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.
Face
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…
cleek
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?”
Zifnab
Not enough popcorn in the world…
Zifnab
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.
Paul L.
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”?
HunterBlackLuna
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.
Zifnab
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.
Paul L.
What if he does not drive it and just keeps it in a garage. Can I have the government take it away from him?
Correct.
More people dead annually from car accidents than gun accidents.
The “right” to own a car is not in the Constitution.
Chad N. Freude
True, and there are more people deliberately murdered every year with guns than with cars.
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.
Bubblegum Tate
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.
Beej
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.
Zifnab
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.
HunterBlackLuna
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’…
Paul L.
The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
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).
Paul L.
Kelo?
And when if comes to a [groundswell of complaint]s no one beats the ACLU.
Mr Furious
Moron.
Andrew
As long as we ban Paul L. from having guns, I’m cool with giving them out to everyone else.
HunterBlackLuna
That’s the humorous element: “Yes, I AM going to take away YOUR gun. Because YOU are bat-shit insane.” X3
The Other Steve
Looked to me to be an AR-15.
Same gun that was used by the DC sniper back in ’01.
The Other Steve
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.
Psycheout
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!
Mr Furious
Like this one?
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.
Punchy
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.
b-psycho
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.
Psycheout
Yeah, but librulz love them some reg-you-lay-shun. It’s who they are.
b-psycho
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.
Zifnab
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.
Chad N. Freude
Reference, please. And by “well-prepared” do you mean anything more than “owning a gun”?
Paul L.
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.
Paul L.
Zifnab and Chad N. Freude
Did you read the link I posted?
The right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
Drop the militia dodge and be honest like this guy.
At Least He’s Honest
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.
Llelldorin
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).
Kirk Spencer
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:
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.
Llelldorin
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.
Zifnab
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.
Chad N. Freude
The author of that site says
And the Supreme Court has addressed this exactly once:
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.
Chad N. Freude
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
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?
Dreggas
I make my views on this no secret. The second amendment which reads:
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.
Chad N. Freude
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.)
Chad N. Freude
Linked from The Huffington Post:
And a jolly time will be had by all.
Andrew
Sounds like fun to me. Except for the Republicans part. They tend to bitch about taxes too much.
Kirk Spencer
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.
jake
Sorry to interrupt PaulEll’s regularly scheduled spanking, but do you think they know their acronym could be pronounced “Rip Off”?
Darylon
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
Badtux
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