• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Innocent people don’t delay justice.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

I was promised a recession.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

An unpunished coup is a training exercise.

Republicans don’t trust women.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

We’re not going back!

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / My Thoughts On The YouTube Debate

My Thoughts On The YouTube Debate

by Tim F|  July 24, 200710:26 am| 45 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

For me the interesting thing about the format of yesterday’s format was the way that it essentially put candidates directly in front of The Base, or at least Anderson Cooper’s version of it. Cooper probably filtered out the nuttier 9/11 conspiracy stuff, but overall I would say that both The Base and the Dem candidates came through the experience looking fairly good, excepting that one guy stroking his machine gun.

I wonder whether the same can be said when the Republican candidates meet The Base in St. Petersburg.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « RIP, Christiana Hendrix
Next Post: The Left Won »

Reader Interactions

45Comments

  1. 1.

    Face

    July 24, 2007 at 10:51 am

    I wonder whether the same can be said when the Republican candidates meet The Base in St. Petersburg.

    Holeeeeeey shit. Are you kidding me? This promises to be the funniest thing on TV in years. They’ll be forced to out-nutty each other, leading to exchanges where they’ll be advocating that the 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms…against gays and illegals, Muslims and liberals. They’ll set records invoking Jesus, God, and Reagan, probably with those three words connected by the word “similarly…”.

    Tim, you’ve got to submit a clip demanding to know why they support buisnesses so much, when so many companies manufacture abortion vacuums, tatoo guns, and Jewish menorahs…

  2. 2.

    cleek

    July 24, 2007 at 10:58 am

    all the questions will be variations of “are the liberals traitors or merely suicidal?” and “after we’re done with Syria and Iran, do we fix North Korea or France?”

  3. 3.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 11:00 am

    I wonder whether the same can be said when the Republican candidates meet The Base in St. Petersburg.

    Not enough popcorn in the world…

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Seriously, though, I think these YouTube debates are as much about the respective bases getting to see each other as it is about the base interacting with their candidates. Democrats get to see other Democrats, Republicans get to see other Republicans, and people get to figure out which side the harmonize most with. Of course, the problem with drawing from “the base” is that you tend to take in a great number of outlayers. So you’re inevitably going to see people you consider “nutty” on both sides.

    I just want to see who exactly CNN picks for its wingnut retinue. RedStaters? Riehlists? Brownbackers? Being such a net-nut myself, I think these debates end up telling us more about CNN than anything.

  5. 5.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 11:23 am

    one guy stroking his machine gun.

    Do you know the gun was a machine gun (fully automatic) or an assault weapon (semi-automatic)?
    I saw the video when did he “stoke” the gun? Looks like he picked it up showed it to the camera and held it until he got up to turn off the camera.

    BTW I like how the Biden wondered if the questioner was mentality qualified to own his gun.
    Can I wonder if Joe Biden is mentality qualified to own his car if he refers to his 1967 Corvette as his “baby”?

  6. 6.

    HunterBlackLuna

    July 24, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Oh, man, usualy I can’t stand to see the clusterf%&k of fruitbar Republicans, but this promises to be a very entertaining and educational experience for us all.

  7. 7.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Can I wonder if Joe Biden is mentality qualified to own his car if he refers to his 1967 Corvette as his “baby”?

    Yes. You can also demand that he take a driving test to prove that he is capable of successfully operating a motor vehicle without causing injury or financial harm to himself or others.

    Cars aren’t guns, you stupid moonbat.

  8. 8.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Yes. You can also demand that he take a driving test to prove that he is capable of successfully operating a motor vehicle without causing injury or financial harm to himself or others.

    What if he does not drive it and just keeps it in a garage. Can I have the government take it away from him?

    Cars aren’t guns, you stupid moonbat.

    Correct.
    More people dead annually from car accidents than gun accidents.
    The “right” to own a car is not in the Constitution.

  9. 9.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    More people dead annually from car accidents than gun accidents.

    True, and there are more people deliberately murdered every year with guns than with cars.

    The “right” to own a car is not in the Constitution.

