to frame the issue in a way that doesn’t make your own position seem unreasonable?
Mitch Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Ultimately, you don’t get you’re not helping, you’re hurting the solution.

I had no idea my random musings on this blog were so very very important.
peevish Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Mitch.. get some guts, or save the pithy comments for your own little head. You said you wanted a debate, here is one, got a reply?

Troy, actually, YES, that’s exactly the claim. It’s not often stated, and frequently not fully understood, but there it is nonetheless.

Let me paint it out –

If the 2nd amendment is incorporated (thank you AC for correcting me on that a while back) – then NO STATE can pass a law abridging the right to bear arms – especially and including those needed to arm a militia. That was the point of Clark in 1937.

If the 2nd amendment (incorporated on the States) means ‘individual’ when it says ‘the people’ as asserted by Mitch and his liberal professor – and the Parker decision but not by SCOTUS btw – then the right to keep and bear arms cannot be abridged away from ANY individual, because abridement is really that black and white. NO law, none, can be passed restricting any citizen from owning any militarily viable weapon, because it might be useful in arming a civilian militia.

Now that was the intent of the framers, to a point, clearly – or more to the point, it was their intent to ensure a State’s militia could and would survive the destruction of the Federal Army/defense OR the encroachment and/or abuse of the Federal Government on a State. They wanted to ensure a State (or for that matter individuals against the ‘state’) had the power to resist such abuse.

However, the rightwing has claimed, without real proof, that the 2nd amendment was meant to mean any State couldn’t limit ownership of it’s own citizenry. That point has NEVER been proved or stated by SCOTUS.

The reason is simple, the right-wing gets a lot of support from those who want to own firearms, and they’ve claimed (incorrectly) for years that ANY law limiting firearm ownship is unconstitutional. But they’ve never really understood that IF you make that claim, essentailly NO restriction, not for mental competence, not for past restraining orders, not for deviant behavior, is permissible, because if allowed, such limits could EASILY be extended to limit ownership for other reasons. So, to win the fight, they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than grasping the intent was NEVER to put increadibly dangerous weapons in the hands of the insane, and was to ensure that a militia was capable of being armed by the populace if needs be, or if you believe ‘the people’ meant the States, then by the States, well, rather than grasping that, they argue a point that is extremist – no laws, none, ever, limiting my right to own a gun. They don’t get that ‘keep and bear arms’ means ANY arms, not just a Colt Pytthon, a Desert Eagle, or an M-16, and no law means NO law. Not just laws limiting magazine size, but laws prohibiting those convicted of misdemeanors, those found to be incompetent.

So yeah.. it really DOES mean exactly that David Koresh would and could own an M1 (were he still alive) and Parker were to become the law of the land, at least until SCOTUS were to come to it’s senses and define some limit that neither currently exists nor wouldn’t amount to vast judicial activism.
peevish Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Bill.

First, being in Iraq isn’t causing there to be less terrorists, quite the opposite.

Second, Islamic extremism isn’t militarily or economically capable of ‘slaying’ Turkey, let alone Europe, or the US (the big Satan in your post).

Third, essentially ‘yes’, we don’t get involved in wars that have little to no bearing on our national security, until they DO have such bearing OR the course of human ethic and concience says we should and are obligated to intervene. We had NO business taking the lid off the Iraqi powderkeg, Housien was a vile, brutal man, but he wasn’t committing genocide (he stopped that in 1992) – and in the end, it was up to the Shiaa and Kurds to – as John Locke said – take responsibility for their own government. It’s not like we spend a lot of time getting rid of tyrants now, or before Housien – other than WWII.

Let’s give the Islamicists a tiny bit of credit though, their style is more 18th century, not 8th :). Matters nearly not at all.. but exagerating the issue isn’t going to solve it either.

The solution isn’t diplomacy with extremists, that never works. Case in point, we’ve become extremist too, and what do you think the world thinks? They’re pretty worried the most powerful military in the world is lead by a bunch of people who shoot first, think later, if at all.

