July 31, 2016

The ordeal of listening to Hillary explain what she meant by "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment."

Hillary Clinton sat for an interview today on "Fox News Sunday," and I watched it for you. I'm just going to focus on what she said when Chris Wallace confronted her with something she said last year, "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment."
WALLACE:  Now, in the 2008 Heller case, the court said there's a constitutional individual right to bear arms.  What's wrong with that? 
She responded and — forgive me — I've got to parse this pretty closely:
CLINTON:  Well, I think what the court said about there being an individual right is in line with constitutional thinking.  
Is the "constitutional thinking" she's referring to there wrong, in her view? She doesn't say. She repeats the majority's interpretation and essentially says that was an interpretation that existed out there in the legal literature.
And I said in the convention, I’m not looking to repeal the second amendment.  
So, yeah, you said that in the convention, but why did you say that? What relationship did that statement have to "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment"?
You could think the Supreme Court is wrong about the existence of an individual right but now it's stare decisis and should remain in place because it's precedent. Or you could think the precedent should be overruled and want to put Justices on the Court who will overrule it. Saying you don't want to repeal the amendment is beside the point. It's so hard to amend the Constitution, which is what you'd need to do to repeal it, and it would be far easier to get to a Court that would simply overrule Heller and give the Second Amendment a different interpretation.
I’m not looking to take people's guns away...
That's just a policy — a policy the government could enact even if there were no individual right to bear arms. So we're very far from the original topic now.
... but I am looking for more support for the reasonable efforts that need to be undertaken to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  
So you are for the policy of taking some people's guns away. The wrong people. (And speaking of wrong, was the Supreme Court wrong on the Second Amendment, in your current opinion? I still don't know.)
WALLACE:  And the Second Amendment includes an individual right to bear arms. 

CLINTON:  Yes, but that right like every other of our rights, our First Amendment rights, every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.  
And the majority in Heller said that the Second Amendment allows for limitations, so that can't be the basis for saying the Court was wrong on the Second Amendment (unless she was mistaken about what the Court said in Heller). Chris Wallace was properly prepared on this point:
WALLACE:  I just want to pursue this a bit.  Heller, Justice Scalia, he said that the right to bear arms is reasonably limited.  He let the door open to regulation. If you're elected president, you're going to appoint the Ninth Supreme Court justice.... Are you saying you do not want to see the Heller decision, the individual right to bear arms overturned? 

CLINTON:  No, I don't...
And there's where she gets off the hook, because you could think a decision is wrong but still want to leave it in place because it's precedent. And once we know that the right is subject to limitation, why would you bother overruling Heller to get to whatever regulations you want? You just need a Court that will be generous about letting the government do what it wants. Accordingly, Hillary proceeds to talk about what she wants government to do:
...  but here's what I do want. And I want to be very clear about this: I want the Congress to step up and do its job. I want to get out of the horrible cycle we're in, where we go and mourn dozens, hundreds, thousands of people killed by gun violence.  Everybody says, oh, let's pray, let's send our hearts and our feelings, and then nothing happens. We're better than this. The gun lobby intimidates elected officials.  The vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support the kind of common-sense reforms that I’m proposing. 
The conversation advances to some other topics, but the question of the Supreme Court remains in play. Wallace pushes her about all the things she seems to want to change through Supreme Court appointments and finally asks: "What about precedent?" She says:
CLINTON:  The precedent is absolutely in line. You know, I taught law. I’m a recovering lawyer.  I know that precedent is something that you look to, but I also know that courts can take a look at precedent and determine that maybe they weren't right the first time. 
A recovering lawyer.... I used to be a lawyer but I don't touch that stuff anymore.

161 comments:

campy said...

She's not looking to repeal the 2nd; she's looking to ignore it.

Hagar said...

In all that cloud of words, was there anything tangible as to just what these "reasonable reforms" might contain?

rehajm said...

She responded and — forgive me — I've got to parse this pretty closely

If/when she's elected we'll all have to do this for every fucking utterance out of her mouth.

eric said...

I believe you spoke about this sorta thing before in relation to Obama's talk on homosexual marriage. That everyone knew it was a lie but it was a necessary lie.

Don't Hillary's supporter know she is lying here? Don't we all know she is lying?

When she puts new Justices on SCOTUS, these will be justices that will find a new interpretation to the 2nd amendment. One that says we don't really have a 2nd amendment right. And Hillary will say, "Well, it's settled law, what can I do?"

Is anyone fooled by this?

Saint Croix said...

Yes, but that right like every other of our rights, our First Amendment rights, every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations

"What are the reasonable regulations of abortion that you support, Hillary?"

Insane that she wants to water down the 1st, as well as the 2nd. The only right that is sacrosanct is the non-right that never existed.

fivewheels said...

What part of the Bill of Rights does Hillary Clinton have respect for? The 1st Amendment? Not really the speech part, and definitely not the free exercise of religion part. 2nd? That's out. 3rd is irrelevant these days. 4th? She was part of an administration that has conducted massive amounts of unprecedented spying on Americans.

The 5th? Oh, yeah, she's pretty hot on her IT people taking the 5th.

Bob Ellison said...

I watched that same interview on Fox News Sunday. Interesting stuff. Chris Wallace is a first-rate interviewer, perhaps up there with Tim Russert. He pushes and pushes and then stops, letting the interviewee's words settle.

Hillary gave up on gun rights. She wants to take away guns, but like all leftists, she lies about her true desires. She'll say anything and do anything for the power she wants.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Hossley said...

She suggests that every right in the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable regulation. It is only rights not expressly in the Constitution that are unalterable, like the right to an abortion. Ok, I added that last part, but it essentially her position.

traditionalguy said...

Shotguns were once what citizens needed for personal protection. But inside a city you needed a single shot handgun. However, facing a tribal attack required the new device called the Walker Colt firing Six shots in 12 seconds instead of 12 minutes and became the standard. It beat finally beat the Comanche Empire who could fire 6 arrows in 30 seconds from a galloping horse.


But for Militia duty you needed a Kentucky Rifle muzzle loader that picked off Red Coat Officers from a half mile. After the Civil war, science went into overdrive and suddenly you needed a breech loading rifle that fired single cartridges, and then used smokeless powder.

But when Browning went too work, war became impossible until Tanks and fighter bombers were perfected.

Hillary is reasonable. She only wants civilians taken back to 1860. Enjoy it.

Wilbur said...

Can you imagine how much she must have hated living in Arkansas?

Unknown said...

It's a good thing she's so much smarter, better educated in the law and the Constitution, better with words than Donald Trump. Why, if he wants to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, he has to say I want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, because he wouldn't know how to twist words and lie like she does. Yeah, we don't need that kind of man in the White House. Moar Wormtongue!

buwaya puti said...

It is all meaningless, all these weasel-words.
They all come after the substance, to rationalize acts or desires.
And all your courts and decisions and procedures are just a ritual overlay over political power. If they have the power to do x, and the will to do x, x will be done and words will be found to justify x.

cyrus83 said...

Attacking decisions like Heller and Citizens United is red meat for the base, but as a practical reality, both can be nullified in effect without ever overturning them. With a ruling like Heller, as has been noted, all it takes is getting justices who will agree to some pretty wide-ranging regulations. Andrew Cuomo's SAFE Act didn't get tossed out entirely, so there are examples out there already for the left to use.

With a decision like Citizens United, all that really has to happen is to unleash one or more alphabet soup agencies against any corporations that use their right to speech in ways the government dislikes. Make enough examples to encourage the others, and corporations won't produce the speech anymore unless it's to the government's liking.

Fabi said...

That's a D- troll grade, Unknown. Hope you're not looking for a Soros Performance Bonus.

Eric said...

Thanks for watching/analyzing this kinda stuff so I don't have to do it.

chickelit said...

"A recovering lawyer".... I used to be a lawyer but I don't touch that stuff anymore.

It took me two reads to get that but I did, finally.

Good one, Althouse.

Rob said...

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word she says is a lie, including "and" and "the." (AA has cited this several times, but we can't say it often enough.)

Sebastian said...

Only one of the points you parse is not a lie.

@bp: "If they have the power to do x, and the will to do x, x will be done and words will be found to justify x." They will, and it will be. RBG/Tushnet told us as much, as if we didn't know. The only way to stop them is to vote Trump. Simple.

Kathryn51 said...

Yeah, what Eric said - thank you for watching/analyzing. One of my simple pleasures in life has been to get up early on Sunday morning with a cup of coffee and watch Fox News Sunday. I stopped about 6 months ago. Gave up on the other networks long ago.

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
YoungHegelian said...

I’m not looking to take people's guns away...