    Nor is the Quote-right-Quote to own a microwave oven, an airplane, a plasma television set, … How the Framers could have omitted car ownership is beyond me. You do raise an interesting semantic point, though. The second amendment does not mention owning arms. The analogy would be stronger if you had said The “right” to keep and drive a car is not in the Constitution. Mmm… no, the analogy is still stupid.

    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.

  10. 10.

    Bubblegum Tate

    July 24, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Oh, man, usualy I can’t stand to see the clusterf%&k of fruitbar Republicans, but this promises to be a very entertaining and educational experience for us all.

    Yeah, and I typically don’t watch debates this far out because, well, they’re fucking stupid. But this one promises to be fucking stupid in the most hilarious ways possible. For some reason, this scene comes to mind.

  11. 11.

    Beej

    July 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Neither is the right to own a gun unless you are part of a “well regulated militia”. Isn’t it funny how folks like Paul L. love the first part of the 2nd amendment so much, but totally forget the second part. Strange.

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    What if he does not drive it and just keeps it in a garage. Can I have the government take it away from him?

    The laws on the books that allow confiscation of cars are the same laws used to confiscate guns. If it was used for criminal activity, if it was stolen, or if it was a hazard to the environment and the community – radioactive, on fire, emitting a noxious smell, covered in toxic paint – then, car or gun, the government could seize it. People are required to have permits to own businesses – including broadcasting stations (free speech) – and practice law (right to an attorney) or medicine, as well as to simply possess hazardous materials like aircraft or radioactive waste. If you don’t have a permit, the government can seize your possessions and shut down your personally owned business. These are just a few examples of things the government only lets you have through their regulation. So far, I haven’t seen a groundswell of complaint against any of them. Just guns.

  13. 13.

    HunterBlackLuna

    July 24, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Every time I bring up the issue of gun control, or ANYONE does, someone always accuses the pro-gun-control people of trying to seize their weapons. Excuse me, but I don’t think citizens should have their guns taken away, and instantly assuming so is one of the most self-centered policies I’ve heard in my entire life.

    I am for the kind of control that stops convicted, violent offenders and mental people from obtaining the methods to employ deadly force against innocent civilians. Our methods for preventing this right now are, like most of our federal government, useless and trifling.

    And that is a good point about the ‘well-regulated militia’…

  14. 14.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    Beej Says:

    Neither is the right to own a gun unless you are part of a “well regulated militia”. Isn’t it funny how folks like Paul L. love the first part of the 2nd amendment so much, but totally forget the second part. Strange.

    The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?

    One of my pet peeves is the inability of so many gun control advocates to recognize that the militia clause in the Second Amendment is not a limitation on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but explanatory language. An explanation is not a limitation, and had the founders wanted such a limitation, they’d have referred to the “right of the militia to keep and bear arms,” and not “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

    Yet “right of the militia to keep and bear arms” is what (under the “collective right” theory) the anti-gun people like to claim that “right of the people to keep and bear arms” actually means. This is absurd.

    How about I try it with the First.
    It says “Congress shall make no law” so if the Executive or Judicial branch can crack down on Free Speech all they want (like Hugo Chavez).

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  15. 15.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    These are just a few examples of things the government only lets you have through their regulation. So far, I haven’t seen a groundswell of complaint against any of them. Just guns.

    Kelo?
    And when if comes to a [groundswell of complaint]s no one beats the ACLU.

  16. 16.

    Mr Furious

    July 24, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    What if he does not drive it and just keeps it in a garage. Can I have the government take it away from him?

    Moron.

  17. 17.

    Andrew

    July 24, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    As long as we ban Paul L. from having guns, I’m cool with giving them out to everyone else.

  18. 18.

    HunterBlackLuna

    July 24, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    That’s the humorous element: “Yes, I AM going to take away YOUR gun. Because YOU are bat-shit insane.” X3

  19. 19.

    The Other Steve

    July 24, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Do you know the gun was a machine gun (fully automatic) or an assault weapon (semi-automatic)?

    Looked to me to be an AR-15.

    Same gun that was used by the DC sniper back in ’01.

  20. 20.

    The Other Steve

    July 24, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Anyway, thought the debate was ok. Questions were more intelligent than what you get from journalists… far more important issues, less gotcha.

