Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 85 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›
   8401. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4303567)

Democracy is not our government. That's your first mistake.


You've never hesitated to trumpet public opinion polls when they've been on your side.
   8402. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4303568)
Ah, so we only need Obamacare because medicine has advanced so far here in 2012, but back in 1789, people had no right at all to even the most basic healthcare.


By this logic you also believe that because medicare/medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance/benefits, welfare, food stamps, women voting rights, and the emancipation of slaves weren't specifically mentioned in a document from 1789, that they have the same legal footing as Obamacare?

   8403. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4303569)
Oh, God. Here we go ...


Non-responsive.


Heh.
   8404. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4303570)
You're such a ####### idiot sometimes, Joe.

The founders intended for each generation to determine what the general welfare consisted of. That's why they were vague about the terms and went with "general welfare." Moron.

So "promote the general welfare" became much more expansive in 200 years, while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter. This sounds like a zombie constitution, not a "living constitution," or whatever you guys are calling it this week.
   8405. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4303571)
   8406. zenbitz Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4303572)

I just can't understand for the life of me how anyone - anyone - would think touchscreen electronic voting machines with no paper record are a good idea.


How much do paper records help? I mean, the hacked machine can give you a receipt for "Romney" when you push the Romney button and still count your vote for Obama.
Is the idea that in some sort of post-election investigation, all the voters from that precinct bring their receipts in? And so fraud = difference is excess of the manual error rate of people losing receipts or not bothering?

Maybe the machines should email you? Obamachromebooks and wifi for all!
   8407. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4303573)
Stupid questions generally get non-responsive responses...

The only thing "stupid" is your apparent belief that wages and labor supply are entirely unrelated. Only an economic illiterate would loudly complain about wage stagnation in one breath, and then, in the next, call for more and more immigration.
   8408. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4303574)
Democracy is not our government. That's your first mistake.


Yes it is. The US is a Democracy.

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.


   8409. zenbitz Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4303575)
Our BTF Libertarians have already established that they are not, in fact, Anarchists - and as such they, like Churchill's whore, just haggling over the price.
   8410. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4303577)
How much do paper records help?


Voting in MN (My area anyway) you fill out a ballot and it is optically read. But the ballot remains and there is a physical trail for use in recounts and such. Easy, fun, verifiable.
   8411. smileyy Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4303581)
How much do paper records help? I mean, the hacked machine can give you a receipt for "Romney" when you push the Romney button and still count your vote for Obama.


I think the idea is the voter verifies the printed receipt, and the receipt is retained by the election board.
   8412. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4303582)
So "promote the general welfare" became much more expansive in 200 years, while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter.


In what delusional, ########## world has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive? How ####### blind to reality must one be to believe that?
   8413. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4303585)
Voting in MN (My area anyway) you fill out a ballot and it is optically read. But the ballot remains and there is a physical trail for use in recounts and such. Easy, fun, verifiable.


Same with my neighborhood in Boston, FWTW.
   8414. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4303586)
I think the idea is the voter verifies the printed receipt, and the receipt is retained by the election board.


The point of electronic voting machines is to reduce paper and storage costs for voting precincts.

EDIT: the "voting machines are unreliable" meme is about as paranoid and baseless in actual fact as the "Black Panthers are suppressing the white vote" meme.
   8415. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4303588)
has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive?


Can I amend that a bit?

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.


For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.
   8416. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4303589)
8405 - There was no strawman. My hypothetical was directly responsive to his constant invocation of "democracy" as a valid rationale for achieving his political goals.

***

8403 - You can trumpet "diversity" all you want, but "diversity" not only isn't a magic cure for the wage stagnation of which Zonk was complaining, but it's been a contributor to that problem.

If liberals want more immigration and more "diversity," fine, but don't complain that an expanded labor pool has resulted in downward pressure on wages.
   8417. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4303590)
Latest e-mail from my favorite right wing pool playing buddy, edited only for length. He hasn't decided whether to emigrate to the Caymans or to Mississippi.

The question is whether he's cribbing from Ray and Kehoskie, or whether they're stealing their ideas from him. Looks like a Rasmussen tossup to me, as their talking points are virtually indistinguishable.

