(Here's the debate transcript.)
She was responding to this question:
In recent days former Vice President Biden has said about executive orders, "Some really talented people are seeking the nomination. They said 'I'm going to issue an executive order.'" Biden saying, "There's no constitutional authority to issue that executive order when they say 'I'm going to eliminate assault weapons,'" saying, "you can't do it by executive order any more than Trump can do things when he says he can do it by executive order."It's a great one-liner — "Hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can't, let's say yes, we can" — but it's so cavalier about the rule of law, and it wrecks the foundation for criticizing Trump. In fact, it sounds like Trump. It sounds like the way a businessman (like Trump) might talk to his lawyers: Here's what I want to do. Tell me that I can. If you're going to be telling why I can't, I want a different lawyer.
And that's for the people to decide. Do you want someone who visualizes the Constitution as a barrier to things he'd otherwise like to do or do you want the man or woman who finds a way?
Best campaign ad ever:
It was a creed, written into the founding documents...
Let's be constitutional! We've got a Constitution!
That declared the destiny, of a nation - yes we can
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists...
The founding document, according to the abolitionists, was "A Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell"...
We know, the battle ahead will be long
But always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way
Nothing can stand, in the way of the power of millions of voices
Calling for change...
No matter what obstacles? Even the Constitution? Let's be constitutional! We've got a Constitution!
We have been told, we cannot do this
By a chorus of cynics; they will only grow louder and more dissonant...
But in the unlikely story that is America
There has never been anything FALSE about hope...
Yes we can, mmmhmmm.. ohhhhh, yes we can, yes we can
Oooooooooooooooh, yes we can
mmmhmmm... ohhhhh....
ADDED: The transcript cannot convey the feeling and expression in Kamala Harris's "Well, I mean, I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can't, let's say yes, we can." It is so awful, so lightweight and dismissive of constitutional law (and without any of the dignity of constitutional critique):
The most depressing part about tonight's #DemocraticDebate is when @KamalaHarris replied to @JoeBiden's claim that her proposed exec order would be unconstitutional by *laughing* and blithely saying "instead of saying no we can't, how about yes we can" and listing Very Bad Things pic.twitter.com/32RboFItXL
— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) September 13, 2019
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
The entire point of the Constitution was to tell the government the limited things it could do. The "Yes we can" nonsense is toxic to a civil society.
It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." - GOOGLE
Hey Kids lets all do "The Constitutional" - its sweeping the nation!
Joe is of course correct here. I'm not a fan of the creeping expansion of Executive powers, even when I may agree with a particular executive order. I don't know a great deal about the particulars of executive orders or their history, but the one big limitation on them is that they can be undone or revoked by a future president.
It is good to see the authoritarian tendencies of the power seekers in the batch of candidates fully exposed like this. Their basic desire to be kings or queens that can mandate the removal of freedoms in order to placate a vocal minority is appalling to me and as I hope it is to most voters.
If you think Biden will "Hold the Line' on the Constitution, you're just be delusional. Joe just knows how to PRETEND to be moderate and Not scary. He lived in the old days, where you had to act that way. The idea he's going to fight the D's in Congress like Booker/Warren/Harris to protect "The Constitution" is absurd. He's too old to fight, in any case.
I watched about 10 minutes of the debate and went back to my Rumpole binge. About 20 episodes to go!
I did keep Stephen Green's Drunkblog of the debate going on the other screen and think I learned all I need to know about them.
I don't know if this was just released or if I just saw it for the first time. Stephen linked to this video of slojo in 1991 talking about his crime bill on the Senate floor.
"the Biden crime bill before us calls for the death penalty for forty.... (whispers from aide) fifty-one offenses.
A wag in a newspaper wrote something to the effect that "Biden has made it a death penalty offense for everything but jaywalking.""
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mmsIOPWzTI
C'mon, Joe, we can do better than this. How about: "If you elect me I will make jaywalking a capital offense!"
John Henry
I think this was the best campaign ad ever: Link (Yes, the LBJ Daisy ad)
It's right up there with Buy This magazine or we'll shoot this dog.
Biden would be my fav pick if he would actually courage-up and BE a moderate voice in a sea of socialist Santas.
The Constitution stands in the way of a corruptocrat agenda.
