‘President Rand Paul’ would have fired Hillary post-Benghazi

stands

Sometimes I feel and act the same way.

But I must say, I think we’ve both made our point.

But having said that, there’s something about engaging someone so sanctimonious that makes it challenging to break off –

Corbin

I do hope you’re not saying I need a bath more than once a year….

No one’s ever complained before -

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie Ray…..my statement is what I believe jay and friends will be saying…..sorry I didn’t put sarcasm sign on.

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Rand Paul”

What a hoot!

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Barack Obama” circa 2006

Very funny as well

• Link
• Report this comment

Redcoat

January 23rd, 2013
3:31 pm

No my bad…I appear to be over-caffeinated at present since I catch those comments most often.

• Link
• Report this comment

Get

Government doesn’t work

Your pair of dimes are pennies

• Link
• Report this comment

Our government is so divided one attacks the other and no answers are to be had. Blame the other side, lie about the otherside. No nation can stand divided as we are. We are going down the road that Rome, English and all the great countries have traveled it ends in………

• Link
• Report this comment

“Clinton Erupts Over Libya: ‘What
Difference at This Point Does It Make?’ ”

It makes a difference to the families who want the truth !

• Link
• Report this comment

jm,

It does work when the adults are in charge.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul

January 23rd, 2013
3:33 pm

Seems to me when we start to delve too deep into definitions things get goofy. The question is whether it was a coordinated and intentional attack on a specific day or it was spontaneous reprisal from some obscure web video?

The fact is that BO blew it in terms of the changing portrayal…suspicions justifiably arise..election year…let’s get to the bottom of it, learn and move on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rand Paul was absolutely right in his observation of the problem. That problem was the ineptness of another Clinton running things and lying to the American public.

Judging from the idiots posting in her defense also validates the problem with the present state of this country that votes for corruption.

Unbelievable close minded liberal thought that supports manslaughter and liars. You all are real pieces of work.

But then again…how do you talk to a liberal? You can’t!

• Link
• Report this comment

Active shooter down here on Moody AFB (Valdosta)

• Link
• Report this comment

PAUL,
No, I’m sure you must bathe at least once a month… No, I was talking about the leader of the family, Will Penny got in trouble with. He remind you of anyone?

• Link
• Report this comment

Out for the afternoon.

Everyone be nice !

• Link
• Report this comment

“Howard Roarke laughed…” the opening line to one of my top 3 books…The Fountainhead. Together, let’s observe the responses shall we?

If the GOP are dumb enough to attempt to reflect a geniusly imagined, completely fictional worldview that poorly reflects reality, they deserve what they get. Her books rock.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm – ‘I can’t get my peyote permit…….’

dude, we don’t WANT a peyote permit, me or mrsstsimons
that will make you hold onto the bedpost and say ‘i wanna come down’
or so i heard….

• Link
• Report this comment

RANDPAULZI!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Corbin

I was trying to place the woman’s absent husband, then realized you mean the Donald Pleasance preacher-man character.

YIKES!!!!!

I’m gonna have to go back to sleeping with a nightlight….

• Link
• Report this comment

St Simons

You know more than I

On that subject

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier

I’d be interested to read what you wrote.

Do you have a link?

And why do you assume I wouldn’t agree with what you wrote, but that no matter your argument, I’d disagree?

• Link
• Report this comment

JM: Apologies. I was tapping into my inner lib logic.

You should try tapping into a history book sometimes. Just saying……

======
Do you want to go back and hold those responsible accountable? I’m with you. Let’s do it!
I find it incredible that not one damn word comes out of the libs mouths holding your own accountable.

