27
The Founding Fathers Didn’t Wear Pajamas Either
John Ruberry (pronounced Rube-Airy), the Pajamas Media blogger who blogs as the “Marathon Pundit,” has injudiciously decided to play the “I bet the Founding Fathers didn’t (fill in the blank) game.” For example, since the Founding Fathers never heard of people piercing their nipples, then people with nipple rings have no Constitutional rights.
What has caused Ruberry to play the game is outrage that the Senate is staying in session to prevent the Greatest President Ever from making recess appointments:
Most of Congress has gone home for during the Christmas and New Year’s break. Virginia Senator James Webb headed home to, but he does that every day after his work in the Senate is done. But Webb lives just across the Potomac in McLean.
He “hurried back” to the Capitol today to keep the Senate open–and prevent Bush from using a recess appointment to get Bradbury on the job.
Today’s session lasted nine seconds.
This type of “democracy” is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind in 1787 in Philadelphia.
Oops. Yet another pair of pajamas soiled by a pantload of imbecility.
When playing the Founding Father’s game it’s a good idea to have a passing familiarity with things like, well, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, and other stuff that the “Founding Fathers” actually wrote. And what’s important here is what the Founding Fathers said about these Recess Appointments in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution:
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
And here’s Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 67:
The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments ….
So, whatever the Founding Fathers thought about pro forma Senate sessions, and it’s likely they thought about as much about pro forma sessions as they did about nipple rings, they never intended the recess appointment power to be used by the President to fill without Senate consent vacancies that occurred prior to the recess.
Notorious P.A.T. said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:06
Hogwash! The founding fathers were a bunch of bible-thumping ministers who thought staying alive was more important than maintaining liberty! They obviously would have agreed with this whoever-he-is instead of you!
Duros62 said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:10
I’m out of the loop. What position is Bush trying to fill and with which criminal?
Duros62 said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:16
Boo-hoo! Look, a democrat doing his job. It isn’t fair!
Doofus said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:18
“What position is Bush trying to fill and with which criminal?”
Missionary, I believe, and Larry Craig, respectively.
Nimrod Gently said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:18
Actual democracy is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind!
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:19
The Founding Fathers wore stockings and wigs, therefore only Drag Queens should be allowed to run the country.
And I don’t care what you say, I’m calling him “rubbery.”
Doodle Bean said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:26
Sa-a-ay, that research-before-writing technique makes a lot of sense! Could it all be possible with the help of the Great Ga-zoogle, perchance?
Oregon Guy said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:28
Threadjack:
I think the events in Pakistan deserve a post. In addition to the bombing which killed B.Bhutto, there was an attack on Nawaz Sharif (the other “democratic” candidate), and three suicide bombings directed against Pak military installations (including one within the “secure” cantonment area of Rawalpindi - Pak’s military headquarters).
Bad things are afoot.
Doodle Bean said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:28
Oh, and I believe it’s all about Hans von Spakovsky and the FEC…
Sorry if I capitalized wrong - no time for research!
Woodrowfan said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:35
and he ignores the fact that recess appointments were allowed because Congress would be in recess for months at a time. They were not intended to be a way for the President to take advantage of the fact that Congress might be out of session for a few weeks to sneak in somebody that the Senate refused to confirm.
Tara the anti-social social worker said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:36
Since there was no country called “Iraq” in the 1700’s, obviously the Founding Fathers could not have approved of war in Iraq. qed.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:38
When playing the Founding Father’s game it’s a good idea to have a passing familiarity with things like, well, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, and other stuff that the “Founding Fathers” actually wrote.
Only liberalcommiefascihomoterrorists care about that stuff!
P.S. Here’s another man hard at work:
Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They’ve Accomplished
Dave Broder, on the job. Wanking.
gbear at work said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:38
Staying in session to prevent recess appointments is the equivalent of installing a security system to prevent your house from being trashed and robbed.
My house was broken in to twice this summer, therefore I installed an security system. Given that electronic home security systems were not in the constitution, I have no constitutional rights as an electronically secure person.
I also have no home computer. It blowed up reeeel good on christmas day. Crap. I hadn’t heard anything sound that damaged since the weekend I drove my 67 Bisquayne from St Paul to Grand Forks and back in the dead of winter with 2 out of 8 cylinders not firing.
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:39
Acutally it’s Steven Bradbury, the ‘acting’ Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Counsel. Acting President Bush had nominated Bradbury for the job and wants the Senate to remove the ‘acting’ part of his title.
Bradbury signed on to two memos in 2005 saying (paraphrasing here) that since the Nazis and Nips tortured US soldiers back in WWII, the CIA needs to be torturing more people now. It’s a key part of the Party Of Life’s “War On People We Disagree With” (which includes the mass murder of Iraqi civilians by our mercenary Christian armies (Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc.), since our regular armies aren’t supposed to be doing things like that).
Acting President Bush promised that he’d appoint Bradbury when the Senate went into recess, so the Dems are mounting a token effort to prevent that to make it look like that oppose the GOP, when they are actually, obviously, in league with the GOP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/ap_on_go_co/quick_senate
DrDick said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:46
Indeed. If you look at the constitutional provisions on “advise and consent”, it is amply apparent that the founders fully intended the Senate to do exactly what they are doing by the pro forma sessions, keep the president from appointing unqualified candidates. The recess appointment clause reflects transportation and communications conditions at the time, when it could take weeks to reconvene the Senate. It is also clear that it is intended only to fill vital positions whose vacancy would materially damage the Republic, not just as a convenience for the President to bypass Congress.
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 27, 2007 at 19:57
Our Founding Fathers would be surprised and disgusted that Congress hasn’t run Bush out of town on a rail. Actually, they’d probably be pretty hacked off at the citizens for not giving the same treatment to some of their representatives.
Blue Buddha said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:12
Gizoogle is in the hizzy!
tb said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:20
Great, wingnuts now sound exactly like an angry Arab mob in a really crummy Steven Seagal movie.
DAS said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:22
the “I bet the Founding Fathers didn’t (fill in the blank) game.”
The Founding Fathers didn’t know of weapons beyond — what did they have at the time? muzzle loaded black-powder guns? … therefore the 2nd Ammendment only protects the rights of re-enactors to have actual period weapons.
Anyway, it seems ter me that the Founding Fathers anticipated yahoos playing this game. Indeed, that it would enable this game was an objection to writing down the bill of rights. That’s why, IIRC, we have the 9th Ammendment.
DAS said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:23
Gizoogle is in the hizzy!
People still call such dialect “jive”?
DAS said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:25
Seriously, though: why don’t the Democrats take advantage of having a session and actually get some work done?
Duros62 said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:25
Thanks for the clarification, Comrade.
Rightwingsnarkle said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:27
Hanks! to MzNicky
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8343.html#comment-385962
(stupid html shit isn’t working…)
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:29
I believe that it’s well documented that the founding fathers found virtually all expressions of parliamentary procedure to be deeply anti-democratic.
But it aways pisses me off that no one discusses the founding mothers!
mikey
gravitybear said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:31
The FF were opposed to using parliamentary rules for political ends? That’s news to me.
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:38
At that time the founding mothers had no rights, they were property, rather than people.
Remember, the right for women to vote is less than 100 years old!!!
Galactic Dustbin said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:39
people with nipple rings have no Constitutional rights
I am so screwed.
But we are certain that the Founding Fathers ment for everyone to have fully automatic machine guns and flamethrowers.
Jrod said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:44
I don’t care much for procedural tricks either mikey, but it’s about time the Dems figured some out. Whether we and the founding mothers like it or not, the Publicans have been using every dirty trick in the congressional book to great effect for years.