"Kamala Harris: "The bottom line is this: Donald Trump, in office on trade policy, you know, he reminds me of that guy in "The Wizard of Oz," you know, when you pull back the curtain, it's a really small dude?"
Miss Harris, Frank Morgan was NOT short. Its just that Tinman and Scarcrow were tall guys. I would've said "A really OLD Dude".
Now I've got to go find the boll and see what all these capital offenses he wanted to impose were.
It seems to me that there would be very few federal crimes for which the death penalty would be appropriate. Virtually all murder, the only thing for which the death penalty would be appropriate, are state, not federal crimes.
Treason, of course, is made a capital crime in the Constitution itself so slojo has that going for him at least.
John Henry
"Kamala Harris: "The bottom line is this: Donald Trump, in office on trade policy, you know, he reminds me of that guy in "The Wizard of Oz," you know, when you pull back the curtain, it's a really small dude?"
Miss Harris, Frank Morgan was NOT short. Its just that Tinman and Scarcrow were tall guys. I would've said "A really OLD Dude".
It sounds like the way a businessman (like Trump) might talk to his lawyers: Here's what I want to do. Tell me that I can. If you're going to be telling why I can't, I want a different lawyer.
I remember reading something like this in one of Teedy Roosevelt's biographies. I think it might have been about taking over the half-built Panama Canal and wresting Panama from Columbia.
He supposedly told one of his lawyers(?) Sec state(?) that this was what he was going to do, find a way to make it legal.
John Henry
Yes elihu root was the guy.
You're going to get executive orders whether you like them or not. That horse is out of the barn. Congress refuses to act, and Obama set a precedent. In any case, the D's when they get the Senate will get rid of the Filibuster and that will be that.
When Trump does exec orders its "Authoritarianism" when President Biden does them it will be labeled "Doing the will of the people" and bypassing a "Do nothing Congress". That's why Never-trumpers who constantly talk about "process" are either dishonest or closet Liberals.
It'd be the ultimate flip-flop if it turns out that some of his former death penalty crimes were not violent crimes. From death to no jail time!
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
Listen! I have a plan! The times they are a-changin’.
I want the Constitution to be a barrier to the President being able to make unilateral decisions that effectively create law.
"These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die." ...as a slowly expanding nuclear fireball fills a child's eye. I'm trying to take that Obama music video seriously.
"Best campaign ad ever:"
Morning in America says hello. Written (and voiced) by the legendary Hal Riney.
It sounds like the way a businessman (like Trump) might talk to his lawyers: Here's what I want to do. Tell me that I can. If you're going to be telling why I can't, I want a different lawyer.
Something similar has been said about promotion in the military, that the Colonels and Generals who tell people that a particular action can't be done don't go up the ranks as well as those who promise it can be.
Of course, just because someone claims something can be done is no guarantee it really can be done, or that the person saying so is the one who can do it. In a position of power if you only listen to people who tell you things you want to hear and refuse to listen to people who may be more realistic in their assessments, you may be end up failing to solve the problems at hand. You could end up with something like the Peter Principal, promoting subordinates who tell you whatever you want to hear to failure .
"Yes, we can be fascists, because we say so!"
you can't do it by executive order any more than Trump can do things when he says he can do it by executive order.
That Trump and his Executive Orders! He's so fuckin' scary! I mean, trying to go around Congress, saying shit like "I've got a phone & a pen".
Wait. What?
Oh, never mind.
Nonapod: I too thought any President could undo an executive action. I thought the Dreamers thing Obama did was an executive action. The courts told him he couldn’t rescind it. So....I don’t believe that any more.
Also, these Dems and their singing Obama’s praises as adults made me think of the school kids who sang about Obama and how wonderful they all thought that was. Imagine if a school taught a positive song about Trump? Heads would be exploding all over the place.
After last night’s debate I think most liberal Dems are bat shit crazy.
rcocean: "That's why Never-trumpers who constantly talk about "process" are either dishonest or closet Liberals."
Embrace the power of "and".
It's an even better shot at Warren, who wants unconstitutional taxes, to override the bill of Rights, and at times almost seems to hanker after bills of attainder. Has anyone else ever run an ad singling out a private citizen as a target the way she did with Henry Kravitz and his ranch house?
Kamala gets the creepy award. They are all massively creepy - but she takes prize.