No, the solution is to kill the leadership, quietly, of the extremists. The solution is to strengthen goverments like Mali, Tunisia, Jordan, to help THIER people succeed economically, because NOTHING kills off rebelion quite so well as economic success. We’re not doing that in Iraq (btw), instead they have (or had) 75% unemployment. That’s just about guaranteed to fail. The point being, you don’t fight the fringe element of many nations by declaring war – that’s just illogical (and stupid besides) – you undermine their support – you enhance their opposition – and then you send in your covert ops to kill them in a way that maybe LOOKS like you, but can’t be proven. That way, the middle ground in those nations, the undecideds, don’t become your next generation of crazies.
Mitch Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Mitch.. get some guts, or save the pithy comments for your own little head.

Actually, PB, I can make any comment I want here. It’s my blog. I can talk about the Second Amendment or the weather or the Northeast Side of Chicago, and there’s really not a thing you can do about it.

I don’t really have time to “debate” you over the Second Amendment – not at the moment. Suffice to say that pretty much everything you wrote was either wrong or out of context.

Perhaps I’ll substantiate that later today. Maybe I won’t. I have bigger fish to fry; if you get to the top of the list, I’ll get to it.
Troy Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
peevish said:

“Troy, actually, YES, that’s exactly the claim. It’s not often stated, and frequently not fully understood, but there it is nonetheless”

So WHO made this claim again? A Mister “Rightwing”?
Mitch Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Oh, what the hell. As to your entire screed about the Second Amendment, I refer you to Levinson’s The Embarassing Second Amendment, which both defines and upholds the “individual right” case so well that it converted Laurence Tribe to the individual interpretation after decades of opposition…

…and pretty much bids me to ask what “Clark” case you’re talking about in 1937. Do you have a citation?

Are you thinking US V. Miller, 1939?

Because in 20 years of being a gun nut, I’ve never heard of Clark. Cruikshank, yes (in a SCOTUS case that limited states rights to control “the militia”), Presser (which further refined the Cruikshank decision), and Miller – and that’s really just about it.

So do us both a favor and double-check your basic facts, before we start talking specifics.

(Yes, I know what your response is going to be; you’re busy working your day job (certainly understandable) and are typing in a blog full of people who disagree with you (excuses, excuses), but if you can’t be troubled to get the names, much less the interpretations, of SCOTUS cases straight, really, what kind of “debate” is really possible?)

Miller, and the decades of decisions that fell out from it at the federal level, was a badly-written decision whose results were misinterpreted by generations of activist judges; I am hoping the end result of Parker will be to usher the last remains of that decision’s ugly fallout from the books forever.
peevish Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Levinson- which SCOTUS member was he? And Tribe? Was he a Chief Justice, or just a member?

and as I recall it was 1937.. I’ll go look.

Are you actually able to stay on point Mitch? Or is it that you can do NO better than focus on the fact that I write from memory – and on the one hand act like you’re being understandable, and with the back of the other, insult me for using excuses (whcih I didn’t) – whilst you CONSTANTLY offer excuses for your own conduct?

As to interpretation -on the interpretation Mitch, actually Miller (or Clark as I recalled it) said two things..

First, shotguns (sawed off ) are not viable military weapons and so aren’t protected from being limited.

Second, that a particular person involved, a Felon – as memory serves, could be limited in his ownership.

You prefer Parker ? Well that isn’t surprising, I mean let’s claim activism as bad for a moment, yet embrace the constitutional right to hunt? Exactly where is that right enshrined? Oh, it isn’t. In fact, it’s only by THAT stretch that Parker makes the (erroneous) claim that ‘The People” means ‘indivduals.”

But let’s actually HAVE the debate I asked – rather than pissing about the name of the plaintiff as some sort of defense of your stance.

Do you see ANY limit on ownership? By what law/amendment?

And ya’ know Mitch, for someone who bitches long and loud about personalizing things, you sure do pretty easily fall into personalizing it. I wasn’t asking about your background, but since you’ve pointed it out, I’ve been a gun nut far longer than 20 years, I don’t, like some dilletentes, float from one party, one philosophy, one idea to the next, based on what I think might get me a job, or funding, or a radio gig. And where did I mistate Miller? What interpretation of Miller was in error. You claim I mistated it, where is that, exactly?