Beat those fuckers with every tool you got, Dems, or some of us might be voting for Nader again, got it?
(not that I ever voted for Nader, but it’s getting harder and harder to see a D vote as any more useful…)
dBa said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:48
Hell, don’t worry about what wingnuts think about recess appointments and pro forma sessions…just know that once a Democrat is President their views will take a nasty 180 degree turn.
PR said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:48
Hey Dustbin don’t worry they all wore powdered wigs and frilly shirts.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:53
“…in a really crummy Steven Seagal movie.”
There’s another kind?
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 20:53
just know that once a Democrat is President their views will take a nasty 180 degree turn.
Reckon so. You think you’ve seen cognitive dissonance up to now? Hell, babe, that’s just been practice. When all these clowns turn around and argue 180 degrees from everything they’ve been hollering about in Re: executive power and privilege, it’s gonna be head exploding time all over. Remember the “Nuclear Option” and those simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL filibusters?
Except oddly, no one in the press will notice it…
mikey
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:00
Original Intent:
“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.”
Wingnut interpretation:
“Heavily armed lunatics being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed… who gives a fuck about a well regulated Militia, anyway?”
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:04
I’m not sure how this took us to the 2nd amendment, but I’ll say it again.
Guns are certainly a problem in american society.
But if you seriously advocate opening the door to tinkering with the bill of rights in order to solve that problem, then it’s katy bar the door and the law of unintended consequences is very likely to kick your ass vigorously, all over the place.
Seriously. Don’t go there….
mikey
Gary Ruppert said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:05
The fact is, SHUT UP! Just SHUT UP!!!1
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:08
“Heavily armed yahoos, being necessary to blow shit up for fun, the people of the Right to keep and use arms indiscriminately, shall not be infringed, or I’ll kill you.”
This is how it reads in the Heartland…
Kathleen said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:09
I don’t think the Founding Fathers had ever conceived of Pajamas Media.
Does that make Mr. Ruberry some kind of fascist?
Blue Buddha said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:10
Actually, 90% of the wingnuts probably don’t even know what a militia is. The 10% that do know what a militia is, are probably members of a doomsday cult that is thinly veiled as a “militia”.
Marion in Savannah said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:11
We can always trust Gary to come through with a cogent, concisely-worked and well reasoned comment. Thanks, Gary…
Marion in Savannah said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:14
Is there a kewl kidz klub you have to join before you can snark at a comment by Gary Ruppert? Or am I missing some “join up so you can post a comment” thingy?
Galactic Dustbin said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:22
Hey Dustbin don’t worry they all wore powdered wigs and frilly shirts.
What a pack of degenerate freaks!
Gary Ruppert Generator said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:24
How dare you impugn the Best President the Universe Has Ever Seen!!!!!1
Those Founding Fathers weren’t half the man that President Bush is. They didn’t have the guts to do the things our Great Hero has done. If they were around today, They’d be bowing to Bush’s superior intellect and mastery of strategery!
All you lieberals should shut up and be glad Bush doesn’t have you all rounded up and slaughtered, as our Founding Fathers so obviously intended.
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:27
“tinkering with the bill of rights”—WTF???
The second amendment has already been fully tinkered by the gun lobby, mikey.
Take a look at its original wording and intent… you notice anything in there about every fucking lunatic having his own automatic weapons?
actor212 said,
December 27, 2007 at 21:41
The Founding Fathers didn’t have blogs, ergo, Rube-berry should STFU and let himself get carted off to Gitmo.
Tim (the other one) said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:05
you know this whole “staying in session ” thing sounds a lot like something Adolph Hitler would have done.
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:05
I’m sorry, WPE, I’m pretty sure the wording is exactly the same as it was originally written. If I’m wrong about that, and the gun lobby has amended the constitution to change the second amendment, please show me when that happened, ’cause I’m feeling pretty stupid if I missed it.
And I happen to be one of those wackos who can see a couple of valid interpretations to the second amendment. Imagine that!
mikey
owlbear1 said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:12
You know I’ve always thought the second amendment was the Federalists way of saying to the states, “You better train some soldiers cuz it will take a while for the central government to send in cavalry”.
Johnny Coelacanth said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:27
The Founding Fathers grew hemp; thus all real Americans should grow hemp, and consume it regularly. But only if they really love their country.
tigrismus said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:31
owlbear, as they were none too keen on maintaining a standing army in time of peace, I think it likely the militia was the calvary…
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:34
I’ve often thought that people who think owning guns will protect them if the Jihadis come a calling or the government decides to haul our asses away for a session of enhanced interrogation are what I would call cretins.
Why is it that no one ever reads the very first phrase?
“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.”
A gun or two (or three) can be a thing of comfort to the homeowner if some asshole climbs through his window at midnight. But during a concerted effort to get the homeowner out of his home a gun or two (or three) will just put off the inevitable unless he has backup in the form of the other people on his block.
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:54
The Founding Fathers were very much against a standing army and navy. The contemporary nations had dictatorial leaders that used their armies for imperial conquest and the brutal supression of their own people.
Hence the creation of the militias under orders of the Governors and the Revenue Service, the fore-runners of the Coast Guard.
However the Shays Rebellion saw a milita that was sympathetic to the uprising citizens and they refused to fire on them, much to the consternation of the bankers behind the oppression.
But it wsn’t until after the War of 1812, that the Fed moved to create an actual army.
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:57
Why is it that no one ever reads the very first phrase?
Actually, I’ve had this argument a thousand times, and that’s just not the case.
Dishonest asshats on one side hang their hat on that phrase.
Dishonest asshats on the other side hang their hats on “shall not be infringed”.
People who don’t necessarily have an agenda consider the entire concept.
And I will most certainly take the position that, as bad as gun violence is in the US, I’d rather be allowed to own a firearm than live under a set of rules that says law enforcement and government can have all the guns in the world, but I can’t.
In a perfect world we could “fix” the 2nd amendment.
But all these fuckwad authoritarians would use the mechanism to enshrine bigotry, intolerance in the constitution…
mikey
a different brad said,
December 27, 2007 at 22:58
Off topic-
To anyone, anywhere, who supports Ron Paul to any degree, please, please, please read this. (warning, hate site)
And then take a shower.
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:02
Oh. And I think its worth mentioning that the gun violence problem in the US is not a bunch of rednecks with automatic weapons. It’s a bunch of scared, hopeless urban people, some who cannot see a future where they are NOT incarcerated, and some who fear them for precisely that reason (among others, of course).
If america started offering a true future to it’s poorest citizens, gun violence would decline in a generation or two, because there would be a good reason NOT to shoot somebody “just because”….
mikey
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:07
By 1898, the US was ready to send it’s army and navy forth for Imperial conquest. We now have bases all over the world and routinely invade countries on the orders of war profiteers.
Bush is the worst President in history in this regard, starting two open wars solely for the further enrichment of the GOP leadership (and some of the Dems, too) through blatant profiteering.
Now the Fed is moving past an imperial army of conquest and mass murder for profit. The Bush admin has authorized the creation of private mercenary armies to carry out missions that the regular army is prohibited from doing openly.
How far off is the future where every large corporation has it’s own private army deployed on US soil with orders to kill anyone that interferes with profit taking? Seems like a logical progression to me.
As to the modern right-winger’s fanatasies that their arms are to protect themselves against a rapacious Federal Government. What threat does a handfull of yahoos running around in the woods with small arms pose to the US Army (or Blackwater)? Why else are so many of our standing armed forces being cycled through Iraq, where they are indoctrinated to shoot civilians identified as ‘insurgents’?