Maybe not you personally, Hillary. But, the Democratic Party? Sure as shit.

Take a look at Heller. You know what changed in DC after the SCOTUS blew away DC's laws banning the sale of guns?

Nothing.

DC erected so many rules & regulations that it is still just as impossible to buy a gun as before. DC didn't like the Heller ruling, & so they said "fuck you" to anyone who thought they had any 2nd amendment rights in the District. Looks illegal to me, but so far, they're getting away with it.

Right now, if you're just some guy off the street, you have a better chance of having an apparition of the Virgin Mary at your backyard barbecue than you do of getting a gun permit in DC.

rcocean said...

She "supports" the Hellyer decision but she'll appoint another Ginsberg type who'll overturn it.

She's already stated she wants the Gun companies to be sued out of business.

As someone stated, its just like Obama with Health Care, Gay Marriage or Illegal aliens. Obama said the moderate thing in 2008, then went hard left in 2009.

Humperdink said...

Best gun for home defense? Why none other than the evil black gun, the AR-15. That's according to one expert. Of course everyone claims to be an expert. This guy is.

"One of today’s best-known and most respected trainers in the art of gun fighting, retired Sgt./Maj. Kyle E. Lamb, spent more than 21 years with the U.S. Army—more than 15 years of which were in Special Operations."

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/5/26/the-ar-for-home-defense-one-experts-opinion

Bob Boyd said...

Trump says a lot of dumb things.
Hillary says a lot of clever things.

Trump is a law abiding citizen who wants to plague those who are not.
Hillary, not a law abiding citizen, wants to plague those who are.

Humperdink said...

And the AR-15 will be the first to be taken away.

Yancey Ward said...

With a fifth justice, Heller will be overturned. It is clear to me what is going to happen- the various lists of people who can't purchase firearms legally is fairly small today, but within 20 years of a Clinton victory in November, 99% of the population will be on a no-buy list, via all perfectly "reasonable" regulations. It won't make any difference- criminals will still get guns, and the population today that owns firearms legally will just own them illegally in the future. All new firearm purchases will simply be done on the black market since any attempt to stop it will result in a revolution.

tom swift said...

And the majority in Heller said that the Second Amendment allows for limitations

Well, sort of. They didn't get into the limitations, aside from allowing that some might exist—so they didn't have to deal directly with that "shall not be infringed" stuff—because such limitations weren't relevant to Heller. Whatever Constitutionally sound limitations might exist, it was obvious that Washington laws were far more draconian than anything the Bill of Rights could be stretched to cover. So the details didn't really matter. And why fix today what you can put off for another batch of lawyers tomorrow?

And of course the Second says nothing at all about "common-sense reforms".

But at this point, perhaps it hardly matters. I just tried to send off for some AR-15 parts—I already have a nice grandfatherly lower receiver, so at least so far as the Feds are concerned, I already own the gun—but since I'm in Massachusetts, suddenly no can do. And we didn't even have a judge involved. All it takes is a bureaucrat.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Of all the speakers on 2nd Amendment I've heard, the only one I really believe is Chuck Heston.

Bruce Hayden said...

The funny thing about AR-15s is that they are very rarely used for murder. The NY official who is greatly expanding the banned gun law this week admitted that only a handful of people are killed every year with long guns, which includes AR-15s. But then, with a straight face claimed that banning these guns would enhance public safety. Heller, of course, required increased scrutiny, and that admission would be fatal to the law in most of the Circuits. But, the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th Circuits have chosen to essentially gut increased scrutiny, essentially substituting rational basis for what the Supreme Court ordered. And, since the Court is split 4-4, it would be dangerous to appeal any anti-Heller cases there (since 4-4 would leave the adverse ruling standing in that circuit). And that is probably how a liberal added to the Supreme Court would effectively gut Heller and the 2nd Amdt, by redefining I ncreased scrutiny to be a meaningless smidgen above rational basis, allowing states like NY and CA to waive their hands, claim that banning certain guns would make us safer, and that would be that, despite the manifest falseness of the claims (that, btw, is one of the critical differences between increased scrutiny and rational basis - in the former case, the state must not only believe that the act would be beneficial, but would have to be, in fact, true).

Real American said...

that's Hillary Clinton talking so you know 100% that she's fucking lying.

n.n said...

The Second Amendment recognizes the human right to self-defense. Perhaps Clinton is concerned about people committing elective abortion. However, the Second Amendment does not recognize the right to abort another human life for causes other than self-defense. Unless liberal judges receive religious instruction from their gods in the twilight zone, her worries are unsubstantiated.

I would suggest a reasonable limit is that people are not legally or morally entitled to threaten, intimidate, or commit elective abortion of another human life with guns, scalpels, vacuums, and other dual-use tools. I wonder if Clinton will agree with these reasonable limits. It's for the children, and babies, too!

The Supreme Court set a dark precedent when they excised "Posterity" from the Constitution.

Michael McClain said...

buwaya puti said...

"It is all meaningless, all these weasel-words.
They all come after the substance, to rationalize acts or desires.
And all your courts and decisions and procedures are just a ritual overlay over political power. If they have the power to do x, and the will to do x, x will be done and words will be found to justify x."

7/31/16, 5:14 PM

Thus illustrating the purpose of the Second Amendment to balance the power of an abusive Government.

Robert Fulton said...

Yes, Kathryn51, I feel your pain. I too used to enjoy watching Fox News Sunday. However, today I watched Chris Wallace interview a person that the Director of the FBI, after a thorough investigation, clearly and specifically identified as a liar. Mr. Wallace sat with a blank look on his face while she assured him that the Director found that she did not lie. Mr. Wallace responded to this blatant lie by proceeding to the next issue, accepting her response as valid. We all should know that this non-journalistic response demonstrated that the fix was in for the interview and we now know why she consented to do it. Why Ms. Althouse chose not to feature that exchange - which nullified the meaning of all of the other exchanges - is a mystery to me. I get a much clearer and consistent exposure to Democratic talking points on Morning Joe (MSNBC). I no longer need Mr. Wallace's sell-out to ruin my Sunday morning.

James Pawlak said...

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (President Thomas Jefferson)

Bruce Hayden said...

The thing is that some limitations is a long way from the "common sense" limitations proposed by the Dems. The right to keep and bear arms, and to do so in self-defense are fundamental enumerated rights that Heller tells us predate our Constitution. So, it is probably OK to continue banning unrestricted access to fully automatic firearms, but, under increased scrutiny, not ok to ban modern sporting rifles and carbines (e.g. AR-15s). Increased Scrutiny has traditionally meant either Intermediate or Strict scrutiny. Heller and McDonald didn't have to address this, so didn't, since the laws in question violated both levels. Crooked Hillary and the Dems are trying to exploit this to allow far more limitations than the Supreme Court envisioned. But what they don't look at is the analysis that the Supreme Court went through to get to Increased Scrutiny - they essentially applied Intermediate Scrutiny, and the law didn't come close to passing muster there, so wouldn't have passed Strict Scrutiny either.

n.n said...

First, they disarmed the babies. Then they came for the underage girls in their private spaces. Finally, they target the law-abiding People with the pretense that they may commit elective abortion outside of the abortion chambers. I suppose illegal immigration and the refugee crises are intended as fail safe measures to disenfranchise Americans and their unplanned Posterity, if judicial overrides do not stand. Anti-native policies in the Middle East, Europe, Mexico, and America, too.

Robert Fulton said...

I just read this: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/hillary-chris-wallace-spar-over-her-classified-emails-video/. It clearly shows Mr. Wallace following up on this issue. Did he go after her with the same zeal that he goes after Mr. Trump? You be the judge. I say Mr. Wallace did a Kabuki so that he appeared to be a journalist, while allowing her blatant lie response to go without further challenge. I know the exchange fits within many similar exchanges with candidates. However, when the Director of the FBI...
No wonder I remember the exchange as I initially represented it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why are the Dems so hung up with banning modern sporting rifles and carbines, like AR-15s, despite absolutely no evidence that that would save even one life? Because they think that they can. The dangerous firearm is the handgun, which is used in most firearms related murders and suicides. But handguns are also the most useful for self-defense, and both Heller and McDonald pointed this out. Banning handguns effectively bans self-Defence when out of the house. No one, except maybe Slo Joe Biden, is gong to haul a shotgun around town, loaded with buckshot. And he has Secret Service protection (as does Crooked Hillary). They see banned no modern sporting rifles and carbines as a step in the right direction, and possible because they weren't explicitly mentioned by the Supreme Court, and the MSM has been able to scare enough people about their lethally.

Bob Ellison said...