Slojo and others talked a lot last night about how nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime and they they would let them out. I assume that this includes Paul Manafort and Bernie Madoff?
But seriously, how many people are in federal prisons for non-violet crime? If it is non-violent won't they mostly be state, not federal crimes? How woudl the president have any authority over this?
They could threaten to withhold federal funds for states that lock up non-violent offenders but do we really want to do that?
Do they really want to do that?
John Henry
Laws are for other people. Progressives know better, they need no law.
Californians might be happy living in a one party authoritarian regime, but it doesn’t sound very good to those white people in the Midwest that she needs to win.
She was probably maniacally laughing at the Constitution when she was putting all those black guys in prison as a prosecutor in California, just like she laughed at Biden's question at the debate.
She's just not serious
The best campaign ad ever was estrogen bait. The question to be answered was does he mean well.
The good news is the constitution is stronger than these twerperpThe bad news is a twerp can harm a lot of people in the short run. I think the contempt for the rule of law is linked to the absence of governors. We have twerps with no concept of actually governing so they just want to say 'make it so'
Slojo and others talked a lot last night about how nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime and they they would let them out. I assume that this includes Paul Manafort and Bernie Madoff?
But seriously, how many people are in federal prisons for non-violet crime? If it is non-violent won't they mostly be state, not federal crimes? How woudl the president have any authority over this?
They could threaten to withhold federal funds for states that lock up non-violent offenders but do we really want to do that?
Do they really want to do that?
John Henry
I'd actually be willing to entertain that if we reintroduced the whipping post for many non-violent crimes. Drive drunk? Fifty lashes. Burglary? Two-hundred lashes. Selling drugs? Two-hundred lashes. And so on.
The Left doesn't give a shit about the Constitution. Yeah, thanks for Roe v. Wade!, but the rest is just oppressive restraints by our racist founders.....
And why do we still have a constitution?
When Joe says, "you can't do it", why can't you do it? What's stopping you?
The fact that, if you try, you won't just be fighting straw men anymore. Real red badges will be handed out. But once you start, there is no telling how it all ends. Fighting insurgencies hasn't gone so well for the US Government. Though I expect, if they were fighting their own countrymen, the Dems would be so fussy about the ROE.
John henry said...
... I've got to go find the boll and see what all these capital offenses he wanted to impose were.
*************
Now you've done it! "Boll" reminded me of Bollard, and I had a sudden urge to binge Rumpole myself.
Where are you getting your episodes from?
Gunner said...
Californians might be happy living in a one party authoritarian regime, but it doesn’t sound very good to those white people in the Midwest that she needs to win.
9/13/19, 10:52 AM
Hence the need to get rid of the Electoral College...
Is she stoned? She sure talks/acts like it.
I think this ends Harris' campaign. When you get taken down by Joe Biden in this way, it shows you just aren't ready to be President. It was Biden's best highlight of the night.
I am right now finishing watching the last 2 hours, and I was probably right last night to stop.
We have witnessed the Trump administration respecting legal injunctions, however egregious, that block their initiatives, and then painstakingly following the appeals process to the Supreme Court. Is there anything in the words of Kamala Harris that suggests she’d do the same? From where I sit the Democrats really do believe that “laws are for the little people.”
Here in Colorado - the leftwing cabal of mobsters who run the entire shit show here are attempting to dismantle the TABOR - Tax Payers Bill of Rights.
Of course.
Anything that protects we the people from the government, must be dismantled by democrats.
Is banning "asssault rifles" racist?
A very small percentage, something under 5% of all murders in the US are caused by assault rifles. Far less than by fists and blunt objects.
Most murders are caused by handguns. Most murders of blacks are caused by handguns (used by other blacks)
So banning assault rifles would save a few, mainly white, lives. It would do nothing to reduce the number of blacks murdered by handguns.
How is this not racist?
I use "assault rifle" here because that is the term they use. I know that it is not meaningful other than a synonym for "scary looking gun"
John Henry
Is there a time delay on posting comments now? That's OK but it would be helpful to know and would prevent duplicate posts.