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:09
I’ve never seen anyone on this board except a few drive-by trolls who supported Ron Paul, brad. What Mencken and Greenwald and I have said we approve of some of the topics of conversation that are utterly taboo that he’s putting on the table at a national level. If we can’t talk about these things, militarism and interventionism and america’s proper role in the world, we can’t change them. For that we have said that a certain amount of success for Paul’s candidacy is a positive contribution to the american political conversation.
But I’m pretty sure you’re not gonna find anyone here who supports him…
mikey
tigrismus said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:17
Bush is the worst President in history in this regard, starting two open wars solely for the further enrichment of the GOP leadership (and some of the Dems, too) through blatant profiteering.
The Bush family fortune was made through war profiteering, so he’s just continuing the family business.
Blue Buddha said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:19
Exactly. The rednecks who do cause gun violence are usually for something dumbass, such as cleaning it while loaded or shooting their hunting buddy, despite him wearing fluorescent orange. Taking away guns is only treating a symptom, and not the disease. If Americans are stupid/paranoid/angry enough to kill someone, they can just as easily do it with a bladed weapon.
Some Guy said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:24
“This type of “democracy” is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind in 1787 in Philadelphia.”
Yeah, how DARE Congress not let a hugely unpopular President do whatever the fuck he wants while they’re not home!
Re: Rednecks and Guns.
Does anyone else find it hypnotically stupid that hunters go through all that trouble to have camo’d everything (camouflage guns!) and then wear BRIGHT FLOURESCANT ORANGE! You’re trying to outwit something that doesn’t have the sense to not cross a highway in rush hour traffic, I don’t think they’re going to be all, “Holy shit, a pair of Levi’s 501 and a Remington .306!! Run!”
Pablo said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:30
I keep seeing”Go ogle Ron Paul” signs on telephone poles. Why are Libertarians using public rights of way and public infrastructure rather than placing the signs on private property?
And why should I ogle Ron Psul anyway?
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:36
Right, and the people who most often scream about the 2nd Amendment start and end their argument with “The right of the people etc.” and ignore the part that comes before. It’s like reading the 1st Amendment to only allow people to petition the government. Wha?
To take the Wingies current pants soiling scenario of choice, when the Islamohordes come racing down my street, if I own a gun and my neighbors all own guns, we’ll just wind up shooting each other unless we’ve gotten together before (formed a militia) and worked out a plan for defending the neighborhood.
Concern over the right to own guns from your average Republican pol is a sop to people who are afraid of boogeymen. So yeah, they’ll smile and speak before the NRA and tell people the Democrats want to take their guns. Boo! But I’d like to see how they’d respond if people wanted to form neighborhood militias.
Jrod said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:37
Those bright orange vests are of a hue that’s not part of a deer’s visible spectrum. And if you really don’t think deer will run away from humans if they see or smell them, you’re the one who’s hypnotically stupid.
I’m all in favor of making fun of hunters, don’t get me wrong, but your snark fails it.
Arky - Fascitanata said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:41
Ever heard of a tiger? Camo makes sense, especially if Bambi is your source of protien. If you’re just set on blasting away at shit, then forget the camo. The beasties of the forest are very good at detecting movement and shape and will take off if they see a person. Camo helps break up your outline (see our friend the tiger). The flourescent orange is to keep other hunters from shooting your ass as you’re tip-toeing through the tree stumps. The critters can’t see color.
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:42
Dishonest asshats on one side hang their hat on that phrase.
Guns should be “well regulated”, nothing dishonest about that fact.
I’d rather be allowed to own a firearm than live under a set of rules that says law enforcement and government can have all the guns in the world, but I can’t.
Ever been to the UK? You can’t have a gun there and the cops can. Big fucking deal.
If america started offering a true future to it’s poorest citizens, gun violence would decline in a generation or two, because there would be a good reason NOT to shoot somebody “just because”….
Totally bogus argument. Neither the Virginia Tech shooter, nor those Colombine assholes were among America’s poorest citizens. They were mentally unstable people with ridiculously easy access to guns.
Michael said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:45
I’d suggest that you and most of the commentors here promote the concept of two wrongs will make a right. Playing games with democracy is as undemocratic as it gets, no matter whose side you advocate for. Utilizing proceedureal tricks will get the job done in the short term, but will continue to diminish an already devolving form of political discourse.
Some Guy said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:48
I still maintain that camo’d guns are stupid.
I live in dense suburbia and have seen deer walk through my yard during the middle of the day. I’m suggesting that, at some point, one has to perhaps toy with the idea that perhaps the problem lies not with your equipment, but that you, the hunter, suck at being stealthy.
Jrod said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:48
You’re sooooo right Michael. Clearly the Democrats should just let Bush make his recess appointments, because then the Dems could pat themselves on the back for not playing tricks. It’s far better for democracy if it’s only one side cynically gaming the system.
mikey said,
December 27, 2007 at 23:58
If america started offering a true future to it’s poorest citizens, gun violence would decline in a generation or two, because there would be a good reason NOT to shoot somebody “just because”….
Totally bogus argument. Neither the Virginia Tech shooter, nor those Colombine assholes were among America’s poorest citizens. They were mentally unstable people with ridiculously easy access to guns.
Sorry. Here, it is YOUR argument that is “totally bogus”. If mass murderers represented the problem with gun violence in america, we would have far less than a thousand homicides a year nationwide and america would be considered a bastion of peacefull coexistence with a few anomolous incidents really just proving the rule.
If you are going to argue that the gun violence problem in america is something other than the urban poor, with the hopelessness and the huge incarceration rates, poverty and addiction, you are not living on the same planet as I am.
Guns should be “well regulated”, nothing dishonest about that fact.
Guns ARE extremely well regulated. How many other purchases can you make that require that amount of paperwork and a federal background check AND a waiting period? What, do you have some kind of fantasy that you can buy a gun as an impulse item at the checkout in safeway?
Ever been to the UK? You can’t have a gun there and the cops can. Big fucking deal.
Don’t see how this applies to me. I live in the US. I don’t trust my governemnt. I don’t trust the cops. The UK might be paradise on earth, but I don’t live there, so I’ve no choice but to deal with reality. And I WILL keep my guns…
mikey
HumboldtBlue said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:11
“I’d suggest that you and most of the commentors here promote the concept of two wrongs will make a right.”
I’d suggest that you haven’t been paying attention for the past seven years as our dry-drunk silver-spooned asswipe has used every dirty trick in the book to trample on the Constitution, steal an election and break any goddamned law he feels like.
It’s called politics, and if using the safeguards put in place by the prescient men who foresaw an asswipe like Bush in office, I’d say the Democrats are not only in the right, they’re paragons of democratic virtues.
So here’s to you being wrong.
handy said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:12
I’d suggest that you and most of the commentors here promote the concept of two wrongs will make a right. Playing games with democracy is as undemocratic as it gets, no matter whose side you advocate for. Utilizing proceedureal tricks will get the job done in the short term, but will continue to diminish an already devolving form of political discourse.
I promote the concept of Democrats playing their role as opposition party. It’s long past time to go into hand-wringing over playing “fair” or playing “by the rules” with Bush.
And, really, un-democratic? Hyperbole much?
a different brad said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:32
Yes, Michael, exactly. This is why GW’s abuse of the recess appointment loophole has to be curbed.
LFC said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:33
Utilizing proceedureal tricks will get the job done in the short term, but will continue to diminish an already devolving form of political discourse.
All the Dems are saying is that each position requiring Senate approval should actually go through the process of Senate approval. The Dems are not blocking Bush from making any nomination. If Bush chooses to avoid making a clear nomination, but rather waits for a recess appointment to subvert the process, who is playing politics? (Remember the paragraph inserted into the Patriot Act that allowed the DoJ to make appointemnts without Senate approval? Oddly enough, nobody seems to know how that little paragraph was magically inserted, but the request came right from Alberto “Gonzo” Gonzales.)
