Just an update to show how determined the anti-gun fanatics are. The DC government intends to require registration and fingerprinting of anyone who wants to buy a gun. They also intend to enforce another law that apparently bans any "auto" handgun that has a clip capacity greater than 12. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603988.html Other articles have referred simply to an exisitng ban on all semi auto handguns. Clearly the District intends to implement the Court's decision in bad faith and try to drag out the process of compliance as long as possible. The NRA and other Second Amendment supporters will be forced to return to court over and over. Background checks are clearly constitutional, as the government has a right not to allow felons and mental patient sto obtain guns. Registration stands on shakier ground, but is probably legal. I think many scholars would argue that it would be unconstitutional for the government to require journalists or internet posters to be registered, for example, as the threat of revocation would be a chill on First Amendment rights. Fingerprinting again seems excessive. A citizen should not be forced to relinquish other rights to exercise their Second Amendment right. It's interesting that liberals, like Obama, fight to prevent states from requiring that voters have reasnable forms of identification to prevent fraud, but think it is reasonable to burden Second Amendment rights with all kind sof intrusive requirements. Limiting the right to own a gun to obsolescent designs seems clearly at odds with the decision. Modern high capacity semi autos are pretty much the standard handgun now. Similarly, military -style rifles should be just as protected as shotguns or target rifles. There are few issues that define the liberal/conservative split as clearly as this one. Liberals think only the government should have access to weapons and that only mischief can come from private ownership. Conservatives cannot understand why liberals want to make criminals of law-abiding people who only want the means to protect their own homes and families.
Nice retort, nonsensical and childish. Last I checked the U.S. government consisted of people, citizens, not some barbaric ruling dictatorship who would treat their people like shit. Name calling and labeling is such a great adult pursuit. Heil, my friend. c
IMAO: Top Ten Controversial Supreme Court Decisions "There have been a number of controversial Supreme Court decisions this year other than Heller. Here they are in properly numbered order. TOP TEN CONTROVERSIAL SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 10. The 1st Amendment does not protect your right to talk like a pirate. 9. Godfather III is actually a pretty good movie if you take it on its own merits and don't compare it to the previous two. 8. It's completely Constitutional for a Justice to hit whomever he wants with his gavel, so watch your mouth. 7. If a cyborg cop punches into your chest and rips out your heart, it's not an illegal search and seizure as long as he shows it to you while it's still beating. 6. There's nothing in the Constitution that would imply a restriction on setting hobos on fire. 5. Though we know it when we see it, that doesn't mean that when we know it we're done seeing it. 4. Execution by pit of doom is permissible because, while it may be cruel, it's certainly not all that unusual. 3. You have to pay us more. It says that somewhere in the 14th. 2. It violates the 1st Amendment to compel people to rephrase answers in the form of a question. And the number one controversial Supreme Court decision this year... If you didn't want Justices to show up to Court drunk, you shouldn't have passed the the 21st Amendment."
My two comments: JFK, LBJ and Robert Kennedy were the ones that used the FBI to spy on political enemies.....good liberals that they are, LOL The Islamic nutjobs have declared WAR on the US....destroy us, wipe off of map, death to America, death to infidels So what else do we call it...I take them at their word....WAR SteveD PS: What do you think the "looney left" would say if Bush had appointed his BROTHER Atty Gen?????
Good points. Wrt JFK, may he rest in peace, let us not forget the Bay of Pigs, almost starting the 3rd world war, and, to top it all off, the Vietnam war. As I said, may he rest in peace.