Dayton Shooter:
“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” --Betts
Biden has been criticized for falling back on his time as Obama's VP, but what struck me was how much - when trying to make an impression - *Harris* fell back on rehashed Obama slogans:
Don't say no we can't, say yes we can (Obama's Yes, we can)
"The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle, and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school." (Obama's 'we can't wait for Congress to act', 'I've got a pen and a phone', '...where Congress won't act, I will')
I'd like to know why the Dayton mass-shooter was a crazy over-the top lunatic leftist - who supports Warren.
Blacks don't seem to like Harris much. I don't think blacks want to give up their guns any more than whites. Why would they?
Polling indicates Trump has attracted an electorally significant chunk of the black vote, perhaps even a decisive share. Dems need that chunk back. Thus all the constant racism rhetoric.
I wonder if Biden has concluded that going after guns is a loser for Dems?
@ mock
Right above the comment box Althouse posted the new rules. I didn't notice it right away either.
Blogger wholelottasplainin' said...
Now you've done it! "Boll" reminded me of Bollard, and I had a sudden urge to binge Rumpole myself.
Where are you getting your episodes from?
I just got to the point where "Soapy Sam" pips Rumpole at the post for head of chambers and she who must be obeyed becomes she who must be dismayed. Much as I enjoyed them back when they were on PBS in the 70s, and the odd episode here and there over the years, I find that they have aged remarkably well. I am enjoying them even more now.
I have Amazon Prime Video (no more Netflix) and they are on that but not free. I had to subscribe to Acorn Video which also has The Detectorists. I subscribed to Acorn because I watched an ep of the New Zealand "800 Words" and was hooked. Then I found they also have Rumpole.
$4.95/month gets you hundreds of great shows and series. If you work at it, you could probably watch all 40 or so episodes during the free trial week they give you.
John Henry
Joe could parlay a denture malfunction into a promise for Universal Dental insurance (UDI).
I liked how when he sort of asked O'Rourke whether ok to call him Beto (en route to praising his impassioned gun comments in Texas), O'Rourke seemed so glad to be mentioned.
Re the Assault rifle ban=racist
Not original with me though I agree. I heard it recently in a podcast. Perhaps Scott Adama? Tim Pool?
John Henry
If you only read the transcript, and do not watch Kamala's response, your analysis of her response is going to be sorely lacking.
Best campaign ad ever leads to worst presidency ever.
Critical thinking is a scarce good among American voters, unfortunately.
@ mock
Right above the comment box Althouse posted the new rules. I didn't notice it right away either.
Thanks, Bob! And thanks, Fen. :-(
Most murders are caused by handguns. Most murders of blacks are caused by handguns (used by other blacks)
So banning assault rifles would save a few, mainly white, lives. It would do nothing to reduce the number of blacks murdered by handguns.
How is this not racist?
Maybe banning rifles has nothing to do with protecting the lives of citizens. Maybe it has everything to do with protecting the government from citizens.
Just a thought...
She's betting on getting the votes of the "it's different when we do it".
I expect Trump to try what Obama did. I'm actually happy when his Executive Orders get slapped down (except when even SCOTUS finds them Constitutional yet a lower court judge still wants to be a politician). I rather constrain the power of the executive and overall federal government. I rather not have an all powerful leader that can change our lives by fiat. I figured Trump would do what he did and the animosity to him would get the swamp to take action to stop him in a manner that would be permanent restrictions to their power. It made my vote for Trump easy. Although, I was a bit idealistic in thinking the restrictions might be permanent.
Si, Se Puede?
Am I the only one that noticed it's a callback to the Obama campaign?
"my Rumpole binge."
My favorite lawyer fiction, either books or video. I try to watch them once a year or so.
I thought very poorly of the former prosecutrix before, but now I think she's demented.
She's literally giddy with the anticipation of power, even more than most pols.
Narr
Scary and pathetic at the same time, that one
If you work at it, you could probably watch all 40 or so episodes during the free trial week they give you.
I have a DVD set of the entire series.
"It is so awful, so lightweight and dismissive of constitutional law (and without any of the dignity of constitutional critique)"
But no less awful and lightweight than any prog SCOTUS decision, which inevitably comes down to the same "yes, we can." You thought the Constitution had nothing to say about abortion? Look here, now it does. You thought it was absurd to derive SSM from a nineteenth-century amendment? Well, look here, now it follows by iron necessity. Nothing could be more dismissive than prog disdain for the actual Constitution. Been that way since Wilson.