The POINT if you ever can absorb it, is your stance on the 2nd amendment has NEVER been ratified by SCOTUS, ever. It doesn’t represent law passed by any state or Congress, and in fact stand in direct contradiction of many laws that HAVE been passed, including ones by Congress. It also, and most importantly, if allowed, would result in a very dangerous set of circumstances that, while only permissible for a little while, suggest that the entire objection about Housien or any other leader possessing weapons we don’t like, is the sheerest of hypocrisy.

As for 2nd amendment cases:

Presser ( you named)
Lewis (1980) – you didnt
Miller v Texas 1894 – a very important refutation of your position
US v Verdugo (1990)
US v Nelson (1988)

You see Mitch, if I – actually take the time to worry about your pendantic, churlish personality, I can point out you’re just as conversant (or not) as I am, but no more.

That said, Miller (1939) argues that a militia is any male capable of bearing arms armed with weapons supplied by them of the kind of common use of that time – which supports your argument – so while you condemn it, if you were such an expert, maybe you’d actually know that.

What I find instead Mitch, is that you’re a poser. You pretend knowledge, you overhear knowledge – and then spout it off – without understanding context (since we’re being personal and all) – There have been MANY (or at least a helluva lot more than 3) pivotal rulings on the 2nd amendment, but the POINT Mitch, again, for the third time, is WHAT LAW do you think can be used to prevent ownership, of arms of the common use at that time, by all healthy male individuals? Is there ANY?

Troy thinks I’m wrong, that righties I know of don’t make this claim. But Troy, they do.

In fact, when at a rally for Mark Kennedy, the person in charge of his booth made EXACTLY that claim to me. The guy couldn’t have been more than 30, but I asked him this same question – and his reply was, you’re right, we (he) don’t believe any restriction is Constitutional. Considering he was manning the booth for Kennedy, it at least raised the spectre that Kennedy felt that way too.

So Mitch, which is it, do you think restrictions can exist, or not? Based on what ruling?
peevish Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Strike the part about the Felon, that was a different discussion.. Miller established taht a sawed off shotgun could be limited, and that armaments appropriate to the time were teh right of the people to own in order to arm the militia.
Mitch Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Levinson- which SCOTUS member was he? And Tribe? Was he a Chief Justice, or just a member?

So that’s your idea of a debate about the law? “If your source isn’t on the SCOTUS, he doesn’t count?”

Levinson is a professor at the UTA law school, a graduate of Yale, and published the article originally in the Yale Law Review.

But let’s do it your way; which SCOTUS member are you?

As to interpretation -on the interpretation Mitch, actually Miller (or Clark as I recalled it) said two things..

First, shotguns (sawed off ) are not viable military weapons and so aren’t protected from being limited.

Which is the first sign that it was a ludicrious ruling; sawed-off shotguns were very widely used by the military in WWI.

Second, that a particular person involved, a Felon – as memory serves, could be limited in his ownership.

It had nothing to do with limiting felons’ rights. Miller (and his accomplice, Layton) were accused bank robbers. They were brought up on federal charges for transporting a sawed off shotgun which, under the Firearms Act of 1934, was regulated by the body that later became the BATF. The federal charges accused the men of not paying the $200 “fee” on ownership of such weapons.

The SCOTUS did several things – they actually noted the Second Amendment definition of “militia” – “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ 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.” That’s from the decision, written by Justice McReynolds.

But at the end of the day, Miller “decided” nothing; it remanded the case back to the US District Court for Western Arkansas, which had originally upheld Miller’s case. In the intervening time, Miller had been killed (he was apparently not a successful felon), and Layton took a plea bargain on all the charges, so nobody had standing to press the case at the Circuit court.

You prefer Parker ? Well that isn’t surprising, I mean let’s claim activism as bad for a moment, yet embrace the constitutional right to hunt? Exactly where is that right enshrined? Oh, it isn’t. In fact, it’s only by THAT stretch that Parker makes the (erroneous) claim that ‘The People” means ‘indivduals.”

You keep putting “erroneous” in scare parens, without giving a single justification. And yet Levinson and (now) Tribe both argue – correctly – that it is precisely that.

But let’s actually HAVE the debate I asked – rather than pissing about the name of the plaintiff as some sort of defense of your stance.

Look, PB – I’ve done twenty years of homework on this issue – as in, I’ve done the homework. I’ve debated with professionals on this issue (most notably Margolyn Bijlefeld of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns in 1986), and carried the argument extremely credibly. So I think you could adopt at least a thin scree of humility when you’re caught muffing the name and the year of the single (currently) most important SCOTUS case on the subject. It shows me – someone who’s done the homework – that you have not.

But with that out of the way, sure, why not. I’d be happy to debate, PB. But do your homework first. Read Levinson. Digest his “individual rights” case (which he, by the way, as a liberal ACLU-card-carrying gun hater, found abhorrent, but compelled by intellectual honesty to support and convey), and then let’s talk. Until you’ve attempted to digest that article (which has driven the entire debate on the approach to the aftermath of Miller for the past 15 years), you really aren’t informed at all. Levinson provides the intellectual foundation that is driving the Parker litigation (to say nothing of swaying rabid-anti-gunner and former “group right” stalwart Tribe).

Noodling about with fanciful and, as I showed above, wholly-invented interpretations of Miller are a waste of time.

And if you don’t want to debate Levinson (and all discussion that doesn’t account for his findings is pretty much a waste of time), then answer this: why does “the people” refer to individuals in the First and Tenth Amendments, but magically refer to the military in the Second and only the Second?

Do you see ANY limit on ownership? By what law/amendment?

Not sure – and let’s stick with the “individual right” question first.

I wasn’t asking about your background, but since you’ve pointed it out, I’ve been a gun nut far longer than 20 years, I don’t, like some dilletentes, float from one party, one philosophy, one idea to the next, based on what I think might get me a job, or funding, or a radio gig.

Really? You think I’m that mercenary?

Wow. That’s pretty stretchy. I won’t call it a “lie”, since I wouldn’t be surprised that you actually believe that, but…no! Ethically defamatory, and a nifty little drive by ad-hominem, but utterly untrue!

You see Mitch, if I – actually take the time to worry about your pendantic, churlish personality, I can point out you’re just as conversant (or not) as I am, but no more.

You can believe anything you want!

But as I’ll show, it’s just not true:

That said, Miller (1939) argues that a militia is any male capable of bearing arms armed with weapons supplied by them of the kind of common use of that time

Not true!

Go back to my quote from McReynolds above: “…men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time…”

Which is the exact opposite of what you just said! The militia is (and has always been) expected to supply their own firearms!

So yes, PB. If you leave out the occasional bit where you “remember” things about the case that are the diametric opposite of what the case says – yep. We’re about equal.

Do your homework. Then we can debate.
Mitch Says:
October 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
PB,

And if Levinson is biting off too much, try this piece, which is something of a definitive history of Miller. Or Clark. Or whatever.The case was basically a power grab – remember, neither Miller nor Layton were around to plead their case when it went to the SCOTUS, and the case died on remand.
Mitch Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Nothing?

‘Allo?

Oh, well.
peevish Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Mitch, I have work to do too, this is the first time I’m reading your reply.

First, I don’t recall you ever mentioning this debate in 1986 – but that’s ignoring the point again.

Do you believe that a law can exist that allows a state to control firearms? Yes/NO? Which one?

I asked you, several times about incorporation of the 2nd amendment, it’s the MOST important question, not individual vs. ‘the people.’ Personally, I think the people MUST mean individuals, even Miller v Texas and Miller 1939 make that case.

You quoted Kruikshank, read it again if you need to, but the KEY point of Kruikshank was that the 2nd amendment is NOT incorporated by the 14th.

That means states can pass what they like, when they like. So a state ban on handguns is perfectly within the strictures of the Constitution, so long as the ability to arm a militia still exists within the State’s own laws.

“That said, Miller (1939) argues that a militia is any male capable of bearing arms armed with weapons supplied by them of the kind of common use of that time

Not true!

Go back to my quote from McReynolds above: “…men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time…”

Actually, you and I said the EXACT same thing.. supplied by themselves, supplied by them.. of kind in common use… we use the same words – so YOU misread/misunderstood MY words – which were in EXACT agreement with yours and then proceeded to insult me as saying something I didn’t say.

The homework here is this, we don’t disagree on whether it SHOULD be individuals, I believe it should be, I believe the inference of the court is that it IS – but not because of Parker, a gross and stupid ruling. Miller (1939) establishes this well enough, even though you don’t seem to agree, and dislike the decision… but the point I made was that SCOTUS hadn’t ratified that as true, and so it’s not unconstitutional to infer that at this point, it doesn’t MEAN individual. Maybe it should, you think so, so do I.

But the real point is that the 2nd amendment isn’t incorporated, Kruikshank doesn’t agree that it is, and more importantly said specifically it isn’t.

But that’s not the REAL point. The real POINT is that good, solid, considered opinion, good solid legal opinion, doesn’t agree with any position that says ANY law is unconstitutional. It isn’t. MAYBE any law passed by Congress is, on that, frankly I’d agree. But then the argument becomes, what’s reasonable in a modern society, to be permissible for citizens to own to arm a militia, and further, Parker’s lunacy aside, since the protection IS TO ARM A MILITIA – not to hunt – private ownership by individuals, not used to arm a militia – could reasonably be limited by Congress. And you know, that’s pretty well where we are right now, yet you, and the right complain vociferously that our current laws (like Brady) are unlawful/unconstitutional. I would agree that ONE element of Brady is, namely any limit on ownership of automatic weapons of the time in common use to arm a militia, is unconstitutional for Congress to limit, except as those limits prevent a suicide pact, but ANY state could so limit ownership. Parker’s claim that hunting is an established practice is specious in Contstitutional terms, this isn’t about hunting, hunting isn’t in the Constitution. The fact it applied to DC IS relevant because DC is governed by Congress, and Congress can’t reasonably deny ownership to DC so long as we are talking about arms in common use to arm a militia.

But Mithc, the point is, this CAN be a reasonable debate, I’ve only started reading in depth on this in the past year. But when you comment on things saying the only relevant cases are Presser, and Miller and one other, that makes it look no less like you don’t know your info, than when I say Clark 1937 (which frannkly comes from comflating Miller and Parker – believe it or not).

So there is your debate, do you feel the 2nd amendment is incorporated?

I get you think it’s individual vs. ‘state’, but my question would be – unless the SCOTUS says so, why do you claim it’s unconstitutional? There isn’t sufficient ruling to conclusively say it. We can say “I think it should be deemed such” because it violates these ideas, and we can hope that it will be argued as such, but until it is RULED as such, until SCOTUS issues a ruling, it’s constitutional now.

That said, if both things are true (it’s incorporated and it’s individual rights) – what law can be passed to keep arms out of the hands of David Koresh? Any? Are you comfortable with that suicide pact?
peevish Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
BTW Mitch- – to save you a lot of reading.

1. You and I said the same thing about Miller
2. I agree individuals are the intent, miller really makes that point, aside from Parker so I don’t need to go read Tribe.
3. The question is not about what it SHOULD be, on that we agree, it’s what it currently IS.
4. Regardless of ‘Individual/the state”, incorporation is the real meat of the question. If the 2nd isn’t incorporated, any state can pass any law it likes – within a broad framework that a possibility for a militia still must exist.

Finally (5) – if you think the 2nd SHOULD be incorporated – what law could be passed, any?, which prevents national suicide pacts – what law would stop David Koresh from owning arms “in common use at the time” – which, considering common use arms includes chemical and even, within our borders for National Guard units, nuclear capability, what law would you think could exist to keep such weapons out of the hands of whackos? Any? If so, how?
peevish Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
and actually, thank you for replying.. maybe we can turn a leaf.
peevish Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Mitch, you out there?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

As Much As I Dislike Bill Maher…

29 Responses to “As Much As I Dislike Bill Maher…”

Leave a Reply

Pages

Archives

Categories