Why is always left or right, looney left, or neocons? JFK acted pretty strongly to a soviet threat, and now that's considered wrong by the right? Sure, it went to hell afterwards, but nothing like the total disaster that was and is the iraq invasion. Win a battle and lose a gigantic war, no matter what we do now. VietNam? Total disaster for all concerned except the bullet makers. The miltary industrial complex that still exists today, ala haliburtion, blackhawk and all the rest. And, speaking of blackhawk, how is it that the same administration who espouses how they suppor the troops, choose to pay these mercinaries 10 times as much money? Not to mention the health care blackhawk gets vs. our own children when they return. I think that extremes on either side are the looney ones. And just because someone chooses to vote differently, or listen to a different nutcase radio host, and yes, most are nut cases in my opinion, doesn't mean that they don't share a lot of the same values. We love America, we do our best to vote in the best we have at the time, but the system is stinking like old fish. Too much media, not the transparent, positive type, but the get ratings, garbage, bad mouth, name calling, bullshit type. c
I'm against war, all wars, but if we look at that one, Iraq, it's lightyears ahead of Vietnam, much better than II2 also because of the significantly smaller number of casualties on both sides. We went in there because we were threatened, kicked out a bloody dictator who was terrorizing the region and paying kids to blow themselves up in pizza parlors in Tel Aviv, and helped establish the first democratic government that the Iraqis have ever had. We gradually curbed sectarian violence and worked at giving the reins to the locals. Casualties are way down, Iraqi readiness to take over growing by the day. A great nation freed, the Middle East more stable. What's wrong with that? Yes, we had casualties, and are all saddened by the loss of life - but freedom is not free. I understand some of us want Obama and some of us want McCain, but let's not paint everything a failure in the process. We Americans did what we believed was right at the time, and we did it well, selflessly, trying to make the world a better, safer place. We are succeeding and history will remember us kindly because of that. Same for Afghanistan. As I said, I'm against war. Let's hope we never have to fight another one, ever.
Good post, Yannis. Much better than many on ET with all the hate and name calling. As you probably noticed, I'm against all wars as well. We can certainly agree to disagree about Iraq, why not, the whole Country is in disagreement it seems, as are the members of the Administration. A couple of thoughts. Back in Gulf War 1, we did a good thing. We helped a Nation that was attacked by a brutal dictator. After we did the right thing, we made promises to the Iraqi people who fought with us against Saddam, and others who wanted a democracy, that we did not keep. It was mostly these dissidents who were rounded up after the war, from what I read, by the thousands. In my opinion we had Saddam in a box in the 21st century. A very bad man, and evil man, but a boxed in man nonetheless. I think we did actually win the initial war, but we had no plans for a proper occupation. We simply got into the middle of a centuries old civil war. Al-quaeda was not in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, and we went there, but got distracted by Iraq, IMO. We have fought much stronger and well funded and equipped enemies than alQueada for decades without using them as an excuse to invade Iraq, again, IMO. We fought these wars, drug wars against the Columbian cartels, the Soviet Union and the cold war, Panama, and all the rest using mainly law enforement personnel with a stated mission. I think we left ourselves very vunerable by over using our military and all the reserve units. We lost a lot in the eyes of the World. So, again, IMO, we did not do the best thing to protect the Nation we all love by invading Iraq. We could have been easily attacked by China, N. Korea, and the axis of evil. No troops left. Sure, air power, but no viable standing army except in Iraq. Not a good scenerio. Right now I'm concerned that we will blunder with Iran. The politico's argue that another war is good for McCain, and that is just an awful thing to even think about. I can't believe that some people would justify a candiate by attacking another country. However, so much hatred between parties, so much anger, sometimes I just don't know what to think. I'm a registered Independent, didn't vote for Bush, didn't vote for Clinton, not a very good batting average I guess. I just wish we could take the majority of Americans from either side of the middle, instead of the vocal extremists on both sides. As far as economics go, I agree with whoever said either tax and spend, or go into debt and keep spending, not much difference in my mind. And, yes, I'm in one of the higher brackets, the taxes will be a burden when they go up, but we have to pay the bill sometime. I prefer to help now, and hopefully leave my grandkids a safer and more prosperous America. Enough soapbox for now. c
Hey, I'm an Independent too, there's a few of us around. Whenever I get disappointed with the way national affairs go, I remind myself that, for better or worse, it was civil servants who planned and executed the war - need I say more? Sometimes I think the Constitution should bar the Government from doing anything directly, just establish the overall plan and let private eneterprise take over. Organizations like IBM or WalMart et al would have done a better job, at much lower cost, if properly supervised, imo. Seriously, I think the Government should be there for strategy and refereeing the market, that's all. They are all idiots, or they become idiots as soon as they enter public service, all of them. More or less.
We have privatized things like school/university cafeterias (much better), and even on military bases, working much more efficiently. The problem with getting rid of the Gov't employees is that we would have a 50+% unemployment rate. Now, getting rid of the entire TSA wouldn't bother me a bit. The TSA is just a way to employ the unemployable in my opinion. The bad guys really did win by shackling us all to the airport nightmare. I still say, lock the seatbelts like a Disneyland thrill ride, only let out by airline personnel, not a gov't employee or anything. That would do more to stop airline terror, again, in my opinion. c