My favorite ad from last night: The Ad That Ran During The Dem Debate That Has Ocasio-Cortez Outraged.
She thinks the Constitution is a piece of paper in a museum somewhere, but doesn't think following it is any big deal.
Pete Stark, California congress-being, openly said that he believed the Congress could do anything regardless of the Constitution.
Because, you know, Yes We Can™!
Johnson's Goldwater/nuke ad was the best, if by best you mean the most effective.
Johnson's Goldwater/Nuke ad was the best, if by the best you mean the most effective.
That was not the best campaign ad ever. The best one was "Morning in America" for Reagan's re-election.
It is in the top five, I'll grant you.
Her laughter was the worst part. Laughing at the very idea of being subject to some constraints!
But let's not kid ourselves about the Obama Administration's views of those same constraints. Obama paid lip service to being only head of one branch of government, being subject to checks and balances...but then decided when the didn't get the legislation he wanted that he was in fact Mr. Pen & Phone and he could do more or less whatever he wanted. That includes, of course, clearly-unconstitutional things like DACA (legislating and then calling it "executive prosecutorial discretion") *and* effectively bullying weak John Roberts into giving a contorted ruling to decide the ACA is in fact constitutional despite being written otherwise.
But to his credit he didn't LAUGH at the idea of constitutional restraints.
It is so awful, so lightweight and dismissive of constitutional law (and without any of the dignity of constitutional critique)
Since they believe in a Living Constitution thrive no need for respect or thoughtful argument.
"Right above the comment box Althouse posted the new rules. I didn't notice it right away either."
All due to he/she who shall not be named (or missed).
Known Unknown: "Morning in America says hello. Written (and voiced) by the legendary Hal Riney."
He wrote it flying back to SF from a DC meeting with the Tuesday Team. Probably on a drink napkin.
The founding document included a compromise to mitigate the progress of abortion and dysfunction. It does not condone diversity, but implicitly tolerated its practice. It did not establish a Pro-Choice quasi-religion, but assumed its existence and took steps to moderate its expression.
Rumpole is also available on DVD at your local library, and if not, their interlibrary loan can get it for you.
I used to watch the show back in the day, so thanks John Henry for reminding me it exists. I have several of JM's books (I just got his Dormouse book, his memoir of life as a 70-year-old man, hoping to find some comfort).
“I use "assault rifle" here because that is the term they use. I know that it is not meaningful other than a synonym for "scary looking gun"”
Let me suggest that by you using their definition of that term, you are letting them win. Legally, and by international treaty, “assault rifles” are select fire rifles and carbines shooting intermediate caliber ammunition. The military’s M16 and M4 carbines are legally “assault rifles”. They have also been heavily regulated as machine guns by the NFA of 1934, from the time that they were initially created. AR-15s, are semiautomatic, not select fire, and not regulated as machine guns under the NFA, as well as later legislation that effectively prevents newer Assault Rifles from being added to the BATFE’s machine gun registry.
That is why they invented the term “Assault Weapon” to identify scary looking rifles, and esp the semiautomatic versions of the military’s M16 and M4 Assault Rifles. Giving in to gun grabbers misusing “Assault Rifles” to identify civilian semiautomatic firearms just allows them to fuzz the distinction more between M16 and M4 select fire machine guns, and AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and carbines (and now pistols).
That all said, I welcome them calling AR-15s “Weapons of War”. The Supreme Court’s Miller Case only allowed the NFA to regulate short barreled shot guns because they were not in common use by the military (they actually had been a decade and a half earlier, in WW I, but the court record didn’t show that), and thus not protected by the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amdt. AR-15s are the closest civilian analog to the military’s main battle rifle for the last 60 years, and that essentially gives the courts, under Miller, the choice of allowing either semiautomatic AR-15s, and/or select fire M16 and M4 Assault Rifles.
I want the Constitution to be a barrier to the President being able to make unilateral decisions that effectively create law.
I want the Constitution to be a barrier to any of the three branches (plus the administrative state) of government being able to make unilateral decisions that effectively create law.
I agree with your sentiment Cookie, but it needed a little work. FIFY.
Thomas Jefferson once proposed that each generation should create it's own laws, as it was tyranny for one generation to bind the next.
Given all the PC hysteria, it looks like he's getting his wish. Harris just wants to skip the step of creating new laws. The law should be what the President says it is.