    Doesn’t matter though. I’m still voting for Bush, because the Democrats are worse.

  21. 21.

    Psycheout

    July 24, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Paul L. makes very well thought out and convincing arguments as always and the leftist echo chamber just cannot hear it.

    Well done, Paul. I don’t know how you put up with it. You argue in good faith and the lefties throw feces, again.

    Keep up the great work!

  22. 22.

    Mr Furious

    July 24, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    “well thought out and convincing arguments”

    Like this one?

    What if he does not drive it and just keeps it in a garage. Can I have the government take it away from him?

    I’ll give it a more well-thought-out reply this time…

    Fucking moron.

    I guess I just cannot handle Paul’s “good faith” argument. Gee, Paul and Psycheout, you only need to register (and insure) your car with the big, bad government if you plan to drive it on public streets. Sound familiar? Obvious even?

    Do you care to reverse the analogy back over to guns? I’m not sure who you go to to get your permit to use guns on a public street…since doing so would almost certainly be illegal.

  23. 23.

    Punchy

    July 24, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    I just love these large, massive debate platforms…

    Just to see all the mass debators up there makes me smile and proud to be an American.

  24. 24.

    b-psycho

    July 24, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    I am for the kind of control that stops convicted, violent offenders and mental people from obtaining the methods to employ deadly force against innocent civilians.

    Problem is, even if we assume that they care about the laws & would follow them — which isn’t the case — you won’t be writing the laws. Someone who assumes anyone who’d want a gun fits in those categories will be.

    As for “well-regulated”: back then that phrase meant well-prepared, not “somehow controlled or authorized by the government” as people seem to now assume.

  25. 25.

    Psycheout

    July 24, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Yeah, but librulz love them some reg-you-lay-shun. It’s who they are.

  26. 26.

    b-psycho

    July 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    BTW: first one to say “but we don’t need a militia anymore!” needs to either come out and call for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed entirely, or explain why ignoring amendments you don’t like doesn’t put you in agreement with Dubya on the rest of them.

  27. 27.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    or explain why ignoring amendments you don’t like doesn’t put you in agreement with Dubya on the rest of them.

    Once again, the key to Constitutional Amendments is to read them. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say, “Everyone gets to own a gun”. It merely gives citizens the right to arm themselves as members of a – and this is key – well regulated militia. Why would the Bill enshrine the right to militias but not lone gunmen? I’d need to be a better Constitutional lawyer to tell you. But, none-the-less, it’s right there in black and white. Militias are protected. Owning AK-47s as collectors’ items is not.

  28. 28.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    As for “well-regulated”: back then that phrase meant well-prepared, not “somehow controlled or authorized by the government” as people seem to now assume.

    Reference, please. And by “well-prepared” do you mean anything more than “owning a gun”?

  29. 29.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Do you care to reverse the analogy back over to guns? I’m not sure who you go to to get your permit to use guns on a public street…since doing so would almost certainly be illegal.

    Concealed Carry permits are available in a number of US. States. But I believe you are in the UK where you have Zero Tolerance gun control and a strong, well-funded educational system, there’s no street crime which is why you are banning knives.

    And here is a example of using a gun on a public street that was legal.

  30. 30.

    Paul L.

    July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Zifnab and Chad N. Freude
    Did you read the link I posted?
    The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?

    One of my pet peeves is the inability of so many gun control advocates to recognize that the militia clause in the Second Amendment is not a limitation on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but explanatory language. An explanation is not a limitation, and had the founders wanted such a limitation, they’d have referred to the “right of the militia to keep and bear arms,” and not “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

    Yet “right of the militia to keep and bear arms” is what (under the “collective right” theory) the anti-gun people like to claim that “right of the people to keep and bear arms” actually means. This is absurd.

    Drop the militia dodge and be honest like this guy.
    At Least He’s Honest

    I don’t mind reading these types of letters to the editor because I think they are a) honest and b) helpful to our cause because they are so irrational and extreme compared to the public opinion.

    The Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.

    Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.

    People do not need guns. Guns are used to kill or maim animals and humans.