While we’re at it, we should discuss the fact that the Republican Senators are currently blocking the “straight up or down vote” they so loudly championed oh so recently. In order to make an end run around the majority (because von Spakovsky doesn’t stand a chance of winning approval if he stand on his own), they are threatening a filibuster unless all 4 appointments to FERC are voted on as a block. So much for their rhetoric of just 2 years ago. There’s one of the 180 degree turns that dBA wrote about earlier.
Paddy Mac said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:33
Glad to see the opposition party in Congress acting like a loyal opposition, instead of being King George’s Kleenex pile. About bloody time.
Do the ‘writers’ (i.e. those persons who keep cut-and-pasting GOP talking points) at PJ Media not understand that we can record their electronic dribblings in our computers, and spew them back later? They’re going to get every one of these stoopid arguments thrown back in their faces when a Democrat is president, and one of the few decent Republicans uses our Constitution to prevent said Demo from overstepping the bounds of his or her office. It will be amusing to see how many versions of “unlimited power is OK only if an illiterate fratboy abuses it” they can muster. About one, I’m guessing. Repeated endlessly by the dwindling numbers of Bush supporters out there.
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:34
Well, mikey, I’ve just gotta ask: exactly WTF is your childish fantasy about when the cops come knocking on your door— you’re going to shoot ‘em?
I got news for you pal, the entire SWAT team will be back in ten minutes to rake your house with AK-47 fire.
As an American who has lived abroad for the past 37 years, I just don’t understand this infantile obsession with guns that characterizes the country of my birth.
And believe me, I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’d venture to say that most of the civilized world is politely laughing at your all-too-typical adolescent gun fantasies behind your back, mikey.
There’s not another civilized country whose left-wing political leaders are routinely mowed down by wackos with firearms like the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. It’s completely disgusting.
You’ve been conned by a right-wing fantasy, my friend.
Galactic Dustbin said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:39
I’d suggest that you and most of the commentors here promote the concept of two wrongs will make a right. Playing games with democracy is as undemocratic as it gets, no matter whose side you advocate for. Utilizing proceedureal tricks will get the job done in the short term, but will continue to diminish an already devolving form of political discourse.
I totally disagree Michael, the dems in this situation are closing a loophole which Bush had exploted. This proceedureal trick is restoring the spirt of democracy to the appointment process.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:53
WPE, Mikey’s adolescent gun fantasies occurred back in the sixties, in Vietnam.
Sadly, they weren’t fantasies.
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 0:57
Ya know the thing about Ron Paul diggin’ progressives I don’t get? Why no love for Kucinich or Dodd or Richardson, all of whom have said pretty much the same thing he has inre: Iraq and executive priviledge, but have the benefit of not being fucking kooks? Hell, hasn’t Dodd actually made some effort to do something about the abuse of the executive, and my initial flirtation with Richardson is his “out of Iraq now” stance. Sure, none of ‘em have a book’s chance in Alabama of getting the nomination, but neither does Paul.
Is it just a matter of ratfucking the Republican nomination? Fucking hell, man. Paul’s a racist dingaling who thinks evolution is a myth and life starts at fertilization. As for what he brings to the table, he brings the same thing most libertarians offer progressives: jack shit. We’re already against mindlessly agressive foreign policy, the sick joke that is the drug war, and corporate douchebags running the government like drunken spider monkeys. You really think the rank-and-file conservative is gonna turn around because they google some IRS-hatin’ dipstick? After seven years of just loving every inch towards facism from the Bush administration?
I don’t get it. People are either already “paying attention” to what very, very little positive and absolutely not new that Paul brings to the table, or they’re the type that lives to hear about some dirty fucking hippie getting his head bashed in for expressing his opinion. ‘Course, many of these people hate niggers and fags anyway, so maybe they can find that common ground with Paul. Baby steps, I suppose?
And guns…feh, guns. I grew up one of those hypnotically stupid deer hunters, and my old man instilled in me a deep, visceral contempt of any sort of gun that had any use apart from blasting Bambi to kingdom come. I imagine it’s cause he got tired of being shot at during his all-expenses paid trip to ‘Nam back in the day. In any event, I’ve tried and tried to give a shit about guns, but I simply cannot. Anytime the topic comes up nowadays, I start hearing that trombone sound the Peanuts cartoons used for adults’ voices.
I can’t come up with any good reason to use a gun for anything. I haven’t hunted nothing for 10 years and since I don’t give a shit about impressing what passed for my childhood male role models, I doubt I’ll ever will again. Some folks have fun with ‘em, I say whoo-hoo. And frankly, I can’t think of anything I own I like enough to kill another human being to protect. I mean, I do like my Fender Jazz bass, but whack a dude? Nah. I realize that makes me a bad American and a girly man, but fuck if I care.
Besides, if you’re gonna kill someone, do it right and bash his/her brains in with a blunt object, like a baseball bat. Get some blood on your hands and brains on your shoes, so folks know not to fuck with you.
Boy, I’m in a bad mood.
Colleen said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:05
Here is Taylor Marsh on Ron Paul for those interested. http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26725 I’m in no way a Ron Paul supporter but really hopes he dumps the Repubs and decides to run as an Indie just for the shits and giggles that will ensue come the debates. Mikeys right, these are things that need to be discussed in America and he is ready to talk. Watch the youtube clip in this post. We could use a shit starter in this country and he may just be the man. And Pablo, public property is just that. When I post my anti-bush, anti-war signs they are always put on public property. Not being snotty, just saying.
Lawnguylander said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:11
I googled gun death rates for urban vs. rural areas and it turns out that for the nineties they were just about the same according to this study from 2004. It just depends on who’s doing the shooting. Residents of the most urban areas are more likely to be shot by someone else but rural residents are more likely to shoot themselves. (insert your own sick joke here about the unbearable dreariness of rural being)
Fucked up formatting in the original and that’s the only study of its kind I found but there’s footnotes aplenty in the back of the study for anyone who wants to look into it more. I’m too busy but maybe someone’s got the time to compare homicide rates in our gun filled cities vs. European cities and the same with our gun filled rural areas vs. Europe’s rural areas. I don’t know if we’ve got so many gun nuts in this country because we’ve got a homicidal culture or if we’ve got a homicidal culture because we’ve got so many gun nuts but if someone could just go ahead and figure that out that would be great.
Smiling Mortician said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:17
If Americans are stupid/paranoid/angry enough to kill someone, they can just as easily do it with a bladed weapon.
I’m a little late to this party, but . . . no. It’s really not just as easy to kill someone with a knife, sword or machete. That’s the . . . er, beauty? of guns.
Duros62 said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:22
I got news for you pal, the entire SWAT team will be back in ten minutes to rake your house with AK-47 fire.
I could be wrong, not knowing about these things, but I’m pretty sure SWAT teams don’t carry AK-47s.
MzNicky said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:30
Um… ’scuse me, I was just looking for the ladies’ room…I’ll be showing myself out now.
Anne Laurie said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:33
But it always pisses me off that no one discusses the founding mothers!
My personal favorite has always been Abigal Adams,Mikey. She was in favor of extending the voting franchise, not only to unpropertied citizens but to actual human property, i.e., WOMEN. Don’t know her position on the Second Amendment, but since she warned her husband “All men would be tyrants if they could” (get away with it) I don’t believe she’d favor a blanket ban. On the other hand, I’m sure she didn’t let her kids or the less reliable farmhands play with the family guns unsupervised, either.
In my ideal world, the school curriculum for pubescents would include basic firearm handling and comprehensive sex education. Teaching teenagers how to use the “cool toys” — and the terrible disasters that result from misuse of same — would cut waaay down on the number of adults who think that a really big weapon is going to solve all their problems, right?
handy said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:37
Wait, I think this thread needs a lil’ Godwin’s Law before completely coming off the rails…
NAZIS!!!1!11
OK, done.
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:42
Colleen,
You reckon that if Paul does run as an indie, them that decide such things will actually let him in the debates? I think that’s pretty optimistic. Hell, they wouldn’t let Nader play back in 2000, and no one but us dirty fucking hippies had any support for him. ‘Course, were he allowed to take part in the debates, he probably would be the only anti-war candidate, ’cause God knows we progressives can’t use a tenth of the energy we use listening to what Ron Paul has to say (as long as it isn’t the mountain of whacky shit, which we’re just supposed to pretend doesn’t matter, I suppose) and sullenly kicking a metaphorical tin can in heavy sulk because we’ll “have” to vote for Hillary to push an actual progressive anti-war candidate who doesn’t say stupid shit about black people and then pretend he didn’t.
Christ. I might just not vote this time around. Fuck it. It’s reminding me of the line of thought during the whole Imus flap that progressives should be bothered by an asshole racist being an asshole racist and getting paid for it because he’s one of the few people who lets mainstream Democrats actually talk on his show. We can’t put something actually good in business, we have to put up with shit because that’s all we’re allowed, dawgonnit. Or them that argue that because far too many of Our Fellow Americans are terrified at the thought of two dudes fucking each other in the ass and even more terrified at the thought that they themselves might think it’s pretty neat if they accidently was forced to try it by the Homofascist Agenda, we should shelve the whole “treating gay folk like they’re actual human beings” thing just until everyone suddenly just comes around like they did with treating black folks like human beings.
Duros62 said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:43
“This is my weapon, this is my gun”, so to speak, Anne? Makes sense to me to teach the young’ins the difference at an early age.
Duros62 said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:47
Um… ’scuse me, I was just looking for the ladies’ room…I’ll be showing myself out now.
Down the hall, on the left. Along with everything else (budum ching!), HA!1!
Gary Ruppert said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:53
The fact is, HEEEEHHHHHHGGGRLRLRLR!!! HEYAAHEEEHHHHHGTTGRLRL!!!1!
Duros62 said,
December 28, 2007 at 1:55
Bottom line it for us, Gary. If that is your real name.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:04
Hell, they wouldn’t let Nader play back in 2000, and no one but us dirty fucking hippies had any support for him.
Matt T., Dirty Fucking Hippy Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts thank you for your support back in 2000.
One more of them, and they won’t bother to thank you for voting or not voting in the future.
Saul said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:25
Shalom gentlemen.
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:26
And believe me, I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’d venture to say that most of the civilized world is politely laughing at your all-too-typical adolescent gun fantasies behind your back, mikey.
Reckon perhaps the difference between you and me, young fella, is that I base my personal survival decisions on something more pragmatic than who might be laughing at me from any direction.
I don’t know how I can put it any more clearly. While I am a gun owner, and do not intend to change that, I am the first to agree the US has a horrible gun violence problem. I believe that trying to change or repeal the second amendment will have consequences for personal liberties all out of proportion to whatever it might accomplish. I remind you cocaine and marijuana are illegal. You HAVE to know that outlawing guns won’t make them go away.
So. What’s your plan? What do all the people who like to call gun owners all sorts of names like “adolescent” think we ought to do to solve this genuine and genuinely difficult problem?
Can’t wait for this one….
mikey
mikey
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:30
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©,
Yeah, it’s all my fault.
*raspberry*
Seriously. *long raspberry, followed by a raised-middle finger and “kissy-kissy” noises*
Dude, I live in Georgia. I might as well have voted for Willie Nelson for all the good it would’ve done, because unless you missed it, Bush did not exactly squeak out his victory here in the Peach State. The rednecks couldn’t keep clean britches on themselves for the Bush love, and I sorta got the idea that Al Gore - who was, of course, gonna slaughter that dimbulb in the rest of the country - wasn’t gonna all of the sudden get over if I pulled the lver for him. I just sorta thought that if a third party got enough votes, we might could crack this whole two-party nonsense.
Now. Did I know the media was going to spend the entire cycle felating Bush and making up dumb shit to be upset over Gore? No. Did I know that the Gore campaign would fumble the ball as badly as it did and that the DNC would completely buckle when the Bush bunch started their shit in Florida? No, course not. Did I know that Bush, with the cooperation of a Supreme Court that almost makes me want to believe in divine punishment, would flat fucking steal the goddamn election and the mainstream media would basically say, “Whelp. Nothing we can do, too bad there’s no one who gets paid to look into stuff like this, hey, wouldn’t ya like to have a beer with George W. Bush”? No, course not.
Ya wanna know why? ‘Cause I am not clairvoyant. I was not then nor am I now a fan of the mainstream Democratic Party for various and sundary reasons, but I was never dumb enough to think there was “no difference” between Bush and Gore, as I imagine you imagine I thought. Watching the stupid son of a bitch for five minutes told you Bush shouldn’t allowed to drive a car by himself, much less run the country and at the very, very least, boring ol’ Gore wouldn’t completely fuck up everything like it is now. Hey, sue me for thinking the rest of the country was at least as smart as my dumb redneck ass.
Oh, and in case you missed it the first time.
*long raspberry while simultaniously waggling butt in your general direction*
And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Saul said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:31
The bottom line is, I’m sick of you traitorous liberals bashing America and praising Europe. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the World as evidenced by our Constitution which was written by Conservatives not liberals you idiots. Americans own guns because we are rugged individualists who cherish our freedoms. Europeans don’t own guns because they are a bunch of pussy-whipped sissies who shrink in terror at the first sign of war as evidenced by the Spanish after the train bombings a few years back. Europeans are a bunch of secular faggots who get drunk while there nations are being taken over by islamo-fascist immigrants who are producing more children then them. Europe has no pride left that is why they are doomed to destruction while America and Israel are the last Great Hope for Western Civilization.
Djur said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:32
Hey, thunderetc., no offense and all — I like you just fine, I mean that — but is there some sort of thanksralphing hotline? A Thanksralph Signal with a big picture of the Supreme Court in the middle? Is it possible for any single person to make an oblique reference to favoring Ralph Nader at any point in human history without someone fucking jumping out and thanksralphing like their life depended on it?
Adara said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:33
Anne & Duros,
I agree. Teaching as early as makes sense is the best way to create built-in understanding and prevent screw-ups (adults *and* children) from, for example, getting accidentally preggers because they *literally do not know how to use a condom* (this actually happens!!!), or accidentally shooting someone because they have no idea how a gun actually works.
Just check out what happened in Thailand. In short, a comprehensive sex and contraception education programme for the public curbed STDs suuuuuuper-effectively. And they didn’t even have to ask Jeebus fer help!
Saul said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:33
Why is it taking so long all of a sudden for my posts to show up?
Saul said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:34
I posted something and it hasn’t appeared yet.
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:35
And another thing, there, Luther. I lived in Florida up until Sept. 1999, and had I still lived there during the elction, I would’ve probably voted for Gore, for the same reasons Michael Moore supported. But I didn’t, so it didn’t really fucking matter, did it.
Which doesn’t really have anything to do with the original point, that Nader should’ve been allowed in the debates but was denied, and so will Ron Paul or any other third party candidate, at least for the forseeable future. ‘Course, bringing up my sole, solitary, just-me-and-no-other-factor guilt of personally allowing Roberts and Scallito to hit the bench, but it didn’t stop some folks.
Lesley said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:53
The Rube has a new post up that interprets low population growth in a couple of states to mean overwhelming support for the Republican Partay.
http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/
Will the spectacle of pulling shit straight out of one’s ass and transforming it into support for George Bush ever cease?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:55
No, Djur. There isn’t.
Matt T. said ‘Cause I am not clairvoyant.
Predicting the future is difficult. Looking back over the past and trying not to make the same dumbass mistake again shouldn’t be as tough.
Would Al Gore have done this?
How about this?
To get back to Djur’s point: Is it possible for any single person to make an oblique reference to favoring Ralph Nader at any point in human history without someone fucking jumping out and thanksralphing like their life depended on it?
We’re talking about doing the same fucking stupid thing again, not what happened in the past. I didn’t think it was that big a deal back in 2000 either, not that I voted for Ralph. But now we know, eh?
Maybe that Supreme Court thing is important, eh?
Go ahead, you tell me where I’m wrong. Preferably with a bit less self-pity than Matt T. @ 2:30.
Saul said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:04
I once gave Larry Craig a blowjob. It was in Minneapolis. He assured me it was kosher.
Colleen said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:04
Matt T, I have to be optimistic about the future. If, a really big if here mind you, that Ron Paul were to switch to indie and run I think the press would allow him on the debates only because he is a sitting member of congress. Maybe not. My post was only about how much fun it would be to actual see the Dem and Rep respond to the things that Ron Paul has to say. No, I’m not for him and would never vote for him. No, I’m not ignoring what he has to say about gays, abortion, race, etc. He is however talking about our policies around the world and it doesn’t look like they, (the powers that be), are able to shut him up. Let me just say this about him, the people I know in MI Miltia country, (Lapeer and northern communtities), think he is the bees knees. All he had to say was he would get rid of the IRS and they were there. Personally I don’t think you should skip the voting next year. Why make things easier for them? Fight and keep fighting. We are worth it.
handy said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:22
the last Great Hope for Western Civilization.
Sayeth Saul, a product of the last Great Hope of Western Civilization.
God help us.
Jrod said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:32
I don’t think Ron Paul will be the spoiler that hands victory to the Republicans…
Then again, I don’t think Nader did that either. Gore won. The election was stolen, so can we please get over this “Ralph Nader is the evilest man ever and solely responsible for the last 7 years” bullshit already? He’s just a scapegoat for outraged liberals who want to avoid the hard reality of our broken political system, and the nearly impossible task of fixing it.
Yeah, we gotta vote for the D for Prez in the meantime. We know that. Everyone fucking knows that. I don’t have to pretend that my vote for Hillary will be some sort of blow for freedom (haha, take that Nader!!) though. It won’t do a damn thing to stamp out the fascism that infects our politics.
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:43
Self-pity? Those pictures? Fuck you, asshole. Seriously, just fuck right off. That’s your comeback? I’m somehow responsible for Iraq because I voted for Nader in a solid Bush state in 2001? How fucking dare you.
See, this is why I’m slowly losing my ability to give a shit, is assholes like you. I never said, never, that the Supreme Court didn’t matter. Point out where I did or go fuck yourself. I never said I’d vote third party for the same reasons I did in 2000. My frustration with the current arrangement notwithstanding, I’ll probably pull the level Democrat, just like I did for Kerry in 2004 even though he was nowhere near my ideal candidate. And even though I still lived in Georgia, I actually thought the American people would give Bush the boot. Once again, I overestimated the intelligence of my fellow citizens.
You are depressing. Giving me shit for something I did seven years ago, something that had miniscule effect on the whole, something that was overwhelmed by so many other factors, something that is wholly and completely immaterial to what we as a country have to deal with now, something that I have actually said was, in the long view of history, was a fucking mistake? The fuck is wrong with you, man? Seriously, why? I’ve come to think such stupid shit from assholes like you is ’cause y’all can’t deal with the fact the Democratic Party only pretends to even represent its base when said base is in the process of physically giving them money, when otherwise they’re bending over backwards for the very worst people in the entire world so fast you can hear their spines crack. You know it to be true, you bitch about it constantly, but when anyone challenges it, you’re as bad as any freeper dickweed. Cognitive dissonance or something, but whatever it is, it means you don’t have to actually do anything.
Back in 2004, a guy I’d known for quite a while basically told me that because of my discomfort with how Bush was handling not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when he could even spare a moment for the latter, but also the related domestic security issues (i.e., the whole library thing), it was my fault that some radical religious fundamentalist crashed airplanes into the WTC and killed a shit-ton of people he thought were all dirty liberals anyway. Furthermore, he said I probably wanted said fundie screwballs to “win” and, thus, take over the country, repress our freedoms and stare luridly at our women.
You’ve just done the exact same thing. So, I’ll tell you what I told him, a guy I’d previously considered a good friend:
You are nothing.
Jennifer said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:43
Re: 2nd amendment and guns:
It hasn’t escaped me that perhaps one reason the “right to keep and bear arms” was pragmatic at heart: the colonies had only a few years previously thrown off British rule, and though all of us here are well aware that the American revolution was not so much popular uprising as a coup by the colonial elite, said revolution would have been stymied had access to gun ownership been restricted by the British colonial administration. Also, the former colonies had weathered an unsuccessful governmental structure with the Articles and the future was uncertain. The need for another fight for independence in the near future was not unthinkable. I might be completely full of it on this whole bit because I’ve never dug around into it to study it in detail, but it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis of the mindset of the men who wrote it.
About the guns: I don’t get it. I just laid out above what I think part of the intent for the 2nd might have been, but at the same time realize that in the modern world there will not be parity in the weaponry the citizen has access to vs. that a military unit has access to, so it pretty much renders the “to protect us against our government if it gets out of hand” argument moot. Then there’s the “to protect us against our fellow citizens” argument…and here’s where I lose the thread, because I’ve just never lived in fear. I know the bad people are out there, but it’s not something I spend much time worrying about. I’m sensible in keeping my eyes open and go on with doing whatever I want to do. I’m also biased somewhat against guns because my dad was an absolute fanatic over them, had over 200, mostly military issue, and they were like a huge albatross on the whole family. He didn’t display the guns, because he didn’t want anyone to know he had them. He wouldn’t insure the guns, again, because he didn’t want anyone to know he had them. So they stayed locked up in wooden crates that occupied a significant portion of floor space in the house, and he was paranoid that someone would steal them. Because 200 + guns is, let’s face it, a burglary bonanza. Not too many years after my dad died, a family just 50 miles from where we lived was kidnapped and murdered so a couple of McVeigh types could steal the man’s guns. So ironically, my dad’s guns actually made our entire family less safe. Once I got out on my own, I just decided that I didn’t want any of them around.
I don’t personally have any doubt that the abundance of guns in this country contributes to the high murder rate. There are more gun murders than there are knife murders, strangling murders, beating murders, etc. Guns make killing easier - whether by accident or design - and more efficient. And certain kinds of guns aren’t intended for any target other than other human beings, those human beings as I pointed out above most likely our fellow citizens rather than any would-be oppressor. That’s really where the issue lies for me. We pretty much have a free-for-all that allows people to possess hand-cannons that we know damn well are pretty much intended for use against fellow citizens, if a real or perceived need arises. The implication is that we are arming ourselves against ourselves, and something about that just says “dysfunction” to me. It’s as though we are stamping our imprimatur on the idea that we expect citizens to go about killing other citizens. I think sensible restrictions would allow people to own hunting weapons and small caliber handguns for home protection while doing away with the wild west anything goes gun culture in the country, though what I consider sensible would be considered tyranny by a lot of people.
But in the end, the game is already over. The genie is out of the bottle at this point and even if sweeping gun restrictions were enacted there would still be decades of gun violence ahead just from all the guns in circulation.
Bottom line: I don’t think the gun love in this country is healthy, and while I wouldn’t want to take hunting rifles out of people’s hands, I think we’d all be better off if we could agree on sensible limits. I think the gun love encourages fear and division and in the end, those are more of a threat to democratic government in this country than any armed oppressor.
Your mileage may vary.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:47
The election was stolen, so can we please get over this “Ralph Nader is the evilest man ever and solely responsible for the last 7 years” bullshit already?
Who stole the election, Jrod? Was it a group of Supreme Court Justices, perhaps? Has anyone from the Nader apologist crowd actually read the posts on this thread?
Yeah, we gotta vote for the D for Prez in the meantime. We know that. Everyone fucking knows that.
I mean read the posts, not emote to the posts you wished you had read.
Jennifer said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:51
I don’t blame Nader voters, but I do blame Nader and his enormous ego. “No difference between Bush and Gore”? Ralphie fucking knew better.
As a very wise man once said on the internet tubes: “Ralph Nader is a goat-blowing assclown.”
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:53
So. What’s your plan? What do all the people who like to call gun owners all sorts of names like “adolescent” think we ought to do to solve this genuine and genuinely difficult problem?
Well, mikey, step one could be banning new handgun sales.
Handguns have no purpose except for killing human beings. If you want to practice target shooting, go buy yourself a BB gun. Cops would obviously need to be exempt from this law.
Step two: a big campaign for voluntary surrender of existing handguns, with big publicity of the fact that those who get caught later with an illegal handgun are going to have to pay a big fat fine or go to prison.
Step three: restrict long guns only for those who have a real need to own them, ie members of an actual militia that is actually well-regulated, or farmers/ranchers who need to protect their livestock from predators. These legal weapons would be required to have secure trigger locks so that they could not be used by children or thieves.
Step four: a public campaign to de-glamorize guns in the same way that smoking has been de-glamorized. Copious publicity of the fact that illegal gun owners are getting large fines and jail sentences.
Would all this be easy? Obviously not… I wish there were some sort of magic wand to wave at the problem. Much like the nation’s intractable heroin problem, guns are sure to continue to plague civilized society for a long time.
But that’s not a good argument for doing nothing, because the longer the United States waits to do anything about the gun problem, the more difficult any possible solution will be.
You know the old saying, “The best time to plant a tree was fifty years ago. The second best time is today.”
Matt T. said,
December 28, 2007 at 4:04
Colleen,
I wish I had your optimism. I’m so mad I’m shaking right now, so I probably shouldn’t comment much, but I’ve been wondering if we were. Ever since Katrina, I’ve had a hard time believing. I want to believe, I really do. I don’t like thinking the society I’m a part of is irrevocably flawed and that most of my fellow travelers don’t give a shit, can’t be bothered to find out, are actively making out like bandits because of it, or some combo of all three. And then what? The Democrats in Congress either cave in to the Worst People On The Planet or they themselves actively support dumbass conservative shit while ignoring actual issues. Fucking hell, we’re still having a national debate on whether or not torturing prisoners means we’re bad. You know, there’s still a significant number of the population who thinks gays, minorities, atheists and other assorted not-straight-white-Christian males are just being assholes about everything?
I envy your optimism, though, and I wished I shared it. Idon’t give a damn if you support Ron Paul one way or another, ’cause the guy’s still a loon despiting being right about a couple things. He might like Willie Nelson, too; that won’t keep me from pointing and laughing. Notice, I just don’t understand why I should treat him with anything but mockery. I never said he shouldn’t be heard. He’s just not above criticism, no matter how many times a day his stopped clock’s right.
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 4:14
I think sensible restrictions would allow people to own hunting weapons and small caliber handguns for home protection while doing away with the wild west anything goes gun culture in the country, though what I consider sensible would be considered tyranny by a lot of people.
Hah. This is great. How do you make this work? “…allow people to own hunting weapons..” You know what .308 is? It’s about the most ferociously lethal round ever invented (sure, not .270 WIN but it’s badass). It’s what “snipers” use. It’s a “hunting round”. “…small caliber handguns…” What? Like .22? You do know, of course, that the M16 is a .22. Right? I mean, you understand that a 45 grain slug fired at 3600 FPS is a more horrible wounding agent than a .45, right?
You do GET that we can invent our way around all these restrictions you so facilely propose, right? I mean, you give me any set of terrribly restrictive specifications and I’ll build a man-killer around them that will give you pause. You understand that there are multiple variables around firearms lethality, and if you take away any of them I can enhance the others, right?
Nope. Type limitations are not going to work. Give it another try. Or recognize that it’s not a simple problem with simple specious buzz-word based solutions.
When people want to try to address automobile mileage issues, they GET that they have to understand automobile drivetrain options and methods and choose between them. With guns? They don’t seem to think they need to understand what guns are, how they work or what makes them different from each other. I’ll never understand why they are exempt…
mikey
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 4:22
President. In light of prohibition, drugs and illegal entry into various nations, you really propose a ban as the solution? In spite of all the historical data that tells us it will just make the problem orders of magnitude worse due to the offthebooks profits to be reaped?
Gawd save us from good intentioned idiots….
mikey
Jennifer said,
December 28, 2007 at 4:50
Well, you see, mikey, this is why it’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion about guns.
But I notice you didn’t address the dysfunctionality of the assumption that citizens are going to go around killing other citizens, which is the implication of the system we have now, and the reality it fosters.
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 28, 2007 at 4:52
Sual said:
“The bottom line is, I’m sick of you traitorous liberals bashing America and praising Europe. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the World as evidenced by our Constitution which was written by Conservatives not liberals you idiots.”
Excercising our cherished First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech is ‘treason’?
And your recollection of US History classes (were you homeschooled?) is very, very wrong. Not a single one of the ‘founding fathers’ was a conservative, only Hamilton came even close.
Historical Fact: the very IDEA of a Republic is 100% LIBERAL! Anyone in the 18th century that spoke favourably of a Republic was committing treason against the monarchy. The Loyalists that didn’t want America to rebel against the British were the conservatives. The Rebels were the liberals.
America ONLY exists today BECAUSE of LIBERALS. If the Conservatives of the day had their way then we’d still be like Canada, a commonwealth of the UK.
Thank the gods for liberals, or there’d be NO America.
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:00
As I think you know, Jennifer, I’m not usually an asshole. And I acknowledge I have been a bit of an asshole in this thread. The reason is that, for some reason, the gun violence problem is somehow exempt from knowledge or experience. It pisses me off. If I’ve been rude, I apologize, sincerely. I LIKE you guys.
But if you want to solve a problem, and you know this, it was freshman year, you need to:
1. Understand the problem, the mechanicals and the philosophies.
and
2. Recognize that we DO HAVE historical experience, and we need to understand the lessons we learned there.
And I just don’t understand why everybody GETS these things in every other debate, but somehow we can just clap real hard or something and guns will go away.
Guns will NEVER go away. They are ingrained in american society. That doesn’t mean you need to give up, it means you need to think a little harder. And I’d support you all if you’d just do that….
mikey
Smiling Mortician said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:06
As I think you know, Jennifer, I’m not usually an asshole.
This is a great line. A boffo ice-breaker for those tense moments at the bar immediately following an immoderate fondling. I’m stealing it.
Anne Laurie said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:25
WPE, I think you’ve got your Four-Step Plan in the reverse order. First thing we have to do is your “public campaign to de-glamorize guns”, or more comprehensively to educate people in the difference between Gun-As-Tool and Gun-As-Magic-Wand. Per your cigarette analogy, notice the government didn’t start by banning teh coffin nails; they just nibbled in from the perimeter by gradually restricting who could sell tobacco, who could buy it, where the tobacco companies could advertise it, and — after a generation of “preparation” — where people could legally smoke. In my lifetime, and I’m only 50, cigarettes have gone from an automatic emblem of Maturity, available in vending machines at every candy store, where people smoked IN HOSPITALS, to a commodity that marginalized people (the young & stupid, the old & addicted, blue-collar workers & others in the servant class) consume because they’re addicted to the nicotine pick-up that gets them through their otherwise unspeakably dreary days. And people bitch about the no-smoking restrictions and the taxes, so there’s a certain amount of semi-open defiance and a little smuggling along the borders, but cigarettes haven’t been turned into a Glamourous Outlaw Accessory and we haven’t created a billion-dollar industry dedicated to satisfying a common demand for illicit ciggies, plus whatever other bad stuff (bad people) that billion-dollar industry can supply.
If we can agree to define guns as tools, not as semi-mystical Magic Items that will protect us from burglars, islamofascists, black helicopters, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, we can start a discussion about who needs those particular tools. Rather than get hung up on the issue of which guns are “defensive” and which are “for killing people”, we talk about where guns are appropriate, and how we train competent adults to use them, and how we keep small children & the seriously depressed from misusing them. Twenty or thirty years after we work to change the public discourse so that the automatic solution to every problem isn’t “We’re gonna need guns — lots of guns”, we might be able to have a serious national conversation about banning or restricting guns as a general category. Except that, if the de-glamorization campaign works, most of the essential restrictions will have been put into place without creating an anti-prohibition backlash
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:25
As I may well, in appropriate moments, indulge in a bit of immoderate fondling…
mikey
Jrod said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:27
Ittdgy, I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make, but you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying either.
My point is simple. Blaming Nader for our current mess is a cowardly cop-out. Nader is no longer a threat. He never was a threat, because Gore won the damn vote anyway. There’s plenty of reason to think that most Nader voters would have simply stayed home if he weren’t on the ballot, but most Nader-haters just assume all of those votes would have gone to Gore. Also, it seems pretty naive to me to assume that Bushco wouldn’t have been able to steal the election even without the scaperalph’s help.
The 2004 election shows that most of those Nader voters learned their damn lesson and pulled the trigger for Kerry. Thank god that put a stop to Bush’s reign of- er, never mind!
Bitching about Nader is wanking. It might make you feel better but you’re not accomplishing a fucking thing.
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:27
*SWOON*
Once again, rational thought from the most likely source.
Thanks again, AL for interjecting a reality based solution without calling anyone a single name.
Wow.
mikey
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:34
I’ve said this elsewhere. I believe in rationality, or at least I try to. I believe guns should be regulated, why not have similar requirements to driving.
Also, firearms should be restricted by population density. I lived in NYC for 20 years, I never once was mugged, and I never once felt I needed a firearm. I was more worried about the 20 year old police than the homeboys on the corner. I want NO ONE to have firearms in the city, but rationally, that’s not going to happen.
Once, I was on the payphone on 23rd st and I glanced over at the corner. I was looking right at a pistol in someone’s hand, behind their back. He was an armored car guy, he was covering his partner who was loading. They can have the guns, but I left the area quickly.
Out in the country, I think that longarms are fine. Shotguns are really all that’s needed.
Handguns have but one purpose: kill people. Why are we allowing the sale of hardware whose function it is to kill people. Isn’t killing people illegal and immoral?
Ok, Ok, ’self-defense’. Whatever, against a high-powered range weapon, you really have no defense. Just who do you have to defend yourself from?
mikey said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:42
Yep. Against people with rifles, I’d like to have a rifle.
But maybe I didn’t see the apocalyplse coming. I had my .357 revolver or .40 smith auto in my concealed rig. The big bad comes along with a rifle. Am I better off having a way to fight back? Or would I be better off with empty hands? Pretty sure I know what I choose…
mikey
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:43
Oh, yeah, Nader.
I was sooo happy I voted for him. See, I lived in a HEAVILY Democratic distric, and I knew that it would go to Gore. I was really doing to keep the Green Party on the NYC ballot…
I know too much about the guy, I’d never actually vote for the man himself.
Comrade Rutherford said,
December 28, 2007 at 5:50
Mikey,
So, you need guns to protect you from your post-apocalpytic stories?
In that hypothetical future, who makes your bullets? There would only be a certain amount of bullets available. What happens when they run out?
MzNicky said,
December 28, 2007 at 6:59
Matt T:
I feel yer pain, I really do. Listen, I’ve been on a hope/despair/hope/despair merry-go-round since I became old enough to vote and handed out literature for George McGovern at the local K-Mart in 1972 (and got spit on and cursed out mightily for my efforts. Fucking hillbillies, fuck ‘em.). So don’t think you’re alone in your understandable political angst. It’s part of the process, brother, and I’m just grateful there are still enough around who can feel anything at all, let along passionate anger. It’s righteous, and necessary.
I’m a Tennessee resident. Gore didn’t win my state, as I’m constantly reminded. I desperately wanted to vote for Nader but went with my homeboy, for all the good it did. It doesn’t matter. Until we break the Tweedledee/Tweedledum hegemony that’s got a stranglehold on this country and is only beholden to corporate overlords and their lobbyists, and not we the people (remember that quaint phrase?), nothing is going to change. I simply don’t understand why more on the left won’t accept that. Hasn’t the new Democratic congressional majority’s total capitulation told us anything?
I almost wish there was a draft. (And trust me, I don’t say that lightly: My brothers, my cousins, my friends, my boyfriends were victims of it.) I think that’s the only reason, other than the Internet, that there’s not rioting in the streets today. And that was LBJ and Nixxxon. They were amateurs compared with what we’ve got today. I don’t know what else is ever going to change things, I really don’t.
MzNicky said,
December 28, 2007 at 7:02
Fuckall. Matt T., I just posted a bigass comment directed to you. I won’t repost because last night when I did that it showed up three times.
Hey, spamfilter! Fuck you! Yeah, I’m talkin’ to you, you liberalfascist piece o crap!
Anne Laurie said,
December 28, 2007 at 7:04
Well, Mikey, it does not take a whole lot of education to understand that in an argument over gun control, pissing off the people who already have guns is not, shall we say, the smart option. Seriously — I have a number of friends, including (I hope) you, who have guns they don’t want to surrender. But I believe you’re all reasonable people, which is why I can call you friends, and I trust you guys to keep your guns out of the reach of small children, felons, and any member of your kinship group who’s having a rilly bad holiday season.
I don’t have guns around my house, because I’ve calculated the vanishingly small chance I might be involved in a situation where a gun would be the proper tool (protecting my little dogs from coyotes, say) as far less than the chance that my “anger management issues” would cause me to use a handy available gun most inappropriately.* I don’t have booze around the house, either, because I’ve got a long family history of inappropriate alcohol use, but that doesn’t mean I want everyone else to not consume beverage alcohol, because most people do so responsibly and Prohibition didn’t work. On the other hand, I reserve the right to make fun of stupid drunks, and of stupid gun-collectors who retail myths about “there are HUNDREDS of murders in my city every month, but the police LIE to cover up the fact that it’s a JUNGLE here”**, and if we don’t have a weapon in every nightstand we’re just ENABLING THE TERRORISTS who want to force us all to have gay abortions every Sunday instead of going to church.
*Two words: Demon Kishkan, a monster of depravity in Maine Coon form.
** Unless Memphis really is more dangerous than downtown Baghdad, in which case, I will be sure to continue my life-long policy of not going there.
Worst. President. Ever. said,
December 28, 2007 at