George III would agree completely.
"Yes We Can" = "Triumph of the Will" = "Will to Power"
If my keyboard had the symbol for congruence rather than mere equality, I would have used it, because the three phrases are identical.
If a 1930s despot is your idea of good political leadership, Kamala Harris is your candidate.
". It sounds like the way a businessman (like Trump) might talk to his lawyers: Here's what I want to do. Tell me that I can. If you're going to be telling why I can't, I want a different lawyer."
That's not how businessmen talk to their lawyers, and it's kind of a dumb thing for a lawyer to say. Businessmen hire lawyers to ask questions about what they can do legally or not. You don't need a lawyer to do things. You need a lawyer to stop things from being done. The law in general is about stopping action not effecting it.
The first thought that came to my mind was "Hey Joe where you going with that fine in your hand."
I suppose it was somebody else's and he had just confiscated it.
Well, well... Now the Democrats have discovered the United States has a Constitution! I am relieved.the first glimmer of reality I’ve seen from them thus far.
The Second Amendment is part of that same Constitution, and the Supreme Court has reinforced that it is an individual right covering firearms in common use.
The Democrat candidates do not acknowledge this. They say “Yes, we can!” while the Constitution and the Supreme Court say “No, you can’t!”
Who are you going to believe? If these Democrat presidential contenders think that their sanctimony will win the day on gun issues, our country is in real trouble. Things will spiral out of control very quickly, and there will be blood. Lots of it.
The problem with Beto’s gun confiscation policy is that real people (law enforcement) will have to seize these guns held by citizens in their homes. Beto himself will never lead such a posse — he is a coward, an idiot, and acts like a child. A gun confiscation program in the United States would be a horrifying disaster on an epic scale. These people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. None. Nada. Zero.
Look at the NICS background checks for gun purchases the last 10 years. It’s very educational. You say you’ll ban something, you only increase demand. Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman our country has ever seen.
Blogger paminwi said...
"After last night’s debate I think most liberal Dems are bat shit crazy."
I'm tempted to make a Hot Key macro to pump that out 100 times as a comment on each site I visit.
Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand. . . . . . . .
That all said, I welcome them calling AR-15s “Weapons of War”. The Supreme Court’s Miller Case only allowed the NFA to regulate short barreled shot guns because they were not in common use by the military
This.
The left, exposed fully by Senor Beto's rant, is advocating for SCOTUS to abandon their deference to Stare Decisis. Tossing precedent in the ash bin of history in order to strip natural rights from all in the United States.
Miller defines the specific weapons that are protected from Government interference. Today's modern, modular rifle is the single most available arm in the United States, another test established by Miller, a weapon readily attainable by able bodied citizens that make up a militia.
Best commercial ever?
President Pen and Phone?
Your pre-missing and post-missing Obama is silly.
Anyone doubting how tired the Dems have become and how they're all relying on blather need only check out this amazing headline. Too bad they and the media wasted all those years ignoring Trump.
Most murders are caused by handguns.
Nope. Most--in fact, all!--murders are caused by human beings.
the moral panic does fade even in Australia, as apparently their stockpiles are back to the time of port Arthur, when Murdoch's publications joined in, even in new Zealand, Chinese mole arden, hasn't been able to make headway after Christchurch,
And that's for the people to decide. Do you want someone who visualizes the Constitution as a barrier to things he'd otherwise like to do or do you want the man or woman who finds a way?
Best campaign ad ever
RME
I can’t listen to the ad right now, but considering Obama didn’t like the Bill of Rights because it’s full of negative rights and he only wanted to “help” people....
Yes, we can IF you get out of the way!
feelings nothing more than feelings,
https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/13/145-gun-executives-beg-senate-for-gun-control/
Hey Joe, where you goin' with those gums in your hand.
"Well, I mean, I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can't, let's say yes, we can."
As was said at 1:17pm above, this is just an expression of the Living Constitution doctrine accepted by most Democrats.
The fact that Professor Althouse opposes overruling Roe v. Wade puts her in the category of a Living Constitution proponent.
The Living Constitution doctrine reminds me of the "End Justifies the Means" doctrine. By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)...
Most murders are caused by handguns.