Isn't the AR-15 basically a Glock with a bunch of stuff attached?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Why didn't Wallace ask Clinton "specifically, what modifications of existing regulations or addition regulations of second amendment rights do you propose?"

Personally I have had much tougher questions in a job interview than Wallace asked Clinton.

Bruce Hayden said...

The thing that I don't think Crooked Hillary and the Dems fully appreciate is that reversing Heller and McDonald would set a large part of the country into open revolt. The right to keep and bear arms in both self defense, and to defend against tyranny, is an integral part of the social contract that our ancestors entered into better than 200 years ago. (And many believe that the latter is why the Dems are so desperate to disarm the American citizenry). This is something that has been learned by a large part of America at their mothers' knees, since our founding, and before. Concord and Lexington involved attempts by the British to disarm their American subjects. If a Clinton packed Supreme Court essentially takes these rights away, the Court will be the loser, losing legitimacy with much of America. Will this revolt get violent? I think likely, but not sure how violent, since those tasked with the impossible task of disarming the American public would tend to be far more sympathetic with the gun owners than the gun grabbers they would be seizing guns for.

Michael The Magnificent said...

"The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment" = dog whistle.

She can wiggle and dance all she wants after laying that down; Her fellow travelers got the message loud and clear.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Why didn't Wallace ask Clinton "specifically, what modifications of existing regulations or addition regulations of second amendment rights do you propose?""

Because Wallace must have known that this is stated on her website. Presumably he was trying to avoid softballs that set her up for canned talking points.

Bruce Hayden said...

Probably could better call a Glock the AR-15 of handguns. One of the big advantages of the AR-15 platform is how highly modular it is. Glocks are heading in that direction - Lone Wolf Distributing sells a 100% non-Glock Glock. A handgun completely built from after-market parts, all of which Lone Wolf sells individually.

rhhardin said...

In all fairness, constitutional interpretation doesn't make any sense.

It's whatever you have the votes for.

Gahrie said...

If we really wanted to work on solving gun violence, we would concentrate on innercity youth violence....violence usually committed with hand guns in the most heavily regulated gun environments in the country.

The problem isn't the guns, it's the gangbangers using them.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that, after reading the decisions, that anyone can make a good faith legal argument that Heller and McDonald were decided wrong (yes - I admit that is a True Scottsman argument). The basic problem is that the decisions are heavily grounded in the historical record about what our founders believed the 2nd Amdt to mean when enacted, and the attitudes of the American people at the time (having just won a war of independence triggered by an attempt by the Britts to disarm their American subjects).

Gahrie said...

If a Clinton packed Supreme Court essentially takes these rights away, the Court will be the loser, losing legitimacy with much of America. Will this revolt get violent? I think likely, but not sure how violent, since those tasked with the impossible task of disarming the American public would tend to be far more sympathetic with the gun owners than the gun grabbers they would be seizing guns for.

The opening conflict of the Revolutionary War was an attempt by the British army to seize weapons and ammunition from the colonists.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I've seen past and proposed (future) definitions of "assault weapons." They read quite literally like a Chinese menu: Pick any three items from column A, &c. If there are only two, it's not an "assault weapon" until you add a third, and it makes no difference what the third is, except that it has to be on the same list.

Now, this is simply insane. It has nothing to do with the danger of the gun, the lethality of the gun, or anything at all except how scary it looks. E.g., bayonet mounts are on the list; it doesn't matter whether there's an actual bayonet, and I don't think any gun ever used in a domestic shooting actually had a bayonet on it. Certain sorts of grips are in the same position, as are things that supposedly muffle shots, things that supposedly help you aim, &c. (Bear with me; I am not really a gun person -- my last encounter with a gun of any kind was with my dad's air rifle, maybe 35 years ago.) But again, it's not whether any of these features are present; it's whether enough of them are. We are to be terrified of a gun with a(n empty) bayonet mount, but OK with an otherwise identical weapon that doesn't have one.

This is what's called "common sense gun control." Uncommon nonsense is more like it.

As for the other, the "gun show loophole": IIRC it doesn't mostly apply to gun shows at all; they are generally very careful about background checks. What it does apply to is things like gifts among family or close friends. If a dad gives his son a rifle, does he need to arrange for the son to get a background check? Apparently this is only "common sense."

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem with attacking violence through attacking inner city violence is that the Dem party is highly self intertwined with the root causes of that violence, namely the encouragement and subsidization of fatherless child rearing in the inner cities, an eminently foreseeable consequence of LBJ's War on Povery, and, most recently, Obama's gutting of the Welfare Reform legislation grudgingly signed into law by Crooked Hillary's husband. The only way to effectively combat that violence is to seriously attack out-of-wedlock births and fatherless child rearing, and the Dems aren't about to allow that, since they greatly benefit electorally from it.

SgtPete said...

I heard and understood nothing, e.g., all doublespeak. She is living and breathing character from 1984 or Animal Farm. Only in America. Just gets me angry angry and more angry..... :(


eric said...

Given the fact that all the weekly trolls aren't here today, I conclude that they have Sunday's off of work.

PB said...

Hillary's just trying to touch all the bases so she can claim to never have said anything in opposition or in support of anything.

Face it, she wants to strictly limit the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of Americans who disagree with her.

Sebastian said...

I didn't vote for Trump etc. etc. But who's the actual con artist in this election?

Of course, con law is a con too--"equal justice under law"! stare decisis! SSM in substantive due process in the 14th! abortion from emanations of penumbrae!--so we're getting what we deserve.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Michelle - the added absurdity is the the AR-15 platform is highly modular. In many cases, it can take minutes, or less, to switch a firearm from conforming to non-conforming, or the other way around. For example, one of the evil features is often a foregrip - which can be attached or removed quickly to/from the bottom rail that comes with most modern sporting rifles these days. These are the same sort of hand grips that are now ubiquitous with handheld power tools today. Somehow, this common ergonomic feature is somehow evil when used with a firearm, but not a power drill. The rails are essentially standardized attachment mechanisms that are used to rapidly add or change accessories, whether grips, sights, lasers, flashlights, etc. They are now also standard features on many/most modern semiautomatic handguns (because of this, I can use the same flashlight or laser on an AR-15, a shotgun, and a handgun).

hawkeyedjb said...

"Don't Hillary's supporter know she is lying here? Don't we all know she is lying?"

Yes. Just as with President Obama's position on same-sex marriage, both his supporters and his opponents assumed he was lying. Both were correct.

People who don't like Hillary know she's lying and they're pissed. People who support Hillary know she's lying and they're thrilled.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah Hillary the legal scholar. Who flunked the DC Bar exam the first time around. You have to really go some (in the dumb cluck category) before you flunk the DC Bar. But that's our girl! So I'm supposed to listen to her thoughts on the Constitution.

Of course I suppose our man Obama would have flunked the DC Bar as well.
D

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
readering said...

Complicated discussion on a complicated topic. Far better to go with Trump's "Clinton essentially wants to abolish the Second Amendment." Straight out lie, which he makes over and over in most of his campaign events.

rcocean said...

"It's whatever you have the votes for."

If you mean 5 SCOTUS Judges then you're right. The 5th liberal/left Justice will mean the Left can jam their agenda down the throat of the American people for the next 10 years - whether the American vote for it or not.

buwaya puti said...

The California laws are the model. Besides the whimsical bits in banning specific models, for no particular reason, the most burdensome are magazine capacity limits, user certification through fees and "training", and upcoming complete ban on removable magazines and background checks for ammo.
But these are just a start of course.

buwaya puti said...

Readering, but they do.
What is false about it?
It is their intention, clearly stated over and over.

rcocean said...

Isn't it funny how Erick Erickson, Goldberg and Lowery, Glenn Beck, and Bill Kristol are so unconcerned about Hillary getting elected and putting another 2 leftists on the SCOTUS.

Its almost like they don't really care about all those social issues they constantly write about. And since they're against "Nationalism" aka patriotism, its difficult to understand what there "True Conservatism" consists of, other than wars in the Middle East and an abstract dislike of "Big Government"

buwaya puti said...

The NRO crowd and the attached people have their bread buttered by the political consultant/donor crowd. They make a living from them.
I forget who did the calc-a couple of weeks ago-that Trump has caused the Republican "economy" - the political industry - about a billion in revenues so far.

David Begley said...

You can't believe a word out of this woman's mouth. She will repeal the Second,Amendment the way the Left always works: incrementalism.

Hillary is in Omaha on Monday. My full report should be at Power Line on Tuesday in the morning. Please take a look.

jdniner said...

Won't the progressive gun ban be something like.
1. Pass a law to make it illegal to make your own ammo without the proper certification and training.
2. Control the certification process.
3. Make ammo more difficult to certify to by altering minor parts of the spec.