    Giving legal authorities the ability to investigate, arrest and punish those who illegally sell firearms is only one of many steps that should be enacted and enforced — notwithstanding the pitiful pleas of the National Rifle Association.

    RAYMOND S. BLANCHARD Albany

    Of course next will come the argument that the founding fathers never foresaw the internet that can be used to spread misinformation to the great number of people. So all content must be vetted by the government or Eric Alterman’s blogging counsel.

  31. 31.

    Llelldorin

    July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    At least according to Supreme Court caselaw, the first clause isn’t just an explanatory nothing. In US v. Miller (307 US 174), the Court ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be banned by federal law precisely because there’s no legitimate militia reason to own an inaccurate concealable weapon like that.

    Key paragraph:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

    In appellate caselaw, it’s been consistently held that a federal law does not violate the amendment “unless it impairs the state’s ability to maintain a well-regulated militia” (e.g. US. V. Haney, 10th Cir. 2001 00-6129).

  32. 32.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 24, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    That phrase “well regulated militia” is an outstanding example of how a language evolves, and it’s one reason I take a more careful look at the rest of the constitution.

    The first question to ask is, “In the 1780s, what was meant by ‘militia’.” The second is, “What was meant by ‘well regulated’.” I’m going to take these in turn.

    It’s worth noting that men of the time actually referred to several bodies as “militia”, ranging from what we today describe as the National Guard (a formal, trained body of citizen-soldiers beholden to state, not federal, government) to a ‘levee en mass’, or every single person in the nation capable of bearing arms in defense of his (and in some authors of the time, HER) nation. That said, most of the writings of the US “founding fathers” coalesce around one concept on this issue. The best summary I’ve found of this comes from a Supreme Court decision (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179-180 (1939).) It reads:

    The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. . . . In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult males inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defense. The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

    Thus to some extent the weapons/militia position of the second amendment is somewhat circular. Possession of arms makes one a member of the militia, and self-selection as a person willing to bear arms makes one eligible (and responsible) for possessing said arms.

    “Well Regulated” isn’t quite as severe a change, but it is still a bit different. Yes, in some contexts it meant ‘formal’ or ‘trained’ — the national guard concept vice the levee en mass. However there was another interpretation of the times which translates today as “equipped”. A reading of the second amendment substituting “trained” and “equipped” in turn for the phrase “well regulated” swiftly brings a realization that the latter makes more sense.

    Regarding the “makes sense” issue — the 2d amendment’s major flaw is the weird placement of punctuation. Or possibly (even more likely) a missing word. It’s a clear example of why grammar matters.

    In the end, any arguments of “what the founders meant” must take into account that at the time of the writing — and for the several decades following when various members of that group served as President — the significant majority of the population possessed firearms while not serving as members of the formal state militias. Given occasional actions of Federal officials that disarmed citizens during that time I’m willing to agree they did not believe every person possessed an unfettered right to possess. But given the reality, any argument that they meant only that the active members of the state militias should possess firearms faces my extreme skepticism.

    I am willing to accept laws that constrain who may possess weapons. But I do so with the same caveats as I accept laws that constrain free speech or seizures of persons and property — for exceptional reasons that pose immediate threat to life and limb, and they must be temporary, transparent, and reviewed.

  33. 33.

    Llelldorin

    July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Kirk, they were typically enrolled in local militas, though, weren’t they?

    If memory serves, in a typical 18th century town, the rolls of the local militia were typically maintained by the city government, and service was a civic obligation (rather like jury duty today). The officer of the local militia was typically an elective position. Periodically, militia members were expected to drill together. Members could be “drummed out” of the local militia for committing crimes.

    In times of war, the state government could assume control of the local militias. That’s the reason for all the Article I language about federalizing the state militias–it was considered a far safer alternative to a standing army.

    In modern terms, registration of weapons, weapons restrictions, and the ability to deny criminals the right to bear arms strike me as very near analogues to eighteenth century militia functions. A blanket weapons ban obviously would not be.

  34. 34.

    Zifnab

    July 24, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    In modern terms, registration of weapons, weapons restrictions, and the ability to deny criminals the right to bear arms strike me as very near analogues to eighteenth century militia functions. A blanket weapons ban obviously would not be.

    I’ll happily agree to that interpretation, as I imagine a great many other individuals would too. However, “restriction” and “ban” mean the same thing to someone who knows he’s going to be denied access to a firearm. Thus guys who think a few DUIs and domestic assault marks on their criminal records shouldn’t deny them the right to carry firearms try to rabble-rouse the remaining 95% of the population that would otherwise be responsible armed citizens. And the pro-gun lobby, which just happens to receive the lion’s share of its funding from the gun industry, keeps pressing to allow bigger and crazier guns into the public domain. Because, why shouldn’t your next door neighbor be allowed to pull out his M-50 death penis and mount it on his front lawn? It’s in the Constitution.

  35. 35.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Paul L. Says:

    Zifnab and Chad N. Freude
    Did you read the link I posted?
    The right of the militia to keep and bear arms ?

    The author of that site says

    Googling “right of the militia to keep and bear arms,” I got nearly 9,000 hits, but none of them are saying that the Second Amendment says that [i.e., that the right is individual, not collective]. Just the opposite.

    And the Supreme Court has addressed this exactly once:

    The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

    If you read that link (the second paragraph of the Annotations discusses Miller), you’ll find that there is no agreement about individual vs. collective defense among authorities, notably the Senate and the Courts. I think it follows that the Classical Values guy’s opinion is no more valid than the 9000 other contrary opinions.

  36. 36.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Kirk Spencer —

    I liked your post, although calm, literate discussion of semantics doesn’t seem to go down well any more. But I don’t think

    A reading of the second amendment substituting “trained” and “equipped” in turn for the phrase “well regulated” swiftly brings a realization that the latter makes more sense.

    resolves anything, because it begs the interpretation of “trained”. What does it mean in the Second Amendment? Or more precisely, what do modern scholars whose writings we can cherry-pick think it means?

  37. 37.

    Dreggas

    July 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    I make my views on this no secret. The second amendment which reads:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    To me the “,” before the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” signifies that this would be another part and seperate as another part of the amendment much as if it were enumerated.

    Of course this didn’t mean we had the right to have a cannon, obviously, and since the modern equivalent (for arguments sake) would be an assault weapon then we really don’t need those.

    The courts have been mixed on whether the second amendment means that individuals get to keep weapons, or whether it’s a militia. In the past two cases the courts have said individuals have a right to own fire arms and for the most part that’s how it’s been throughout history, yeah you can have guns and ammo and that is a right. Our founders, again just looking at the history of the country and of the issue, believed an armed citizenry was more capable of fending off tyranny than one that was not armed. After all we fought the revolution with the equivalent of shotguns, revolvers and rifles.

    They did indeed fear the thought of the government taking away this right and confiscating all weapons because that would leave the citizenry unable to defend itself against a government that had become a tyranny.

    Now does that mean I need an AK-47? Nah, not really. Does it mean I should be able to keep my shotgun, various rifles, and even legal handguns? Yes, absolutely.

    The fine line comes in when you have situations like the VA tech shootings and other situations in which mentally disturbed people get their hands on guns.

    I wouldn’t care if I had to have a pistol permit to have a handgun or even have a rifle permit to own a rifle. Hell it makes it easier for me to report it stolen since they’d have the info on said rifle or handgun and if I report it stolen and it’s then used in a crime by the thief I can cover my own ass.

    What pisses me off are the people who sanctimoniously sit there and say no one should have guns. Especially when they sit there and tout the words of franklin in regard to those willing to sacrifice liberty for security are fools when it comes to other “civil liberties”.

    To think that outlawing any and all firearms will prevent criminals from getting firearms is fantasy and even with our gun laws the criminals are still getting them most often illegally. It’s not much different than the drug war but many push to legalize them because they see that as a farce.

    I don’t expect many to take my side on this, really I don’t but it’s just MNSHO.

  38. 38.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Now does that mean I need an AK-47

    Dude, arms is arms. (Couldn’t resist.)

    Actually, the Framers screwed up more than the punctuation. They clearly meant to protect wildlife from the depredations of the citizenry and intended to say “to keep and arm bears” but a transcription error changed the meaning. (Pace Stephen Colbert.)

  39. 39.

    Chad N. Freude

    July 24, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    Linked from The Huffington Post:

    Tired of the usual chicken dinners, the Manchester Republican Committee is planning to arm supporters next month with Uzis, M-16 rifles and other automatic weapons for a day of target practice at a Pelham firing range.

    “The thought just struck me one day: a machine gun shoot. What the heck?” said Jerry Thibodeau, the committee chairman.

    Thibodeau, who is himself a hunter and skeet shooter, pitched the Aug. 5 event as a fun social gathering, as well as a demonstration of the party’s support for Second Amendment rights.

    And a jolly time will be had by all.

  40. 40.

    Andrew

    July 24, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    And a jolly time will be had by all.

    Sounds like fun to me. Except for the Republicans part. They tend to bitch about taxes too much.

  41. 41.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Llelldorin,

    Several were enrolled in local militias. But several were not. As a touchstone, note how many militiamen were added to the rolls for “volunteer militia” (or regiments, or…) for the 1812 campaigns. They weren’t ‘called up’, they had to enroll.

    And it’s the latter which re-affirm my skepticism about the ‘only militia aka national guard’ argument. That we can repeat the experiment (see calls for and enrollment of volunteers not formerly upon militia rolls) for every significant militaristic venture through the 1860s is redundant.

  42. 42.

    jake

    July 24, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Sorry to interrupt PaulEll’s regularly scheduled spanking, but do you think they know their acronym could be pronounced “Rip Off”?

  43. 43.

    Darylon

    July 25, 2007 at 9:13 am

    I think the YouTube format serves to make a joke out of a serious debate on the present and future of this country. Before long, it’ll turn into a cartoon. We’re already seeing it with stupid questions like the “turn to your left….”. How juvenile!

    I say it SUCKS. Vote on it: http://youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=218

  44. 44.

    Badtux

    July 25, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Sigh. The majority of civilians in 1793 would *not* have possessed a military musket. If they possessed a firearm at all, it would most likely have been a fowling matchlock or a Pennsylvania flintlock, neither of which was particularly useful for military purposes. The whole deal with the Lexington and Concord battle was that the colonials were stocking up on military weapons for militia use in town arsenals, not that the colonials already owned said military weapons in their own households.

    There was a considerable difference between military muskets, which allowed for a high rate of fire (for the day), and civilian weaponry, which had a very low rate of fire. A well-trained musketeer could let off four rounds per minute for a military musket. A fowling gun was militarily useless (think birdshot-loaded low-power shotgun, not dangerous to humans unless at *very* short range, as Dick Cheney’s face-shot lawyer friend can attest), while the rate of fire on a Pennsylvania flintlock was about 1 round every three minutes — i.e. useful for shoot-and-scoot sniper and skirmishing applications, but there was only a single battle of the American Revolution where riflemen actually made any difference in the outcome, and even there it was mostly by accident and due to a collapse in discipline amongst panicked redcoats.

    In short, any definition of “militia” which defines “militia” based upon the “fact” that the majority of households possessed a military weapon in 1793 is as factual as a definition of “militia” which defines “militia” based upon the “fact” that we invaded Iraq because Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. A definition based upon something that just is not true is about as valid as believing in a deity called the Great Penguin which will destroy all evil-doers with rains of herring… hmm, red herring?

    — Badtux the Herring-loving Penguin

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    July 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    […] Revisiting a post that I wrote a few days back, I noted that the YouTube debate seemed to offer a fairly unfiltered encounter between candidates and The Base. If the Democratic Base was as loopy as blogosphere right seems to think it is then there should have been some cringemoments, yet yet that really didn’t happen. The guy stroking his gun creeped me out a bit, but maybe it’s just because I come from a middle class urban area where normal people don’t do that. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • schrodingers_cat on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 9:51pm)
  • NotMax on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 9:47pm)
  • RaflW on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 9:46pm)
  • russell on Thursday Evening Open Thread: GOP War to the Knife Spork (Sep 21, 2023 @ 9:43pm)
  • cain on But Enjoy Your Weekend (Sep 21, 2023 @ 9:43pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!