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE | Rabbi Steven Pruzansky's Blog, Nov. 7, 2012

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that
Americans voted for the status quo – *for* the incumbent President and *for
*a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence,
economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people
voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has
won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off
his own 2008 total....

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost
because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of
liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to
moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the
electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should
be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete
against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss
leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America
is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000
on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they
did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive *two*
*full years* of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both
disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the
books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too
those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay
their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of
free stuff is irresistible....

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral
Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the
difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off
against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff”
– from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the
game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating
jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being
borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free
stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47%
leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode
well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such
overwhelming odds. People *do *vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the
people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a
President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable
conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed,
it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the
clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw
populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote
with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to
produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He
needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws
elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer
medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama
could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a
different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules
were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without
ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the
poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even
acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their
current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get
away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and
squealing at any sight of him.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai
Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson
called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words
were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney
victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their
abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to
Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico
(even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he
will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the
furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions –
in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for
which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which
the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc.,
even though the money is gone. He could do and say all these things because
he knew his voters were dolts.,,,

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of
substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and
platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of
class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual
groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority
groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed
winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply
disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his
record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it
is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton
in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are
collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right
country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting
patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that
Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in
Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly
representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican
Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce
point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile
Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure....

One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus,
odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were
contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The
Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states –
like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large
concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare
apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic
candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey,
for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is
not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have
pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater
that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls
than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an
irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are
not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If
that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die
is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results
demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a
president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile
to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at
Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide
margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is
inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and
will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide
Valerie Jarrett (i.e., *Iranian-born* Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in
Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of
negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon –
and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As
Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is
more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will
succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because
Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of
American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat
– or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than
yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never
distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and
would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more
territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count
Jordan) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry,
for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu
remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome
of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will
force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent
empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile.
The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the
Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily
foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.

The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has
been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that
decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic
excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers
outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across
the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama,
America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner
four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent.
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere
dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the
increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and
the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of
redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And,
sad for the world, it is not coming back.
   8418. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4303591)
The point of electronic voting machines is to reduce paper and storage costs for voting precincts.


I am willing to pay for auditability, and I think it should be mandated personally. We can take the money to pay for it from Ray (at Gunpoint).

EDIT: And I am not claiming fraud on the part of electronic machines. I just like an audit trail for somethign as important as voting. I am positive providing such would cost less than a single completely unneeded attack submarine.
   8419. formerly dp Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4303592)
Suck it up and take another job, and work to further cut the safety net for those moochers below you. That's your real problem right there. Just ask Joe.

I listened to most of this segment today, and it kind of scared the #### out of me.
   8420. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4303593)
For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.


The complete cultural forgetting of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, and the complete forgetting of said same by all legal readings of the amendment, and the fact that you can currently keep and bear much more powerful and deadly arms than anything available to the regular militiaman of 1780 is the entire friggin' point. Joe apparently lives in a world where the 2nd Amendment has been restricted over the course of time. I assume this world also has green skies and purple flavored unicorn poo powers the mind control engines.
   8421. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4303594)
while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter.


I think this message was sent from a parallel universe where the Democrats didn't completely abandon gun control as a major electoral issue.
   8422. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4303595)
Yes it is. The US is a Democracy.

Strike two.

***
In what delusional, ########## world has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive? How ####### blind to reality must one be to believe that?

Are you going to pretend that liberals haven't been in favor of gun control, or of the nonsensical "collective" interpretation* of the Second Amendment?

The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.


(* Thanks to Bitter Mouse for proving this in #8415.)
   8423. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4303596)
Latest e-mail from my favorite right wing pool playing buddy, edited only for length.


*THAT THING* was edited for length?!
   8424. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4303597)

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.

For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.


In this context, a well regulated militia means a trained militia of volunteer citizens, not a standing army of professional soldiers. The Oath Keepers and pretty much any other group that might fit the intended definition are now considered potential terrorists, not defenders of a free state.
   8425. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4303598)
The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.


Which means, BY DEFINITION, that gun rights HAVEN'T BECOME MORE RESTRICTIVE. Which means you are full of #### above. (To no one's real surprise.)
   8426. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4303599)
Strike two.


Really really non-responsive. (Hoping for strike three) If the US is not a Democracy than what is it?
   8427. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4303600)
Thanks to Bitter Mouse for proving this in #8415


Actually quoting the amendment is now proving something (other than I can use Wikipedia)? What exactly did I prove?
   8428. formerly dp Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4303604)
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead
I like how the Tea Party had 'demonstrations' while Occupy had 'riots'.
   8429. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4303606)
Joe apparently lives in a world where the 2nd Amendment has been restricted over the course of time. I assume this world also has green skies and purple flavored unicorn poo powers the mind control engines.

Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time." The "green skies" only exist in the world occupied by people like Sam who deny such basic points of fact.
   8430. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4303610)
Which means, BY DEFINITION, that gun rights HAVEN'T BECOME MORE RESTRICTIVE. Which means you are full of #### above. (To no one's real surprise.)

Hey, look, Sam's doing his shtick again.

First of all, the earlier discussion was about liberal ideology. Second, the Second Amendment assuredly had become more restrictive over time. Until recently, functional firearms had been banned in D.C. and Chicago for decades. Heller and McDonald reversed some of these restrictions, but it's incredibly dishonest to claim such restrictions didn't exist or that they aren't still desired by large numbers of liberals.

***
Really really non-responsive. (Hoping for strike three) If the US is not a Democracy than what is it?

The United States is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.
   8431. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4303611)
My favorite parts are ...

Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little.


That is not my understanding.

And of course ...

That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., *Iranian-born* Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign.


Heaven forbid anyone born in Iran ever be allowed to do anything in the USA (where no immigrant has ever served the nation in any capacity ever). And spending a week in Teheran? The horror.
   8432. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4303612)
Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time." The "green skies" only exist in the world occupied by people like Sam who deny such basic points of fact.


Joe lives in a world fueled by paranoid delusions. The 2nd Amendment has not become more restrictive. The federal state - which is the state being discussed here - has not restricted the 2nd, as you claimed above. Similarly, the general welfare clause is not suddenly more restrictive than "general welfare" implies.

You don't even bother reading the goddamned Constitution when it doesn't support your preferred outcomes, do you?
   8433. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4303614)
Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time."
The "well regulated" part of of the 2nd Amendment clause would apply here.
   8434. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4303615)
The United States is not democracy, it's a constitutional republic.


Which is a subset of the larger class of governmental form known as Democracy. I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.

Edit: Looking over the various definitions I am going to amend what I said. The Constitutional Republic is not a subset of a Democracy. The US is both a Democracy and a Constiutional Republic. By definition you can have an aristocratic or oligarchic Constitutional Republic.
   8435. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4303616)
First of all, the earlier discussion was about liberal ideology. Second, the Second Amendment assuredly had become more restrictive over time.


No, it hadn't. The reason no one can carry on a conversation with you is that you just make up #### to fit your preferences rather than living in a shared, common reality.
   8436. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4303617)
I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.


It's almost entirely idiotic semantics at play. Joe is harping on "not a democracy" because "Democrats" are for democracy, and "Republicans" are for constitutional "republics." It is literally devoid of any intelligent meaning or merit at all.
   8437. bunyon Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4303618)
It is true that many states and cities have very restrictive gun laws, of the sort that a fair reading might find unconstitutional. However, the idea that the Democrats are "after the guns" is ludicrous. I think a lot of their supporters would like them to be - I would believe it if you said "Andy" or "Zonk" or "Robinred"* wanted to ban private ownership of guns.

But the idea that the Democratic Party and the leaders holding office from that party are going to do this is absurd. They have had countless opportunities to try and, whether it is from cowardice or heartfelt belief, they haven't tried and aren't going to try. I'm not telling folks, like me, who favor private ownership and a more right leaning view of the 2nd amendment not to be wary, but, by far, the most intrusive push against 2nd amendment rights came from a Republican administration (Bush 43 and Homeland Security) than from a Democratic one.

I have friends almost daily tell me Obama is coming for my guns. No, he isn't. If Mr. Obama comes to my house, he's a lot more likely to want to lecture me on my choice of light bulb than do anything about my guns. We'd most likely end up watching college basketball and arguing over foreign aid. Guns aren't in play.


* Not saying these particular guys are against me owning guns, just that it wouldn't surprise me (or worry me) if they were.
   8438. bunyon Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4303619)
That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., *Iranian-born* Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign.


Quick, someone check Ahmadinejad's email.
   8439. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4303620)
Joe lives in a world fueled by paranoid delusions. The 2nd Amendment has not become more restrictive. The federal state - which is the state being discussed here - has not restricted the 2nd, as you claimed above. Similarly, the general welfare clause is not suddenly more restrictive than "general welfare" implies.

You don't even bother reading the goddamned Constitution when it doesn't support your preferred outcomes, do you?

Both nonsensical and dishonest. There are plenty of federal gun laws that have made the Second Amendment much more "restrictive over time," and that still ignores that flat gun bans that existed in places like D.C. and Chicago.
   8440. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4303621)
If Mr. Obama comes to my house, he's a lot more likely to want to lecture me on my choice of light bulb than do anything about my guns. We'd most likely end up watching college basketball and arguing over foreign aid.


This would be awesome by the way. He can stop by my Mouse Hole any time.
   8441. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4303624)
It's almost entirely idiotic semantics at play. Joe is harping on "not a democracy" because "Democrats" are for democracy, and "Republicans" are for constitutional "republics." It is literally devoid of any intelligent meaning or merit at all.
I would like to see the polling on this. What does Rasmussen say about this?
   8442. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4303625)
It is true that many states and cities have very restrictive gun laws, of the sort that a fair reading might find unconstitutional. However, the idea that the Democrats are "after the guns" is ludicrous. I think a lot of their supporters would like them to be - I would believe it if you said "Andy" or "Zonk" or "Robinred"* wanted to ban private ownership of guns.

But the idea that the Democratic Party and the leaders holding office from that party are going to do this is absurd. They have had countless opportunities to try and, whether it is from cowardice or heartfelt belief, they haven't tried and aren't going to try.

You obviously haven't been following the post-Heller era in D.C. or the post-McDonald era in Chicago. The idea that liberals have totally surrendered on the Second Amendment is fantasy at best, dishonesty at worst.
   8443. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4303626)

Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time."


I am no expert, but it appears that muzzle-loaded rifles, of the type used in the 18th century, can be carried without a license in New York under an 'antique firearms' exception. If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.

The idea that liberals have totally surrendered on the Second Amendment is fantasy at best, dishonesty at worst.


Point me to the ads where gun control was an issue. The Democratic party official platform has the following language:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.


Even if that program were an issue important enough to Democrats to spend political capital on (it isn't), it's tremendously weak sauce.

   8444. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4303627)
Not saying these particular guys are against me owning guns


The ex has a bunch of guns. They are in the basement, with most or all being in the gunsafe. None of them have been used for years (decades?) and as far as I know there is no ammo in the house - honestly I would rather not have them in the house at all, but whatever. You, you can have your guns so long as you have those CFLs screwed in tight!
   8445. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4303628)
I have friends almost daily tell me Obama is coming for my guns.
Obama hasn't done it for four years, but he's certainly going to do it now because stuff and reasons.
   8446. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4303629)
Which is a subset of the larger class of governmental form known as Democracy. I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.

If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?
   8447. bunyon Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4303630)
You obviously haven't been following the post-Heller era in D.C. or the post-McDonald era in Chicago. The idea that liberals have totally surrendered on the Second Amendment is fantasy at best, dishonesty at worst.

Those aren't federal Democrats and I, more or less, agree with you. I'm just referring to this insane craze that goes around after every Democratic president is elected where gun owners go berserk thinking the ATF is days away from kicking their doors in.

I think we desperately need an adult conversation about guns. To me, the idea that guns - firearms - can be considered in an 18th century light is absurd. It's an enormous problem in cities. By the same token, I think people not only should be allowed to, but should be expected to, know how to handle firearms. The status quo - bans in some place, free reign in others - is tremendously stupid. I know lots of folks who get the urge to have a gun, go buy one, read the manual just enough to know how to load it, then put it away thinking they are now safer. Handling firearms is serious business and, while it isn't rocket science, isn't intuitive, either.

Having half the people screaming that they should be allowed to own anything they want and the other half demanding all-out bans is not smart, center position.
   8448. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4303631)
Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

So one halfhearted sentence about gun rights, followed entirely by the liberals' desire for more "regulation," "conversation," and "enforcement."

Not exactly Charlton Heston at the NRA convention.
   8449. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4303632)
I am no expert, but it appears that muzzle-loaded rifles, of the type used in the 18th century, can be carried without a license in New York under an 'antique firearms' exception. If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.


This entire debacle of an attempt to reason with the Nutjob Fool came about thusly:

Fool: "The general welfare clause must be read more restrictively than 'general welfare' because the founders generation didn't have Ibuprofen!"

Sam: "The document says 'general welfare' because the founders were specifically vague in their terms, in order to account for changing views of what the proper application of general welfare might be over time. They left that to the people of each generation to decide."

Fool: "So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?! HAH! GOTCHA!"

Sam: "No, you simpering idiot, neither of those clauses of the Constitution has become more restrictive over time. Take your ####### meds, jackass."
   8450. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4303635)
If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?


Do you really want a lecture on the process underwhich ideas become laws here in the US? Or are you asking from a moral standpoint, because neither Democracy nor a Constitution (nor both together) guarantee morality?

For your reference:
In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.


In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.
   8451. Langer Monk Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4303636)
stuff and reasons.


That's suspiciously similar to 'things' and 'gifts'. It's all coming together now.
   8452. Greg K Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4303637)
If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?

I'm going to save you guys some time and point out that you're both working under separate definitions of the word "democracy".
   8453. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4303640)
I'm going to save you guys some time and point out that you're both working under separate definitions of the word "democracy".


Well I gave mine (see post 8408). I think in encompasses his. Sam rightly pointed out his is from silly word games to get some sort of rhetorical advantage.
   8454. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4303643)
Those aren't federal Democrats and I, more or less, agree with you. I'm just referring to this insane craze that goes around after every Democratic president is elected where gun owners go berserk thinking the ATF is days away from kicking their doors in.

I never said anything about Obama wanting to take our guns away, although he assuredly would do so if he thought it was possible, and anyone who claims otherwise is kidding himself. Obama endorsed Chicago's decades-old gun ban again and again during his time as a community organizer, state legislator, presidential candidate, and then even as president, when McDonald was being argued.

Regardless, the point was, if the vague language of the "general welfare" clause gave rise to Obamacare and is enforceable on the states, then the Dems' disdain for the plain language of the Second Amendment is unexplained.
   8455. spike Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4303644)
The United States is not democracy, it's a constitutional republic

Just about every derper I know trots that one out right on cue. It's either the Tucker Carlson version of Ack Acka Dak or someone has spread a rumor that you get ten bucks every time you say it. It's damn near Pavlovian at this point.

//Blucher! Neiiiigh!!!!
   8456. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4303645)
So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?!


And even if so, so what? The US was designed to change and evolve over time. That is why they built in the ability to alter the constitution. They didn't expect everything to stay in stasis. Things change. Emphasis changes. Admendments are entered. However the preamble, which pretty much lays out the philisophical underpinning for the whole thing pretty closely aligns with (codifies?) Bitter Mouse's Law (Thanks Ray I really like that).

And because I love it so (it is up there with the Declaration of Independance and the Gettysburg Address):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
   8457. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4303646)
This entire debacle of an attempt to reason with the Nutjob Fool came about thusly:

Fool: "The general welfare clause must be read more restrictively than 'general welfare' because the founders generation didn't have Ibuprofen!"

Sam: "The document says 'general welfare' because the founders were specifically vague in their terms, in order to account for changing views of what the proper application of general welfare might be over time. They left that to the people of each generation to decide."

Fool: "So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?! HAH! GOTCHA!"

Sam: "No, you simpering idiot, neither of those clauses of the Constitution has become more restrictive over time. Take your ####### meds, jackass."

Well, one of us needs to "take his ####### meds," but it isn't me.
   8458. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4303648)

So one halfhearted sentence about gun rights, followed entirely by the liberals' desire for more "regulation," "conversation," and "enforcement."


Not conversation! I'll converse about guns when you pry the words from my cold, dead lips.
   8459. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4303649)
Do you really want a lecture on the process underwhich ideas become laws here in the US? Or are you asking from a moral standpoint, because neither Democracy nor a Constitution (nor both together) guarantee morality?

OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?
   8460. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4303651)
Regardless, the point was, if the vague language of the "general welfare" clause gave rise to Obamacare and is enforceable on the states


It is the philisophical support for a government that cares about the welfare of its citizens and wants to do more than just stay out of their way, that "gives them gifts". Our modern notion of what constitutes welfare and our desire to fix the previous health care regime led to ObamaCare.
   8461. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4303652)
OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?


I am pretty sure it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is a process here.

And again, are you asking process OK or morally OK? Because no governmental form ensures morality of decisions.
   8462. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4303653)
OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?
51 percent doesn't pass anything in the Senate nowadays. Just sayin'.
   8463. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4303656)
And even if so, so what? The US was designed to change and evolve over time. That is why they built in the ability to alter the constitution.

I guess I missed the part where liberals tried to amend the Constitution rather than attempt — successfully, in some cases — to render the Second Amendment null and void via activist judges, an Orwellian redefinition of the Second Amendment's plain language (i.e., the "collective" nonsense), etc.

I'd have a lot more respect for the gun-control crowd if they tried an amendment rather than the linguistic and legalistic flimflammery they generally employ.
   8464. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4303659)
I am pretty sure it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is a process here.

If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?
   8465. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4303660)
via activist judges


Activist Judges! How I have missed you, my dear friends.

And I explicitly said the US was designed to change over time. Changing the constitution is only one of the ways that happens. Passing laws is another way. There are many more including our friends the activist judge.
   8466. Greg K Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4303662)
Pish, you think your nation's preamble is hot stuff? Take a gander at this liberty inspiring opening gambit!

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire.


The two pillars of any free nation, no matter where or when it should exist - to look after the welfare of its people, and to promote the interests of the British Empire.
   8467. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4303663)
Why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?


It seemed like a good idea at the time. If you are not happy with that you can try to get that changed, I hear there is a way to do that.
   8468. Shredder Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4303664)
SdeB sort of beat me to it, but:

Are you going to pretend that liberals haven't been in favor of gun control, or of the nonsensical "collective" interpretation* of the Second Amendment?

The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.
Let's be real traditionalists then. Absolutely no restrictions on ownership of weapons. No registrations, no permits, no limit to where they can be taken, the whole ball of wax. However, to stay true to the text of the Constitution, you're limited to only carrying weapons that existed at the time of it's adoption. Deal? If the definition of "arms" as it appears in the Constitution is allowed to evolve, then so is the definition of "general welfare".
   8469. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4303665)
It seemed like a good idea at the time. If you are not happy with that you can try to get that changed, I hear there is a way to do that.

Wait, so the U.S. is a democracy, except when it isn't? This is all very confusing.
   8470. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4303666)
I like it Greg, but I admit a fondness for "establish and ordain", the whole this has such nice flow to it.
   8471. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4303667)
Why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?
Because judicial review is a thing.
   8472. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4303668)

If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?


Because we voted that into the Constitution?
   8473. Langer Monk Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4303669)
I hear there is a way to do that.


Secede!
   8474. Shredder Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4303670)
If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?
They don't.
   8475. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4303671)
Wait, so the U.S. is a democracy, except when it isn't? This is all very confusing.


A Democracy with rules (A constitution) is still a Democracy. No where in the definition does it say anything about "and there can be no limits at all to the desires of the majority."

Though of course since you can, by Democratic processes (voting and stuff) get rid of any impediment to the Joe K slavery scheme, I am pretty sure even by your definition of Democracy the US is one.
   8476. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4303672)
Ack Acka Dak


Tucker's not trading in his Chevy for a Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac....
   8477. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4303673)
Let's be real traditionalists then. Absolutely no restrictions on ownership of weapons. No registrations, no permits, no limit to where they can be taken, the whole ball of wax. However, to stay true to the text of the Constitution, you're limited to only carrying weapons that existed at the time of it's adoption. Deal?

Oh, is that how it works now? I guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to telephones or the internet, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect cars or email accounts from warrantless searches, etc., etc.

If the definition of "arms" as it appears in the Constitution is allowed to evolve, then so is the definition of "general welfare".

That wasn't the argument. The argument was the massive expansion, in liberals' eyes, of the meaning of "general welfare," while liberals simultaneously claimed a contraction if not elimination of Second Amendment rights. The "evolving" was quite selective, and more than a little contradictory.
   8478. Shredder Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4303677)
while liberals simultaneously claimed a contraction if not elimination of Second Amendment rights.
Right, based on the "well regulated" part that conservatives and gun nuts seem to skip over all the time.
The "evolving" was quite selective, and more than a little contradictory.
This is simply not true.
   8479. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4303683)
I'm still not sure why interpreting the Commerce Clause narrowly and the Second Amendment liberally, as conservatives propose to do, is not self-contradictory by that argument.
   8480. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4303684)
Right, based on the "well regulated" part that conservatives and gun nuts seem to skip over all the time.

Nonsense. As Alan Gura argued in Heller or McDonald, there can't simultaneously be a right to possess firearms and a ban of possessing firearms. The gun laws in Chicago and D.C. and elsewhere weren't "regulation" — they were bans.
   8481. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4303686)
A Democracy with rules (A constitution) is still a Democracy. No where in the definition does it say anything about "and there can be no limits at all to the desires of the majority."

You obviously don't like the slavery example, so I'll go back to my question from the last page: If 51 percent of voters vote to confiscate 98 or even 100 percent of the wealth of the other 49 percent, would that be OK because it was democratically decided? If not, how and where do you draw the lines when it comes to taxation, "fairness," and property rights?
   8482. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4303688)
The gun laws in Chicago and D.C. and elsewhere weren't "regulation" — they were bans.


Playing devil's advocate, there were no gun bans. Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.
   8483. formerly dp Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4303689)
Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.
What the #### kind of judo is this?
   8484. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4303690)
Playing devil's advocate, there were no gun bans. Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.

False (and ridiculous). Aside from the fact the D.C. Police Department doesn't simply hire all comers, this would also mean that disabled people unfit for police work would have no right to keep and bear arms.
   8485. DA Baracus Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4303691)
Joe, honest question, do you believe that you and I should be able to possess, say, grenade launchers?
   8486. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4303692)
Joe, honest question, do you believe that you and I should be able to possess, say, grenade launchers?

I should, but not you.

(Serious answer: No.)
   8487. Greg K Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4303693)
I've never actually engaged with anyone on the gun issue, and I certainly don't want to start a whole thing, but out of genuine curiosity:

Is the desire to maintain the freedoms associated with gun ownership part of a larger project of maintain all freedoms. In other words, it's not so much that freedom to own guns is important, so much as any kind of freedom.

Or is there a concern that a society that restricts gun ownership is particularly dangerous.

I guess those two motivations aren't necessarily distinct from one another.
   8488. spike Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4303697)
Walnuts gets sore when asked why he skipped Benghazi briefing to ##### to press about lack of info on Benghazi

I remember when that guy had a shred of decency. With him and Aunt Bea leading the charge, it's no wonder the issue isn't getting any traction.
   8489. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4303699)
Is the desire to maintain the freedoms associated with gun ownership part of a larger project of maintain all freedoms. In other words, it's not so much that freedom to own guns is important, so much as any kind of freedom.

Or is there a concern that a society that restricts gun ownership is particularly dangerous.

I guess those two motivations aren't necessarily distinct from one another.

The Second Amendment sums it up nicely:

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.
   8490. Greg K Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4303702)
The Second Amendment sums it up nicely:

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.

Like I said, I haven't put a great deal of thought into guns, but the experience of my entire life, lived thus far in two states that I consider to be free, tells me that that isn't necessarily true.

Do nations with stricter gun laws that America not count as free states?

I don't mean this to be as combative as I'm sure it sounds...what is the perception of the gun laws of other nations from advocates for gun freedom?
   8491. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4303709)
A well regulated militia

I've had it with Nanny Obama and his overregulation!
   8492. Monty Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4303710)
From the link in 8488:

McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.


A "select committee"? Is that more or less powerful than a blue-ribbon panel?
   8493. Ron J2 Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4303713)
If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.


I've been brooding over the meaning of the 2nd amendment for quite some time. It's become clear to me that to an 18th century gentleman TRTBA meant the right to openly carry a sword and/or pistol. IE arms that in many place in the old world were restricted to a particular class.

In that context the bit about militias could be taken as an attempt to prevent the emergence of a class of people who are authorized to carry weapons (and are familiar with their use -- an important aspect of any militia)

Certainly many of the FF absolutely wanted to avoid a large standing army. And not just on financial grounds.
   8494. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4303715)
Does anyone named Robinred want to count up the number of liberals on the past couple of pages vs. the number of non-liberals?

What is it, 20 to 2? 25 to 2?
   8495. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4303716)
I think it's 332 to 0.
   8496. Ron J2 Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4303717)
They didn't expect everything to stay in stasis.


I've provided Jefferson's position on the matter. He was pretty clear that change was to be expected. And I doubt you'll find any FF that thought otherwise.
   8497. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4303720)

(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped a classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.

The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.

McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.

When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.

"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.

Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."


Good to see John McCain's back to being a complete ####### ...

[edit] Argh. Coke to spike.
   8498. smileyy Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4303721)
[8487] The older I've gotten and the more I've seen the government infringe upon me (surveillance state, assassination of US citizens) my perceived odds of needing to take up arms against the government in my lifetime have gone from 0 to like .000001%. That's a pretty big relative increase. That also doesn't factor in the odds of collapse of civilization and the need to own guns for protection of one's self-interest.

When I moved from Cincinnati/Cleveland/Chicago/Detroit to significantly west of the Mississippi (Seattle), I started running a lot more into "The government should get out of my way" types. I can sympathize with them for reasons that I don't feel like I can do a good job of explaining, other than "Who are you to regulate what goes on on my property that doesn't impact other people." I think the main disagreement is the impact to other people.

I might be even more sympathetic, depending on what the federal government decides what to do or not do re: legal marijuana sales in Washington.
   8499. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 15, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4303724)
I don't mean this to be as combative as I'm sure it sounds...what is the perception of the gun laws of other nations from advocates for gun freedom?

It's not necessarily a binary "free" vs. "not free" type of perception, but it's generally understood not to be merely coincidence that most of the least-free countries on Earth have bans on firearm possession. Most of the countries that break this trend are island nations like the U.K., Australia, and Japan.
   8500. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 15, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4303726)
Raley's , union workers reach agreement


I know a lot of people that didnt cross the lines in the Sac area when this was going on. The scary part about the strike is what was mentioned in this paragraph:


But in the face of mounting competition from nonunion grocers, labor's victory may be short-lived. Supermarket industry expert David Livingston said Raley's workers will enjoy robust benefits for the next few years, but "the price that they pay for getting the benefits today is that their job will be eliminated some day down the road, because the overhead is too much. With the pressure on full-bore from big-box food sellers like Walmart, which relies on low-wage and part-time workers, grocery stores have to continue finding ways to cut costs to stay competitive"
Page 85 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(10 - 9:19am, Oct 30)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4568 - 9:19am, Oct 30)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(53 - 9:17am, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(960 - 9:15am, Oct 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(30 - 9:03am, Oct 30)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(7 - 8:55am, Oct 30)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1426 - 8:55am, Oct 30)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(25 - 8:14am, Oct 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(571 - 7:42am, Oct 30)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(9 - 1:14am, Oct 30)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogESPN: Jose Canseco shoots self in hand
(66 - 11:53pm, Oct 29)
Last: eric

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(15 - 11:14pm, Oct 29)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(509 - 10:55pm, Oct 29)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogNobody knows anything about Game 7 | FOX Sports
(25 - 8:34pm, Oct 29)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogVanguard after the Revolution | NBC SportsWorld
(48 - 5:24pm, Oct 29)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.9135 seconds
52 querie(s) executed