The constitution says nothing about ammo. A judge will have to run on that.

Allow a few boutique ammo makers to take the sting out of the opposition media rebuttals.

Birkel said...

Good evening, readering/shiloh. So the talking point is to project lying onto the other candidate to distract from the lying of your candidate?

Tell me, what percentage of your talking points distributors do you think believe the talking points they distribute to you? Are their hearts in the lies, these days?

Obama lied his fool head off. Some people, like Althouse, disregarded their better judgment and voted for him the first time. Maybe there are enough fools to be duped this time too.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Lem said...

Obama had one quote more jaw dropping than Hillarie's, about a Supreme's decision. (at least I found it jaw dropping, do to my attempt to respect words and their meaning)

When the Supremes gave thumps down to Obama's executive orders on immigration, Obama went to the White Press room and said... "Today's deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable".

In a banana republic those words would carry a lot of weight. Clearly a poor choice of words by Obama. Nobody called him on it.

rcocean said...

"Won't the progressive gun ban be something like."

No, the plan is run the gun makers out of business through liability suits, while state and local governments will be given the green light to ban guns to extent politically possible and the Feds impose Hillary's "common-sense" reforms.

Meanwhile, every 2nd Amendment challenge will be swatted down by the Hillary SCOTUS.

The point is to do what they've done with immigration. Say they're enforcing gun rights in public speeches while undermining and destroying through legal means and executive orders.

rcocean said...

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hillary SCOTUS imposes gun control on the USA, saying that gun violence "discriminates" against Blacks and minorities, or some such BS.

But that will come later. First, allow the blue states to pass strict gun control and then when the idea has somewhat "normalized" have the SCOTUS impose it through Judicial fiat.

Cf: Roe vs Wade or Gay marriage.

320Busdriver said...

Wallace called out her biggest lies in this one short interview and she just smiled as she piled on more lies. She is fatally flawed. Trump just sucks. I've voted R in every election since 84. Even in 08. And I am happy to deflect any blame for the lame dufus attempting to lead for the last 8 onto those who actually voted for him.
This time, this time will be different. Yeah, we're in decline.

Unknown said...

Fabi said...
That's a D- troll grade, Unknown. Hope you're not looking for a Soros Performance Bonus.
7/31/16, 5:16 PM

Fabi, you misunderstood me. I am on the side of right and virtue. IOW I was being ironic, or sarcastic, or whatever. Hillary Wormtongue should have been the tip-off.

320, Trump is solid on 2A. Honestly you need to give him a chance.

tim in vermont said...

It's cute that you give Hillary the benefit of the doubt that she is actually smart enough to consider all of those things in her answer and parses the finer points honestly.

Here's a hint: She is not that smart. She is sort of winging it on her limited wits, just like Trump.

Jim said...

The Constitution? Oh it is nice to think we have one. Illegals openly live and work, and are encouraged to do so, by the government. The same government that refuses to enforce the existing laws. The same legal system that takes years and millions of dollars to determine if HRC has committed a crime. And then says she hasn't, well, not really, but maybe. That same government has thrown better men and women that HRC in jail over lesser crimes. And no one cares, not the irrelevant and corrupt supreme court, and certainly not the press or the political parties.
The law, the institutions that are involved in the making and the carrying out of those laws, are corrupt and contemptible
The IRS targets conservatives, and no one cares. Homeland security is a bloated inefficient corpse, and no one cares.
The law?? its a fucking joke in this country. You can buy and sell anyone involved in it. It happens everyday.
Yes they are coming not just for the guns, but for free speech, and the rest of our freedoms.

tim in vermont said...

Tell me, what percentage of your talking points distributors do you think believe the talking points they distribute to you? Are their hearts in the lies, these days?

Their instructions, per the DNC memos, are to "muddy the waters" and they are happy to do so.

TBlakely said...

"Common-sense reforms" on gun control always ends up with confiscation because said reforms don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The real reason for gun control is long term. A disarmed public is always easier to bully.

Johnny Sokko said...

Anytime you hear a politician say 'common sense'then head for the hills.

Substitute 'abortion' for 'guns' and you will see crooked Hillary change her tune.

mikee said...

The dissent in Heller came in two parts; all 9 justices agreed that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, as enumerated by the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. Having agreed upon that, 4 justices went on to say that completely banning the use or possession of firearms in the home is a perfectly acceptable way to allow the exercise of that right.

In other words, Hillary can agree with all 9 Justices on the existence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, but she agrees with the dissenters that legislating, regulating, or banning the existence of that right into extinction is perfectly fine with her.

And in doing so, she isn't taking anyone's guns away. She is just saying if you keep them you go to jail.

As honest as any statement a Clinton has ever made, and as lying.

Paul said...

Hillary will redefine the Second Amendment to mean only proscribed people can own SOME guns. And semi-automatics won't be one of them. She will do the 'you can keep your duck gun' when the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting but to stopping a tyrannical government.

She will do the same thing Mexico did. In Mexico it says, “The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms.”

And since their laws are 'common sense' they prohibit the populace from possessing them for all practical purposes.

And that is the kind of '2nd Amendment' Hillary wants.

Unknown said...

If Hillary wins the U.S. Army will be quartering troops in our homes.

Unknown said...

Nationalize the Police, Take away the guns, hello reeducation camps

Chuck said...

1. I understand what Mrs. Clinton is trying to say. I don't agree with her, policy-wise. And I think that her political rhetoric is substantially dishonest. But I get where she stands.

2. I understand, and agree with, Professor Althouse's criticism. I don't know where Professor Althouse stands on gun policy. That's okay; she's not obligated to articulate a position. If all she does is criticize Mrs. Clinton, that's okay. It's Althouse's job to articulate the legal meaning of things.

3. The one person I don't understand is Trump. He suggests -- wrongly, beyond any doubt -- that Democrats favor doing away with the Second Amendment. As with most legal issues, Trump doesn't get it. And he resorts to the lowest-level trashtalk; mostly making hash of the real issue. If Trump were a man of simple language but clear principles, that might be one thing. But Trump isn't that at all. Trump has never had any clear, concise, principled views on guns. Trump has had three, or five, or a dozen positions on guns over time. Whatever seems current to him at the time or given his mood.

Neo said...

Heller is the "law of the Land".

When Hillary questions the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, she is likewise questioning the SCOTUS rulings on LBGT rights, abortion and equal rights.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Good analysis. But believing Hillary seems absurd.

Daniel T said...

Go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment. Try and enforce it .There are 30 million gun owners in this country. With trillions of rounds of ammunition.
The NY Safe act compliance rate is around 1%, and Gov. Cuomo doesn't seem to have the stomach to try and enforce it.
If 30 million gun owners were really the problem, I think we'd know it.

Gahrie said...

He suggests -- wrongly, beyond any doubt -- that Democrats favor doing away with the Second Amendment.

Assumes facts not in evidence....most Lefties do want to do away with the Second Amendment, they're just scared to say so.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

rcocean said...
Isn't it funny how Erick Erickson, Goldberg and Lowery, Glenn Beck, and Bill Kristol are so unconcerned about Hillary getting elected.
7/31/16, 8:03 PM

Pitiful, but what has me more concerned is the American public's absence of outrage and scorn for the brazen criminality of the democrat party. They schemed, cheated and deceived their own voters to enable a chosen person to win the nomination. And this crime was revealed during their convention with millions watching! The wikileaks emails in the past weeks have proved that the Obama administration did use the IRS to illegally target conservative groups, and the FBI knew it and did nothing! The FBI and Hillary, Bill and Lynch on the tarmac, the gangsters are rolling around committing crimes in broad daylight- WTF America, how much of this are you gonna take? Instead of throwing these thugs in jail, we're going to give them the presidency?

Levi Starks said...

Nice discussion, however I've decided I'm not going to suffer from either Trump, or Hillary derangement syndrome. In either case the world will not end. In one case we live with a criminal, in the other case we live with a ore clever criminal.
I don't have to make that choice. I'm voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian.

MayBee said...

He suggests -- wrongly, beyond any doubt -- that Democrats favor doing away with the Second Amendment.

Beyond any doubt? How many Democrat friends do you have who are anti-gun? I have a TON of them.

That's why they don't care that none of the current proposals for "common sense" gun laws would have changed any of the gun crimes that get national attention. They just want to start passing laws to limit whatever they can.

Humperdink said...

The words "government" and "common sense" being in the same sentence.

I needed some evening humor.

Just_Mike_S said...

More Buzzword Salad.

David said...

Here's the thing about Hillary.

She's smart, but she's not that smart. A kind of Willie Loman of the intellect. ("Liked, but not well liked.") You could say that Hillary is a Willie Loman overall (Obama said this.) but she's not even liked very much anymore.

Her Trump card is fear. Make people fear Trump. The irony is that she got to be the candidate because people fear her and Bill. They fear what will happen to them if they do not support her.

SukieTawdry said...

In your opinion, Mrs. Clinton, does the Second Amendment protect the individual's right to own a firearm? It's a simple question that can be answered with one word. Why won't people like Wallace keep pressing until she answers yes or no? Why do they allow politicians to continually get away with non-answers to their questions?? It's infuriating.

Terry said...

Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation. He wanted to find the "sweet spot", the policies he could enact that would push the country in the direction he wanted to, while pleasing (or at least not displeasing) the greatest number of people.
What Hillary Clinton learned from Obama is that this is wrong. The way you enact your policies is to get 50% + one on your side, and make the 50%-one eat shit.
Hillary, if she is elected, will continue Obama's style of rule (not governance).
She will put judges on the SC who will swallow draconian, European-style restrictions on what firearms citizens are allowed to posses, and who will be allowed to posses them. All she needs is a 5-4 majority in the SC. Like Obama, she will not care if the policy is wildly unpopular, or if it makes people more hostile and distrustful of the federal governance. She does not want your love, she will have your obedience.
The 'civil libertarians' on the Left do not care about any of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, but they have special hatred for the Second Amendment. They want Americans to be like the Europeans who soil their underpants if they think a rusty, non-working firearm is within a mile of them.

SukieTawdry said...

Blogger David said...

Here's the thing about Hillary.

She's smart, but she's not that smart.


Oh, you are right about that. She's a most pedestrian thinker. Good at marshalling facts and figures and collecting information, but decidedly uncreative and unimaginative. Seems to think out of the box only when she's trying to circumvent a rule or law for personal advantage. They said Bill married her because she was the smartest person he knew. How sad for Bill.

Chip said...

It might be worth noting that the DNC just removed longstanding platform language supporting (or at least acknowledging) the Second Amendment. Maybe someone should ask HC how she feels about that.

Fabi said...

My apology, Unknown!

SukieTawdry said...

Blogger rcocean said...

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hillary SCOTUS imposes gun control on the USA, saying that gun violence "discriminates" against Blacks and minorities, or some such BS.

Perhaps on the basis that gun violence has a disparate impact on minority populations. SCOTUS has already upheld the application of disparate impact although it significantly limited its application. The right Court might well expand that application.

gadfly said...

@rcocean said...
Isn't it funny how Erick Erickson, Goldberg and Lowery, Glenn Beck, and Bill Kristol are so unconcerned about Hillary getting elected and putting another 2 leftists on the SCOTUS.


Trump supporters believe they are mind-readers who already know: (1) There will be two or more new jurists appointed to the Supreme Court (2) what actions Trump will take if he gets an opportunity to nominate a new justice or two (he even suggested that his liberal sister would be good) (3) That the NR writers, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, George Will, Bill Kristol and us NeverTrumpers surely are responsible for the woefully pitiful New York Liberal dumbass candidate that they selected could fool the rest of the country. It will not happen, my friend, because we are all voting Libertarian because you took away the opportunity to vote for the duopoly choices in good conscience. The walls will soon be tumbling down when a Republican or a Democrat gets elected.

But the press, owned by Trump's buddy Rupert Murdoch, is trying to help. Faux News tumbled long ago and yesterday, it was the New York Post. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. Trump is indeed a very wild card, but he is not fit to be President.

Terry said...

Hillary failed the DC bar exam. That's why she went to Arkansas. She passed the Arkansas exam. The romantic story Bill told at the convention was a lie.
Jonah Goldberg is a nevertrumper. His mother played a key role in the Lewinsky scandal (I believe she convinced Linda Tripp to counsel Lewinsky to preserve the infamous blue dress). Anyhow, Jonah Goldberg usually begins his columns on the Clintons by reminding his readers that the Clintons lie. It is their most distinctive characteristic. It is what they are known for. It is what they do. They are fundamentally dishonest people.
For the young folks out there who do not remember the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton left his DNA on Lewinsky's blue dress.
He knew what he had done. He knew that he was guilty.
But he insisted that dress be tested anyway. He was hoping, no doubt, that the test would be inconclusive or that Lewinsky was bluffing when she said she hadn't washed it, so he could continue lying about the nature of the his relationship with Lewinsky.
No one, as far as I know, has ever asked Hillary if she knew the truth when the dress stain was tested. No matter what the truth, she would tell whatever story made her the least culpable.
The Clintons lie. That sweet story he told at the convention about how he convinced her to give up a great legal career and move to Arkansas was a lie. They lie all the time. If they say something that sounds reasonable and truthful, it has a lie in there somewhere, and that lie either makes them look better than they are, or makes them less culpable for some wickedness.

J. Farmer said...

Eh...who cares. The Democrats aren't going to touch gun control with a 10-foot pole beyond meaningless lip service. They jettisoned that issue more than a decade ago. HRC is firmly in the DLC camp that her husband helped legitimate.

YoungHegelian said...

@gadfly,

It will not happen, my friend, because we are all voting Libertarian because you took away the opportunity to vote for the duopoly choices in good conscience

Why vote Liberterian? Johnson & Weld are basically Democrats, so just vote for the Democrats and be honest about it?

Johnson's views on religious liberty seem, well, bizarre to say the least. I mean, hell, even Hillary doesn't talk like that.

This happens all the time with the Libertarians. The grass roots are for civil society & against government intrusion. The Libertarian Brain Trusters (e.g. Reason magazine, Cato, etc) are for civil society & against government intrusion. The candidates? Democrats who want to legalize weed & hookers. This happens again & again.

YoungHegelian said...

@J farmer,

HRC is firmly in the DLC camp that her husband helped legitimate.

You could not be any more wrong. The spirit of the DLC is dead in the Democratic Party. There are no longer even any bleached bones to be seen lying on the ground.

Name a caucus or group in the Democratic Party that carries on the spirit of the DLC.

J. Farmer said...

@YoungHegelians:

"Name a caucus or group in the Democratic Party that carries on the spirit of the DLC."

The Blue Dog Coalition for one. HRC is a hawk and a free trader. The entire neoliberal project begun in the Carter administration helped to give us Bill Clinton. Why do you think the progressive wing of the party, fully in Bernie Sanders camp, is so begrudgingly swallowing the Hillary pill? They know she's a corporatist candidate fully on board with the elite, globalist agenda.

Gahrie said...

. HRC is firmly in the DLC camp that her husband helped legitimate.

Hillary is perpetual in whatever camp she needs to be at that particular moment. She has no convictions (even though she should be convicted of a couple of felonies)...only interests...her own.

That said, I agree that the DLC is dead. The current Democratic Party is in the control of demagogues and Progressives. (but I repeat myself) It is about raw power, not ideology.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"That said, I agree that the DLC is dead. The current Democratic Party is in the control of demagogues and Progressives. (but I repeat myself) It is about raw power, not ideology."

And yet the DNC did everything it could to stymie Bernie Sander's campaign in favor of Hillary's. Why would a party "in the control of demagogues and Progressives" jettison the more progressive candidate for the more corporatist, centrist candidate?

David E. Young said...

Hillary Clinton's understanding of what 'shall not be infringed' and 'a well regulated militia' means in the Second Amendment is in direct conflict with that of the Founders who developed, wrote, voted for, adopted, and ratified it. For the evidence from the Founders' own pens, see The Meaning Of 'Shall Not Be Infringed';
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html
and The Meaning Of 'A Well Regulated Militia';
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-meaning-of-well-regulated-militia.html

YoungHegelian said...

@J. Farmer,

Why would a party "in the control of demagogues and Progressives" jettison the more progressive candidate for the more corporatist, centrist candidate?

Is there something about the phrase political machine you don't understand?

Is Hillary as lefty as Bernie? No. But, look at the platform, look at the speakers. Why do you think that Big Money is non-lefty? Google is big money & it's lefty.

Crony capitalism is not by any means a monopoly of the Right. Matter of fact, lefties since Marx have preferred Big Business to Small Business for two reasons 1) Small Business is seen as more conservative (rightly so) & 2) having all the money in big companies makes them easier to tax or expropriate.

Does anyone read Marx anymore?

J. Farmer said...

@David E. Young:

Do you honestly believe that major political figures give a shit about what the founders intended or wanted? One of the big political arguments of the 19th century was whether or not the US should have a national bank. Things like the gilded age, the Progressive era in the early 20th century, and the US emergence as a global great power of radically transformed the American political landscape.

J. Farmer said...

@YoungHegelian:

"Why do you think that Big Money is non-lefty? Google is big money & it's lefty."

I don't think "Big Money is non-lefty." I don't even think terminology like "left" and "right" make any sense in today's political landscape. As far as I can tell, "big money" doesn't give a shit if there is an "R" or a "D" next to the president's name, because they recognize (correctly) that there's about a dime's worth of difference between our two political parties, and that dime makes no difference to their bottom line. Both major political parties feed their bases a bunch of B.S. This is a big part of why Trump has been such an insurgent candidate in the GOP. And it's not surprising that a conservative political party would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions before a leftist one did.

YoungHegelian said...

@J. Farmer,

As far as I can tell, "big money" doesn't give a shit if there is an "R" or a "D" next to the president's name, because they recognize (correctly) that there's about a dime's worth of difference between our two political parties, and that dime makes no difference to their bottom line

If that's true, then why doesn't Silicon Valley new money give to the Republicans as well? It's because their owners think that the Democrats are pushing the values, market & moral, that they want pushed & the Republicans don't.

You know, you may not consider yourself a lefty, but your language of Big Money Corporations running the government is as lefty as it comes. Corporations are, indeed, the "political villains" of most lefty belly-aching.

If you want to say Right or Left makes no difference, then it seems to me that you need to come up with a different political vocabulary to describe the reality in front of us, & not use recycled left-wing boilerplate.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So you are for the policy of taking some people's guns away. The wrong people.

So am I. You know, like when it comes to people in prison. Convicted felons - maybe their 2nd amendment right isn't as sacrosanct as most other persons. I keep having to raise that point with your stodgier commenters when they bang on about their obsession of likening the 2nd amendment to the 1st. They are different right and have different kinds of restrictions. We can't restrict the 1st by persons or their circumstances, but the 2nd we absolutely can. It's high time everyone fessed up to that incredibly obvious fact.

J. Farmer said...

YoungHegelian:

"If you want to say Right or Left makes no difference, then it seems to me that you need to come up with a different political vocabulary to describe the reality in front of us, & not use recycled left-wing boilerplate."

First, I don't think I need to come up with "a different political vocabulary" to point out that the current left/right distinction is pretty useless for understanding how political power works today. The entire left/right dichomoty is a product of 18th century French Revolution mentality. I don't find that particularly useful in discussing the political realities of the 20th century.

Cig Corporations are widely enthusiastic about H1B1 visas and lots of cheap migrant labor. I'm not so excited by that prospect, and if you want to call that "lefty," then perhaps you should defend that notion.

If you want to say Right or Left makes no difference, then it seems to me that you need to come up with a different political vocabulary to describe the reality in front of us, & not use recycled left-wing boilerplate.

First, what have I said constitute "left-wing boilerplate?" As far as a "different political vocabulary," how about nationalist vs. globalist? Care to tell me how the two major political parties come down on that issue?

J. Farmer said...

@YoungHegelian:

p.s. Do you honestly believe that of the two major political parties (in a country of 300,000,000 people), one of them is ideologically putting your interests front and center? If so, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why do you think that Big Money is non-lefty?

Because it is. Google is only one example. The clout of financial services industries over our economy and economic policy is much greater than any clout that Google has over those things. And that's what we mean by "big money." You could list a whole host of things that Google lobbies for - and none of them would be as controversial or unpopular as the things that the financial services industries get to have a stranglehold over in our government.

But I could be wrong. And perhaps Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Hank Paulson really are much more beloved than I ever realized.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You know, you may not consider yourself a lefty, but your language of Big Money Corporations running the government is as lefty as it comes. Corporations are, indeed, the "political villains" of most lefty belly-aching.

One of the most remarkable things about the right in America was not only the way they got to redefine the word "bribery" out of existence, but the lengths they went to legitimize it in the institution they keep telling us is the most corrupt of all: Government.

It's like P.J. O'Rourke said. Republicans keep telling us that government doesn't work. And then to prove the point, they get elected to demonstrate how unworkable they can make it.

You people would make horrible forensic accountants. There has never been a movement so devoted to pretending that money is not an incentive to politicians than the American right.

David E. Young said...

"J. Farmer said...
@David E. Young:
Do you honestly believe that major political figures give a shit about what the founders intended or wanted?"

It does not matter what major political figures think as long as citizens understand their rights and are ready and able to protect them. This historical research and writing is intended to provide citizens with the relevant facts so they have documented period information to base their understanding of the Second Amendment upon. Those who support gun control will always have this Second Amendment related period information directly contradicting them for a very simple reason. They are wrong. More citizens need to be able to point out such error and back it up with the period sources, IMHO.

Terry said...

Why are you so obsessed with guns, R&B? I have two handguns and a rifle. The rifle has been disassembled for years. One handgun is a .22 target pistol, the other is a 1911 .45. They are kept locked up and I take them out maybe once a year to see if they still work. I have a generator I treat about the same way.
Where the Hell does this sick obsession with guns come from?

Jon Ericson said...

Mr. Balls is a sophisticated sort of personality,
He chases us hither and yon.

Unknown said...

Emperor "Trump Sick And Tired Of Mainstream Media Always Trying To Put His Words Into Some Sort Of Context"

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-sick-and-tired-mainstream-media-always-tryin-53375

Jon Ericson said...

Unknown said...
If Hillary wins the U.S. Army will be quartering troops in our homes.
7/31/16, 9:11 PM

Unknown said...
Nationalize the Police, Take away the guns, hello reeducation camps
7/31/16, 9:19 PM

Heh, newbies.

Unknown said...

Oh, look. Its Emperor Trump whining again about the media:

"Wow, it is unbelievable how distorted, one-sided and biased the media is against us. The failing @nytimes is a joke. @CNN is laughable!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759915863600304128

When he isn't whining, Emperor Trump wants to hit anyone who doesn't agree with him or punch out their lights.

Emperor Trump is the Trumpkins chosen One. The One who is going to bring peace and prosperity to your lives, your family, your children and your children's children.

Yeah, right.

Unknown said...

"CNN's Brian Stelter Shuts Down The Trump Campaign's Attempt To Spin Attacks On Khizr Khan"
https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/31/cnns-brian-stelter-shuts-down-trump-campaigns-attempt-spin-attacks-khizr-khan/212045

Ah, no wonder Emperor Trump is pissed at CNN because they wouldn't let his lacky off the hook.

Micha Elyi said...

Do black people know that the Crooked Mrs. Clinton wants to take away their guns?

Rusty said...

Hillary is reasonable. She only wants civilians taken back to 1860. Enjoy it.

You can still own a gattling gun. No restrictions.

"Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
So you are for the policy of taking some people's guns away. The wrong people.

So am I. You know, like when it comes to people in prison. Convicted felons - maybe their 2nd amendment right isn't as sacrosanct as most other persons. I keep having to raise that point with your stodgier commenters when they bang on about their obsession of likening the 2nd amendment to the 1st. They are different right and have different kinds of restrictions. We can't restrict the 1st by persons or their circumstances, but the 2nd we absolutely can. It's high time everyone fessed up to that incredibly obvious fact."

Wow. No childish name calling. OK I can do that. "We absolutely can. It's high time everyone fessed up to that incredibly obvious fact." Other than rewriting the amendment what does the left propose that isn't already being done? Keeping in mind it's the policy of the DNC to ban all firearms in private hands a solution that I think is unworkable. I ahve asked this question of others on the left (ARM) and they cannot propose any restrictions that either,A) Are already being done, or B) Outright banning or confiscation.
You're in California, right? What are the laws of firearm ownership in California?

Unknown said...

gadfly said...

Trump supporters believe they are mind-readers who already know: (1) There will be two or more new jurists appointed to the Supreme Court

Now you're just being a jerk. You don't have to be a mind-reader to play the odds. What are the odds that Donald Trump is going to be worse on the Second Amendment than Hilary Clinton? About the same odds that RBG is going to last another 8 years.

If you want to deny reality, deny reality because you don't like it, not because reality isn't there.

Rusty said...

What are the odds that Donald Trump is going to be worse on the Second Amendment than Hilary Clinton?

I'm willing to take that gamble.

Bruce Hayden said...

No anti-gun legislation is going to pass Congress any time soon, though I was quite surprised that Speaker Ryan was flirting with letting the Dems put their gun grabbing legislation up for a vote. He faced a serious revolt on his hands from his caucus as a result. But, at least in the Senate, we know that the Dems are more than willing to ban firearms to people on a super secret list, and then give those people no way to get off it. And critical to their support was the latter, the lack of Due Process, because they voted against Republican bills that were similar, except they allowed you your day in court to get off the secret lists. The Dems in the House were trying to propose I almost identical legislation. And repeatedly try to reenact the Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban (I.e. Ban on scary looking modern sporting rifles). So, we know, by the numbers of Dem Members in Congress supporting the legislation, what they want to do first, if they possibly can. But politically, they can't, because the Republicans in Congress won't let them. Used to be a lot of Dems in Congress would join the Republicans there. But that type of Blue Dog Dem is pretty well gone now from Congress, with even the most moderate falling in line in their gun grabbing zeal. If the Dems had nominated someone as charismatic as Obama is supposed to have been, they might have gotten control back of both Houses of Congress this coming election, and enacted their gun control wet dreams. But lately, there are indications that the Republicans might be able to retain the Senate, and their chances keeping the House are close to unity.

Which leaves the Supreme Court and executive actions if Crooked Hillary is elected. Replace Scalia, and their other four have shown themselves more than willing to vote the party line (the last Dem appointed "turncoat" was Coloroan "Whizzer" White, appointed by JFK - since then they have all been Republican nominees going to the dark side, like Souter and Stevens). This leaves executive action. Much of this would necessarily through the BATFE. Some would be through regulations, but they require APA Notice and Comments, any any legally proposed regulations would face massive grass roots resistance through the filing of comments. Which leaves letters and interpretations, such as done by the current Administration in a number of areas, notably in Education in response to the bogus campus rape epidemic. For example, right now, there is a perfect symmetry between those who can be in the business of selling firearms, and those required to, and able to acquire federal background checks for customers. Separating those could open up a class who could maybe be deprived the right to legally buy guns. Another thing that appears likely on the agenda is the repeal of the 80% rule that essentially allows you to legally build an unnumbered AR-15 as long as you personally complete the last 20% of the lower receiver (which is the part with the serial number). The BATFE is facing the reality that this is getting easier and easier every day. They already specify that trigger assemblies that permit fully automatic fire are treated as machine guns, so why not extend this to other parts too, like barrels, upper receivers, etc? Which leads to them controlling the sale and manufacture of many of the parts of guns, effectively gutting the gun parts after market, which is part of what has made modular firearms like AR-15s so popular. Right now, you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 type lower receiver, finish it yourself, then buy the rest of the parts you want online, and easily assemble an untraceable AR-15 type firearm. Probably could do that with a Glock type handgun too, and maybe even a 1911. Deep blue states like CA and MA are experimenting right now in trying to destroy this gun parts after market.

Bruce Hayden said...

You can probably expect that Crooked Hillary shill Unknown is a paid troll by his continued attempts to change the subject here, away from a topic that makes her look bad. Any topic is good, as long as it makes Trump look bad. Resist folks - the more we resist, the sillier he looks.

Humperdink said...

Rusty asked: "What are the odds that Donald Trump is going to be worse on the Second Amendment than Hilary Clinton?"

Sad state of affairs in our glorious country when a question like this is even uttered.

Neither one, nor anyone for that matter, should ever be in a position where they could tinker, adjust, manipulate, alter, or change Amendment #2. My how far we have fallen.

There is a mechanism in place to change to constitution. Don't like the second amendment? Go through the process and delete or change it.

Robert Cook said...

What does it really matter what any President (or presidential aspirant) thinks about the 2nd Amendment? No president can unilaterally void any of the Constitution's amendments--though several amendments are being regularly violated, abused or ignored...with Congress's active participation or passive acceptance--so Hillary could yell to the heavens that the 2nd Amendment should be rescinded...and it would never happen.

Rusty said...

Bruce.
Sine a market already exists legally, by making that market illegal they will succeed in making it a black market. A significant number of owners will not give theirs up. So the end result will be to make a class of people criminals.

Paul Snively said...

Thank God, thanks to 3D printing and programmable CNC mills, the point is moot.

CWJ said...

Robert Cook wrote -

"What does it really matter what any President (or presidential aspirant) thinks about the 2nd Amendment? No president can unilaterally void any of the Constitution's amendments..."

OK

"...though several amendments are being regularly violated, abused or ignored..."

So it does matter.

Susan said...

I think she is absolutely right when she says she is not going "get rid" of the second amendment. It's ridiculous to think she would.

She has people for that.

the wolf said...

So tired of Dems claiming they don't want to take away guns. The entire argument is about possession of firearms. If your arguing against the right of possession, you are effectively trying to take them away from people.

damikesc said...

What does it really matter what any President (or presidential aspirant) thinks about the 2nd Amendment? No president can unilaterally void any of the Constitution's amendments--though several amendments are being regularly violated, abused or ignored...with Congress's active participation or passive acceptance--so Hillary could yell to the heavens that the 2nd Amendment should be rescinded...and it would never happen.

She can restrict the ability of gun shops to use banks at all to deposit money.

Which Obama has done.

Sure, "the right to own guns" isn't shut down, but the ability of anybody she doesn't like to do business is killed with no possible appeal.

bagoh20 said...

Arguing over what Hillary says is like arguing over the shape of clouds in the sky.

holdfast said...

She said she likes what they did in Australia (banning almost all semi-auto arms + confiscation with payment) and the UK (banning all handguns and semi-auto long arms; very onerous ownership requirements for everything left). That's plenty for me. It is beyond doubt that she seeks to massively curtail current American rights regarding firearms - I suppose it's an open question exaclty how far she'd go, but the overall intent is not in doubt at all. The only real question is what sort of backlash it triggers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

Bruce Hayden said...

@Rusty - not sure which market we are talking about but will assume we are talking gun parts. I think that markets really can be more fragile than we may like. Two years ago, I was buying magazines for an HK USP Compact 40 on eBay. That seems to have been shut down. Don't know where I would go if I needed something for a much less popular gun (luckily for me right now, I can get Glock compatible mags a lot of places right now). But for a lot of parts, the place to really attack the market is at the source. What happens when most everything bigger than a screw requires a serial number? Transfer records? The problem isn't that you won't be able to get replacement or modification parts, but rather that they won't be dirt cheap and easily available in the myriad variations we see right now.

Which gets to what one person can do, if they have the power of the Presidency. Congress passed ObamaCare, but screwed up when they did. Because it was passed in such an underhanded and partisan way, and the American people hated it, a Republican House, then Senate were elected, preventing any fixes without major overhauls. No problem - President Obama did whatever it took to keep it floundering along. He continues to delay the implementation of major parts of the legislation because it would be devastating politically to the Dems. He has spent billions of dollars specifically not allocated by Congress. Abortions weren't supposed to be funded, but are now mandatory even for religious orders opposed to abortion. The list goes on. And what happens when the head of the BATFE starts issuing Dear Colleague letters like the Sec of Education did in the case of the bogus campus rape epidemic? The executive agencies and departments of our federal govt have vast power these days, and that power reports to, and dependent upon the President. It is all legally exercised in his name. And as Obama has shown us, the trick is to put people in to run the departments and agencies even more radical than they are, and then have them control the hiring and promotion process for mid and high level career employees.

Bruce Hayden said...

I had forgotten about the Obama Feds trying to hurt businesses dealing with guns and ammo by putting those businesses that the Feds thought were questionable, and so the banks shouldn't deal with them. I understand why a lot of the businesses were on that list, but guns and ammo cannot be said to have the same level of financial risk, as, say, selling illegal drugs or loan sharking. And all this took was the stroke of the pen of some govt employee, responsible to the President. We saw the effects of this recent mend action in CO with the legal pot stores - they mostly couldn't use credit cards or the regular cash mechanisms available to other high cash businesses, so we're vulnerable to being robbed because they had to personally carry large amounts of cash in order to deposit them, when they could find somewhere that would accept their deposits. Mostly, they can't use credit cards even if they wanted to. Imagine esp the market in gun parts if you couldn't use credit cards to pay for them, and couldn't buy them in stores or online.

@Cook - this is but one way that the President can, and Crooked Hillary very well might try, to screw up the market in guns and gun parts. That may not be a direct attack on the 2nd Amdt, but could be a strong indirect attack. Sure, a President cannot, with his or her power alone prevent the citizenry from keeping and bearing arms, but they can make it far harder and less convenient to do so, and greatly reduce the options available to do so.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

What does it really matter what any President (or presidential aspirant) thinks about the 2nd Amendment? No president can unilaterally void any of the Constitution's amendments--though several amendments are being regularly violated, abused or ignored...with Congress's active participation or passive acceptance--so Hillary could yell to the heavens that the 2nd Amendment should be rescinded...and it would never happen.

Substitute "thinks about legalized abortion" for "2nd Amendment" in that sentence. Why does the Planned Parenthood Left freak out any time a legislature passes "common sense" regulations or restrictions that relate to abortion?

For some unknown reason the abortion "extremists" are treated as freedom fighters, forces of good opposing dark, evil men while 2nd Amend "extremists" are treated as kooky, dangerous idiots who should be opposed and shunned by all right-thinking people. Weird, right?

Rusty said...

Bruce Hayden said...
@Rusty - not sure which market we are talking about but will assume we are talking gun parts. I think that markets really can be more fragile than we may like. Two years ago, I was buying magazines for an HK USP Compact 40 on eBay. That seems to have been shut down. Don't know where I would go if I needed something for a much less popular gun (luckily for me right now, I can get Glock compatible mags a lot of places right now). But for a lot of parts, the place to really attack the market is at the source. What happens when most everything bigger than a screw requires a serial number? Transfer records? The problem isn't that you won't be able to get replacement or modification parts, but rather that they won't be dirt cheap and easily available in the myriad variations we see right now.

Try sourcing S&W 4006 mags.
I remember when HK 91 magazines were 40$ each if you could find one. We were seriously considering machining the stamping dies to make our own when in the course of a few months new imports started to come in the country driving the price down.
But my point being. Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean that thing will go away. You could repeal the 2nd amend. tomorrow and there would still be 300 million firearms in this country.

Terry said...

Gun ownership/gun in home demographics from Pew:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
The older, whiter, and more male you are, the more likely it is that you have a gun in the home.
Young Black men own, proportionally, many fewer guns than older white men, yet gun crime is committed, proportionally, in far greater numbers by young Black men than by older white men.
So the problem isn't the availability of guns themselves. Young Black men have far fewer guns available to them than older white men, yet are far more likely to use a gun to commit a crime.

William Chadwick said...

If you believe the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua on anything, you are as gullible as the Bernie kids who think socialism is cool and will bring prosperity to everyone.

Robert Cook said...

Robert Cook wrote -

"'What does it really matter what any President (or presidential aspirant) thinks about the 2nd Amendment? No president can unilaterally void any of the Constitution's amendments...'"

"OK"

"'...though several amendments are being regularly violated, abused or ignored...'"

"So it does matter."


The gun lobby has enough influence in Washington--and the populace who own guns are so passionate about their right to own and possess firearms--that Washington would not be able to ignore the 2nd Amendment. They successfully ignore the amendments they do ignore because so many Americans don't think they are in danger of the loss of their 4th,5th, 6th or 8th Amendment rights...as they don't imagine they will ever be in a situation where their guarantee of these rights will be of material necessity to them.

Kirk Parker said...

Campy wins the thread right in #1; the rest of us (my own following contribution included) are just surplussage. ;-)

Kirk Parker said...

Meanwhile, back in the real-world United States, our homicide rate has been on a decades-long steady decline. Doesn't that mean we're doing something right? Can't we just keep on our steady course and see the rate continue to drop? We're closing in on the rougher parts of Europe already...

furious_a said...

Every follow-up question to Hillary should be: Are you lying?

She's not going to take away your guns, she's going to take your guns away.

Kirk Parker said...

Bruce,

"Republican nominees going to the dark side, like Souter and Stevens"

You left off, at least in the most important case of the century so far... Roberts.

Kirk Parker said...

Paul Snively,

No, I will not rest easily until the great Big Brother of the Ghost Gunner is available, affordable to mere mortals, and available for purchase via untraceable cash.

But of course that only affect the easy parts to make--start with a rectangular block of aluminum? GMAFB!!! What about, just for one example... bolts? Ever hear of the phrase "heat treating"? And don't get me started on barrels, much less chrome-lined ones.

Rusty said...

Kirk Parker said...
Paul Snively,

"No, I will not rest easily until the great Big Brother of the Ghost Gunner is available, affordable to mere mortals, and available for purchase via untraceable cash.

But of course that only affect the easy parts to make--start with a rectangular block of aluminum? GMAFB!!! What about, just for one example... bolts? Ever hear of the phrase "heat treating"?"

4140 machined to size and then heated to 1600 deg F and oil quenched. When it has cooled draw in an oven at 400 deg F for four hours Rockwell C scale 45. Or just machine it out of an old truck axel. It ain't rocket surgery.

" And don't get me started on barrels, much less chrome-lined ones."
You got a lathe? You have a barrel boring machine. Rifling? You got a lathe. You have a rifling machine.
Honestly. How the hell do you think all this stuff was made before everything was automated? You don't need to forge this stuff with fire and an anvil. You walk down to Harbor freight and pick up a lathe and a milling machine. The skills take a little time to acquire, but like I said, it isn't rocket science.
There are plans on the internet for an AR receiver that is bolted together form alum plate. Very little machining.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Rusty - I think that we may be arguing at cross purposes here. Yes, it is very possible to build your own firearms, or at least do so if you are decent with your hands. Right now, I am paranoid enough, and, maybe more Importantly, have even more friends that we have been talking the Ghost Gunner route. And I am interested in the bolt together route, at least for curiosity sake. But think of the time it takes to do these things, figure that you get your regular wage for those hours, and then compare to the cost of these parts on the open market today. Because of somewhat more efficient manufacturing processes, we can get these parts far cheaper today than most of us can build them themselves. 200 years ago, a good rifle could be someone's most valuable possession. We spent more last weekend on our trip to Kalispell than I spent on a new Glock. How many guns would we have these days if we had to individually build them with machine tools? Instead, with modern manufacturing techniques and a good market, sales keep going up sharply every year, democratizing gun ownership. Which I think is good.

The Ghost Gunner stuff, along with the trend in instant manufacturing and rapid prototyping should be panicking the left right now, but most are too ignorant there to be worried. In a couple years, if they don't manage to screw things up too much, you will be able to build most of a modern firearm in your garage with little work. The plans are online, and will be hard to suppress. Last I heard, someone had managed 100 rounds through a rapid prototyped AR-15 lower receiver, up from just a couple. Within a couple of years, if nothing intervenes, they should be close to production quality. I do thing high stress parts, like barrels, are going to take longer. Now, if someone can figure out how to apply this to ammunition... (Something faster and more efficient than reloading - firearms are expensive luxuries if you can't learn to use them properly).

I have great faith that the left will be unable to disarm America, so that only the very rich and powerful can have armed security. But I fully expect for them to keep trying, and that trying increasing as they fall further and further from their goal.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Krk - not convinced that CJ Roberts is the problem. Rather, I suspect that it is Justice Kennedy, going soft in his advancing years. We shall see. The thing is that in these cases, being the Justice writing a decision can be very important when it comes to how broadly or narrowly it is written. One of the big things that comes with being a Chief Justice is the power to decide who gets to write the opinion or diss not on whichever side he ends up on. So, assume that Kennedy goes with the libs on a case, giving them 5-4. By switching sides, making it 6-3, Roberts gets to pick who gets to write the majority opinion, and coincidentally picks himself. The case was looking St anyway with the loss of Kennedy, so why not try to minimize the damage by writing the majority opinion? We won't really be able to see if I am right there until the dynamics change - if Crooked Hillary gets to replace Scalia with her promised left wing moonbat, it will be interesting to see the vote splits when he votes with the left, and, in particular, when he doesn't write the decisions. My guess is that if Trump is elected, and replaces Scalia and one of the leftists, like RGB, CJ Roberts will be just fine. We shall see.

Rusty said...

Bruce,
Just sayin'
You tube-waffenschmeiden x
This woman built a single action Colt Peacemaker from scratch including the barrel.
With just a mill and a lathe.
I like the Ghost Gunner concept.

Rusty said...

Hmm. I genuinely wanted hear ritmos opinions without all the childish acrimony.

Joe said...

"Right now, you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 type lower receiver, finish it yourself, then buy the rest of the parts you want online, and easily assemble an untraceable AR-15 type firearm."

Can you do that with a [7.62] SCAR?

Rusty said...


Can you do that with a [7.62] SCAR?

AR 10?

Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting article that GE is building a new turboprop engine completely using printing techniques and technologies for titanium and steel. This essentially means that entire firearms can now be theoretically produced using rapid prototyping equipment. If you can produce turboprop fins, you can probably produce even barrels using this technology, and definitely everything else. Yes, these are almost assuredly multimillion dollar machines, but that just means that it will take a bit of time before the technology filters down to the level where it can be used in your garage. Until then, we will probably have to build barrels from old truck axles, or buy them online as long as we can.

Rusty said...

My prediction, Bruce is that in the near future you,ll walk into your local autoparts store and they,ll print you the part you need.