Most murders... homicides are caused by double-edged scalpels. Tear down the walls! Close the abortion chambers. Human rights, not reproductive rites. Reconcile.
That said, most murders are in self-defense (e.g. police), the choice of criminals, domestic, and alien, and, of course, the self-abortionists hoping for a quick fix.
"After last night’s debate I think most liberal Dems are bat shit crazy."
Their quasi-religion is a first-order forcing of Monotonic Anthropogenic Character Divergence. Don't look through the twilight oculus.
Bruce Hayden: Not disagreeing, but if the lefties want to find out which firearms are "weapons of war", they can just keep it up, and they will learn.
Banning the AR-15 is a deceptive ploy. The mechanisms of semi-automatic weapons is powered by the energy from the cartridge. A semi-automatic loads a new cartridge for you on each shot. A similar terminology will appear in the definition of the banned AR-15.
Well, therein lies the rub, the two most common handgun sub-types in use today are revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Semi-automatic pistols are easier to learn to fire accurately and have two to three times the ammo capacity of a revolver of equal size and weight. They are the most popular type of sidearm for self-defense in urban areas. The 9mm is also the most popular semi-auto for concealed carry.
The NRA estimates that semi-autos other than the AR-15 (and similar makes) comprise 50% of gun ownership. Orgs powering the ban movement and drafting gun ban legislation aren't stupid, politicians, yes, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
A semi-automatic loads a new cartridge for you on each shot. A similar terminology will appear in the definition of the banned AR-15.
My revolver does the same thing. :-)
To BJM’s point, I always loved how the State Attorneys General lawsuit against “Big Tobacco” was this giant public health crusade designed to curtail an entire class of historic retail products that were “designed to kill.”
I see the same rationale in the Democrats’ incessant gun mantra against the AR-15 and its semi-automatic mechanism. Get the AR-15, you get a lot of other firearms (including semi-auto handguns) with it, in terms of the engineering. And it’s pretty clear that Democrat voters want all guns gone, not just they scary-looking guns. So it’s all a ruse.
And so now we’re here in 2019, on the other side of the Democrats’ war against Joe Camel and Big Tobacco. And we’re celebrating a cartoon version of the 50th anniversary of Woodstock, and an exploding industry of legal smokable cannabis — as safe as aspirin — ostensibly for tax revenue (because “everyone is going to do it,” and “it’s a victimless crime”).
Gotta love the Democrat vision for America!
It’s unfathomable why the Democrats don’t muster better constitutional arguments for their gun control positions. The necessity of a well-regulated militia is spelled out, right there in the Second Amendment.
@John Henry:
Thanks very much. My wife and I loved that series back then. We'll enjoy seeing it again.
p.s. I've always wondered whether Leo McKern regretted his brief appearance in the Beatles movie "Help!"
Pretty cheesy.
Such a good point about Harris’s lightweight flippancy, you and your son make.
“It’s unfathomable why the Democrats don’t muster better constitutional arguments for their gun control positions. The necessity of a well-regulated militia is spelled out, right there in the Second Amendment.”
Not going to help you in enforcing gun control. Here are some definitions you need to keep in mind:
Militia: Essentially the citizenry who are not active military or reserves. Originally, it was all males over 18 or so, though if I remember correctly, statutorily, it is males from 18-45. But the top end of that range is flexible, since a group of older men fired some of the first shots at Lexington, and were some of the first Colonial casualties. Today, it probably includes women too, given their role in our military.
The model for the “Militia” in the 2nd Amdt are the town militias that came together on April 19, 1775 in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, to fight the British force sent out the night before to disarm them. Initially, greatly outnumber numbered, eventually, throughout the day, with additional town militias arriving, the Colonists ultimately gained a numerical advantage, causing the British soldiers and marines to retreat, then some to break ranks, before being met by a relief party from Boston.
Well Discipline: Meaning well trained, and, in particular well trained in the operation of their weapons. John Adams, 2nd President, and Declaration of Independence coauthor, visited militia camps shortly after those battles of Lexington and Concord and commented about these issues. If militia members cannot train with the sort of military weapons they need to face their enemies, they won’t be successful.
Free State: Contrary to what the left tries to make you think, this isn’t the United States, per se, but rather a description of affairs as described by our Declaration of Independence, which was written as a justification for armed revolt and revolution, to counter the British making them unfree. The primary purpose of the militia was not to fight against external enemies, but rather against their own government making them unfree.
Keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights essentially involved the same people. John Adams talked Jefferson into writing the Declaration, because Jefferson was the better writer, but did so as one of a committee of five, that included Adams, who, being the better speaker and advocate, was the one who sold it to the Continental Congress. Jefferson was one of the most high profile advocates of the Bill of Rights. Also prominent was John Adams’ cousin, Samual Adams, who had escaped Boston shortly before the battles of Lexington and Concord, and was heavily involved with organizing the MA town militias.
Here is the original of what became the 2nd Amdt:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Talking AR-15s, etc.
Article today (Feral hogs from Canada may go hog wild in US: report) that they found feral pigs in Canada, right above NW MT, probably less than 100 miles from here (though you should probably start counting kilometers, instead of miles, when you cross the Canadian border). 7-8 so far are not much of a worry. But they do breed like crazy. An AR-15 is considered an excellent choice for controlling feral pig populations.
But that article had a link to What does ‘30-50 feral hogs’ mean? Anti-gun control tweet goes viral
Pesky wild hogs have taken over the internet, after being invoked in the debate about gun control.
The odd development began with a tweet about assault weapons from Jason Isbell, a singer-songwriter from Alabama, on the heels of the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.
“If you’re on here arguing the definition of ‘assault weapon’ today you are part of the problem,” Isbell tweeted on Sunday. “You know what an assault weapon is, and you know you don’t need one.”
Then things took an unexpected turn.
In a follow-up tweet, another user, William McNabb, replied, “Legit question for rural Americans – How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?”
...
“If you have dozens of hogs chasing your children around your yard, you have problems no weapon will fix,” Isbell tweeted.
But then it became apparent that McNabb in fact had hog issues.
“It’s not daily. It may not even be yearly,” McNabb tweeted. “But it’s happened several times with no warning. I killed 3 and got my kids inside.”
...
But as the conversation played out, Twitter users became less preoccupied with McNabb’s problem than with the image of “30-50 feral hogs” running amok.
“This is a weirdly specific number of feral hogs in a weirdly specific time frame that seems to have been constructed out of 3-5 seconds of pure hog shit,” tweeted another user.
Soon memes born out of the hog madness started taking over.
“sorry boss can’t come in. 30-50 feral hogs came running into my yard again,” tweeted one user. “yeah. about 3-5 mins. where my children play. yeah. see you tomorrow.”
Instead of appreciating why someone in rural America might find a magazine fed semiautomatic rifle extremely useful, the gun grabbing left ended up laughing at him.
As I understand it, the 2A was just a broader application of what was already in a lot of (most?) state constitutions already. And the first comprehensive gun control laws were post-WABAWS restrictions on firearms possession by freedmen.
Narr
It's not rocket surgery
“As I understand it, the 2A was just a broader application of what was already in a lot of (most?) state constitutions already.”
Agreed. But they enshrined Lockean Natural Rights that most of the rest of the world did not yet accept. Plus, some of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms comes from long established (but abrogated in the 20th Century) rights of British yeomanry to possess arms for their own safety. This latter was part of why the militia members I discussed earlier objected so strenuously to the British troops attempting to disarm them.
The Federalists seem to have believed that these were natural rights, and so a nation of limited powers probably didn’t need to specifically specify protections for these rights. Luckily, for most of us here, the cynics and pessimists, the Anti-Federalists, ultimately won the debate, and these fundamental rights were enumerated and protected by our Bill of Rights.
Just think about it like this...
"A well educated Citizenry, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be abridged".
The dangerous-sounding books must be the first to go! Just like “Fahrenheit 451.”
But seriously, the structure of the sentence is instructive, and plainly obvious in objective interpretation. The “well educated citizenry” is part of it, but not the reason for it. It’s necessary for a free state — and freedom of the individual from the federal government (and, by extension of the modern interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, state governments, too).
The people (the citizens) are the holders of the right to bear arms. The citizenry is the Militia!
The Second Amendment does not spell out a collective right. In the context of the rights of the people as contained in the Bill of Rights, such a collective interpretation is ridiculous — both on its face, and especially in context.
Scary.
I bet there are a few people in Hong Kong who might like to have firearms.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा