Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's what throws me:

You post this, and tell me that "this is precisely what Cheney said'.

But, your version has this narration in it that makes for a pause and a seeming end-of-discrete-statement - to wit - A para break, followed by "He continued . . . "

I listened. I didn't hear him say "he continued". I didn't hear tha pause. I heard it as a run-on sentence.

I think you have to add this to get the menaing you want to claim.

I'm sorry if the quote from the newspaper threw you, but I suspect that you're actually saying that you didn't hear a pause, and that without one, the quote is totally different.

Assuming that this is true, we could also argue about the merits of Cheney's revised remarks, because most of the substantive disagreements between the parties aren't over whether terrorism is a military or a criminal justice matter. Both parties generally agree that it's both. (Certainly Ashcroft needs this to be so).

Regardless -- I have looked for an audio link but haven't found one yet. However, I think that the widespread reporting of this interpretation suggests that it's certainly ambiguous, and that this is not a case of the crowd failing to boo.

And regardless again, you and I have already discussed the substance of this. I believe that this interpretation has resonance because the theme is AT THE FUCKING HEART of the GOP platform.

Forget about Bush's stewardship of the economy, about jobs, about the balooning deficit, about the significant likelihood that a second Bush term will be little more than a four-year series of Congressional hearings over scandals borne in the first -- all of this will be moot if you vote for Kerry, because if you're stupid enough to vote for Senator Spitball, you will die a fiery death at the hands of Jihadists. And I don't think you disagreed with that assessment.

So your efforts to parse and defend Cheney's sequence of breaths, and express bafflement at how people could read it otherwise, is -- well, baffling.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This message has been brought to you by a Republican Administration and Republican Congress. Happy hunting!

I think you'll have a fairly hard time creating a long list of dems. in support.

And, as Bilmore notes, nothing as changed about the automatic weapons restrictions, just the ones of semi-automatics. I doubt anyone's finger can move fast enough to squeeze off the gatling gun's 4200 rpm with individual pumps.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you'll have a fairly hard time creating a long list of dems. in support.

And, as Bilmore notes, nothing as changed about the automatic weapons restrictions, just the ones of semi-automatics. I doubt anyone's finger can move fast enough to squeeze off the gatling gun's 4200 rpm with individual pumps.

Do you think the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear Gatling guns? Or is it just flintlock rifles?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you think the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear Gatling guns? Or is it just flintlock rifles?

I know it doesn't compel the regulation of either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I know it doesn't compel the regulation of either.

We all know that, but that wasn't my question.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We all know that, but that wasn't my question.

I'm sorry--too much of a non-sequitor. Are we commencing a debate on the meaning of the 2d amendment?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I always figure a position that can only be defended dishonestly is a dishonest position.

The AW ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons. It has to do with weapons that LOOK scary.

Huh. I always figured that a position that can be expressed satirically is satire. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

I know that the AW ban was a misnomer, and was woefully ineffective as a policy instrument. It's tough to know from your minimallist post about whether your criticism is that the law sucked and therefore there's no point in perpetuating it, or something else, so I'll resist the temptation to speculate about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm sorry--too much of a non-sequitor. Are we commencing a debate on the meaning of the 2d amendment?

Not if you don't want to pretend to be a wingnut. I've just never understood why the gunnies think the Second Amendment -- construed as they suggest -- doesn't confer a right to bear arms like Gatling guns and flamethrowers. Curiously, most of them don't want to go there.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not if you don't want to pretend to be a wingnut. I've just never understood why the gunnies think the Second Amendment -- construed as they suggest -- doesn't confer a right to bear arms like Gatling guns and flamethrowers. Curiously, most of them don't want to go there.

My guess is some of them do. I can't see as reasonable an interpretation of the 2d amendment that holds weapons that were not in existence in 1789 do not constitute "Arms" within the amendment's terms. Television, radio, and the internet all seem to come within the term "speech" in the first amendment, despite their not existing in 1789.

As with most constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. Perhaps more extensive regulation of gatling guns is reasonable.

etfs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
My guess is some of them do. I can't see as reasonable an interpretation of the 2d amendment that holds weapons that were not in existence in 1789 do not constitute "Arms" within the amendment's terms. Television, radio, and the internet all seem to come within the term "speech" in the first amendment, despite their not existing in 1789.

As with most constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. Perhaps more extensive regulation of gatling guns is reasonable.

etfs

I think it's reasonable -- and in keeping with the original intent of the framers -- to say that you have a right to bear infantry arms if you are actually serving in the infantry -- the National Guard, say, or some kind militia. Other forms of "reasonable regulation" would seem to have less basis in what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking about.

Most gunnies disagree with your view, and my application of it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

It's good to know that Right Blogistan is positively crawling with experts in fonts and typewriters and other arcane matters involved in spotting forged documents. Where were all these people when the Administration got hoodwinked by the forgeries concerning uranium from Niger?

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not if you don't want to pretend to be a wingnut. I've just never understood why the gunnies think the Second Amendment -- construed as they suggest -- doesn't confer a right to bear arms like Gatling guns and flamethrowers. Curiously, most of them don't want to go there.

Apr...uh, speaking of that, I don't understand why fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible as the literal word of God (and cite Leviticus as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry) don't keep kosher. Seriously, why is it ok to eat a cheeseburger in 2004 A.D. if it wasn't ok back then? The whole "pork is safer now" doesn't even begin to cover all of the other stuff (like the milk and meat forbidden combo.)

(One of these days, I'll hear the answer. I mean, I used to ask Southern Baptists how drinking could be so bad if Jesus used his first miracle to turn water into wine at the weding in Cana, and someone told me it was ok for Jesus to do that because wine was was weaker then and water was dangerous. Of course, that begs the question as to why he didn't turn the icky water into pure water, but it is an explanation.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And I don't think you disagreed with that assessment.

So your efforts to parse and defend Cheney's sequence of breaths, and express bafflement at how people could read it otherwise, is -- well, baffling.

Nope - I tend to agree with the horrid, horrid sentiment that everyone attributes to Cheney's speech but wasn't there. I think that more Americans will die, sooner, if Kerry wins. But, since they'll all be coasties who are voting for Kerry, . . . .

My point was, Cheney's been making this same speech, and making this same point, every time, for months - that Kerry will treat terrorism as a crime instead of a war, and really screw the pooch. He phrased it slightly differently this time - god, how many times can you say the same thing without changing the words a little - and everyone who knows his speeches knows what he was saying. So, my end point is, the people claiming the outrage really have none - just glee.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's reasonable -- and in keeping with the original intent of the framers -- to say that you have a right to bear infantry arms if you are actually serving in the infantry -- the National Guard, say, or some kind militia.

That's a separate question: Whether the introductory clause has any relevance. As I understand the limited precedent on the subject, the answer is that it does. That is, "Arms" are only those weapons that a well-regulated militia might have or use. But that's a different limitation that a technological one.

If the Massachusetts National Guard things it proper to defend the Commonwealth with Gatling guns, then I'm sure John Kerry would have a right to go out and buy the prettiest, nicest, most expensive one he could find. Of course, chances are that Taxachusetts would think muskets are still the best way to defend itself, so not to worry.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Huh. I always figured that a position that can be expressed satirically is satire. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

I know that the AW ban was a misnomer, and was woefully ineffective as a policy instrument. It's tough to know from your minimallist post about whether your criticism is that the law sucked and therefore there's no point in perpetuating it, or something else, so I'll resist the temptation to speculate about it.

To clarify:

1. The law was for appearances only, had no substantive impact on anything gun-related, and was stoopid.

2. Satire? Do you know how many people are spinning this crap about automatics? Do you know how many people (okay, stoopid people who don't read) now believe that this expiration will allow automatics? My assumption was that you were making a funny stemming from your support of the ban, somewhat loosely, and that you were perpetuating a lie that you knew to be just that. If this was satire, I didn't get it, and I apologize.