Yeah I DO. Its never too late to start a tribunal on the War Crimes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. PS: I also find it ironic, (big word I know — you might need to look it up in the dicitonary), that YOU of all people are advocating “accountability”!! LMAO
========

JM: DDR is Susan Rice. How neat

Its better than being Jetrho Bodine…..
========

Rand Paul & Paul AynRyan are what stupid people think a smart person
sounds like

I’m TOTALLY stealing that one! Sorry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is obsessed with Rand Paul

Must be a bromance

I didn’t know Jay liked curly hair

• Link
• Report this comment

Hell I’d of fired her ass a long time before that – bite me Jaybook

• Link
• Report this comment

Jumped to a new post so quickly….thanks Jay! As I said on the last article, this is like “blogporn” for those on the right…Clinton AND Obama in the same article??? Sheesh! Crank up the crazy!!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Stevie Ray

“What makes you think “cons” have a corner on any political market? ”

I said ‘cons HERE” have a history of making up definitions.

Premeditation was not the issue in that thread.

Frankly, I think the Obama administration adopted the definition they did because regardless of accuracy, our populace has been conditioned to think “any violent action by anyone we consider an a-rab terririst is a terririst attack!”

y’know, but the common thinking, when a drone strike goes awry and we take out a bunch of innocent civilians we can be said to have conducted a terrorist attack.

That’s why I’m big on clear definitions and standards.

I haven’t seen libs here do it to the same extent.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’d be interested to read what you wrote. Do you have a link?”

I don’t. Sorry. But it is in the comments made to said article by Jay. I really have to

“And why do you assume I wouldn’t agree with what you wrote, but that no matter your argument, I’d disagree?”

I guess because it seemed that you agreed with Jay’s dichotomy (since you quoted it at length, after such a period of time – a couple of months?), with which I disagreed. If I am wrong, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

• Link
• Report this comment

Irony

Banner ad at top: Starbucks Blonde Roast

Below: picture of Hillary

• Link
• Report this comment

stevie ray 3:50

Yup.

Gotta run to the store.

Back in a little while.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillary put on an absolute show. She laughed, she cried (literally). Kudos! Check out this article that describes why this was Hillary’s finest moment, and why you may have just seen the first female President of the United States in action…

http://snip.ps/HillaryClintonsFinestHourAndAHalf

• Link
• Report this comment

that’s PRESIDENT Hillary Clinton Ma’am, to you cons

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “What “subject” precisely? The meaning of the 2nd Amendment?”

As I’ve said many times, Intro to Constitutional Law.

“And what college course? I too have taught at the collegiate level, so be careful of the claims you make in this regard.”

If you haven’t taught *this* subject, then maybe *you* should take greater care in telling others to ’sit down and just be a cheerleader.’

“He just makes assertions.”

From where I’m sitting, so do you and many of the sources you cite.

“I am not at all convinced you have studied the 2nd Amendment issue more than I have.”

FWIW, I’m not convinced you’ve studied it *at all,* and I’m certain you haven’t taught it.

“Given the totality of historical evidence, their arguments are both strained and uncompelling, relying primarily upon the (now) ambiguous phrasing of the amendment itself and cherry-picked historical “evidence” to justify an ideological conclusion.”

In your journeyman opinion, perhaps. It seems that what you don’t understand is that your argument and your position are not strengthened simply by questioning the validity of your opponent’s position. Rather, it’s strengthened by presenting a coherent whole that is supported by the evidence at hand. Your accusation of “cherry-picking” is a clue right off the bat that you simply have no refutation for the evidence I’ve given you thus far.

“It absolutely was understood to be an individual right. You are just wrong on this point.”

It absolutely was not, and you are sadly mistaken. The right was *explicitly enumerated* by at least three states — PA, VA and VT, and was recognized in those states. Your argument — and the argument of individuals on your side — is apparently that *despite* the lack of enumeration in the Constitutions and Charters of other States (and at the Federal level), that the selfsame right is enshrined in all those other documents.

Sorry, Towncrier, but that’s a huge reach, regardless of one’s political views. And it would earn you a very poor grade. You can’t logically argue that both the presence and the *lack* of language enumeratiing a specific right are legal equivalents. It’s a specious position, regardless of how comfortable it might make you feel.

As I’ve told you several times now, you’d gain much more legal traction trying to argue for an individual right to bear arms as an *unenumerated* right (such as the right to privacy) or for States to put it into their Constitutions in the first place. Since the precedent is clearly established that a State could enumerate that right *despite* the fact that it’s not enumerated at the Federal level, there’s nothing stopping other States from doing just that. And in fact, that’s probably the simplest and most effective way for States to push back against the argument.

“I know of no historical evidence of any state legislation that sought to ban the right to possess arms outright.”

Nor I, as I didn’t *assert* that any such legislation existed.

“And there is no evidence that it was not an assumed, ununumerated right in any case.”

Which is one of the two positions I’ve recommended that you take several times now.

“I only know of legislation against concealed weapons in the early 19th century (which CLEARLY IMPLIES that a general right to bear arms was assumed – just not concealed arms).”

I don’t agree with your reading at all. In any event, a 19th Century *implication* does not constitute an 18th Century legal imperative.

“Additionally, the court rulings following immediately in the wake of this challenged legislation show that it was indeed thought to be an individual right.”

Immediately in the wake of *what* legislation? The Bill of Rights? Besides, the fact that one side in a legal dispute takes the position that they’ve got a right to do something doesn’t categorically confer that right. I think that you yourself would assert that *claiming* a right to an abortion wouldn’t create or confer such a right on anyone.

“Yawn.”

You know, given your frequent demands that your opinions and positions be accepted as truthful and factual, you certainly have a problem with extending that selfsame courtesy to others. From where I’m sitting, you’re certainly no more knowledgeable on the subject than Jay, but you seemed to have no problem telling him to sit down and shut up.

Perhaps you should reconsider how you address others, particularly given that you’ve confessed to misbehavior in that regard more than once, and have apologized for it.

“And let me know when you can bring unequivocally compelling historical evidence to the table to refute the position I have argued.”

I can’t help it if you’re ‘married’ to your ideological position. Students with such a strong ideological streak always had problems in my class, regardless of which direction that streak happened to point.

• Link
• Report this comment

The situation in Libya has been overly-politicized and the victims and there families being instrumented as a ruse to create doubt in Obama’s leadership and his cabinet. Public access to real facts is being whitewashed by this rhetoric while conservative hands paint the Blackface on our President. Watch them mix and apply the paints to his face in a portrait of Obama being Bamboozed by the Far Right at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

• Link
• Report this comment

“As I’ve said many times, Intro to Constitutional Law. If you haven’t taught *this* subject, then maybe *you* should take greater care in telling others to ’sit down and just be a cheerleader.’”

Nice try, but teaching an introductory course on any broad subject is NOT evidence of having expert knowledge of any particular topic under that heading. We are talking specifically about the 2nd Amendment.

“From where I’m sitting, so do you and many of the sources you cite.”

Maybe you should find another chair. Some of the “sources” I’ve linked are from law journals and legal histories.

“FWIW, I’m not convinced you’ve studied it *at all,* and I’m certain you haven’t taught it.”

ROFL. You previously asserted that YOU had studied it more than me, and now you are asserting I haven’t studied it at all (you could have saved your breath and said the latter formerly). Come one, why be silly? FWIW, I kind of suspect you are making a mountain out of a molehill in stressing how your having taught a mere introductory course on a broad subject somehow makes you an authority on the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, I am not buying that.

“It absolutely was not, and you are sadly mistaken. The right was *explicitly enumerated* by at least three states —
PA, VA and VT, and was recognized in those states. Your argument — and the argument of individuals on your side — is apparently that *despite* the lack of enumeration in the Constitutions and Charters of other States (and at the Federal level), that the selfsame right is enshrined in all those other documents.”

It was “explicitly enumerated” by more than three states before 1789 (namely, Massachusetts and North Carolina) and by Tennessee shortly after (in 1796). It has since been enumerated by most of the states:

=http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

And it is explictly enumerated in the the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the document which the colonists lived by
prior to the Revolutionary War and relied heavily upon in forming their own Constitutions. YOUR argument is that the
absence of enumeration by 8 of the colonies in their State Constitutions means that they were discarding the right of
an individual to bear arms (except in the servive of a militia), despite 1) having enjoyed that right for almost a
century under British rule 2) there being no extant legislation banning individual ownership except when conscripted in a militia (which one could reasonably expect to find given such a change in previously existing rights) 3) the fact
that apparently many colonist possessed and carried arms apart from service in any militia and 4) the earliest
legislation seeking to control the carrying of arms was for CONCEALED weapons – a fact that (as I said earlier)
demonstrates that an individual right to carry arms was assumed – indeed, a given.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7yP1pwHAazEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=kentucky+concealed+weapon+law+1813&source=bl&ots=n7BAF4j45r&sig=WzeXjHq8tQljjMD9lEUgo-u_qBA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BFMAUaHBCJK29gTY5ICACg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kentucky%20concealed%20weapon%20law%201813&f=false (from Google search on kentucky+concealed+weapon+law+1813)

“I don’t agree with your reading at all. In any event, a 19th Century *implication* does not constitute an 18th Century
legal imperative.”

See above and it – not three decades removed from the passage of the Constitution – constitutes the common
understanding underlying the 2nd Amendment.

“Immediately in the wake of *what* legislation? The Bill of Rights? Besides, the fact that one side in a legal dispute
takes the position that they’ve got a right to do something doesn’t categorically confer that right. I think that you
yourself would assert that *claiming* a right to an abortion wouldn’t create or confer such a right on anyone.”

Huh? The Bill of Rights? Please re-read my earlier post. I said “challenged legislation” right after mentioning the
concealed weapons law passed in the early 19th century. Surely you know these laws were challenged in court on
Constitutional grounds (an individual’s right to bear arms) and it was decided that the 2nd Amendment meant an
individual has a protected right to bear arms.

“From where I’m sitting, you’re certainly no more knowledgeable on the subject than Jay, but you seemed to have no
problem telling him to sit down and shut up.”

I did not when he asserted an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held with good reason by many is “mythological claptrap” and then goes on to support that with the argument it is out of date (as if that had any legal bearing) and likely to spawn any number of McVeighs (demonstrating the very fear mongering he seems to detest in conservative politicians). He set the fire. I was telling him not to get burned by it.

Again, you need to find another seat – perhaps one in the back of the classroom instead of at the front. You have yet
to demonstrate (beyond mere academic boasts) any compelling reason to accept your (deficient) “reading” of the 2nd Amendment – our exchange a few days ago included.

“Perhaps you should reconsider how you address others, particularly given that you’ve confessed to misbehavior in that regard more than once, and have apologized for it.”

I may have “misspoken”. I was trying to use one of the terms you commonly use to wave off a point. Maybe it was “shrug”. There was nothing mean spirited in my use of “yawn”. I am not bored by my conversations with you – if I were I wouldn’t engage you much at all.

“I can’t help it if you’re ‘married’ to your ideological position. Students with such a strong ideological streak always had problems in my class, regardless of which direction that streak happened to point.”

ROFL. Maybe YOU should take your own advice on how you address others. Hmmm? I am sure you see I turned the tables on you above – that was purposeful (or should I say “reflective”?).

• Link
• Report this comment

Give up Republicans.

Throw in the towel.

Say, “I give”.

Raise the “white flag”.

Stick a fork in you..”cause you are done”.

You are fighting a losing battle.

Nothing can save you CONS.

Its going to take decades for Cons to recover.

Uh Huh

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Nice try, but teaching an introductory course on any broad subject is NOT evidence of having expert knowledge of any particular topic under that heading.”

It’s also not evidence of a lack of knowledge in the field, either. My father’s a professor of 45 years tenure at the university where he teaches, and *he* teaches one Intro section per year in his field; would you like to contact him so you can explain to him his lack of qualifications?. In any event, *your* lack of teaching credentials on *this* subject are noted.

“We are talking specifically about the 2nd Amendment.”

Yes, we are, and just to catch you up, that’s part of the Bill of Rights, which was a major part of the course I taught. Quite frankly, I think you need to walk away from this line of argument, given your apparent contentious need to play King of the Mountain with others. If your argument to Jay of ‘well, I’ve studied it and you haven’t’ is as dispositive as you seem to think, given your rude tone with him, then the argument of ‘well, I’ve *taught* it and you haven’t’ should be just as dispositive. Long story short, I’ve taught on this topic. You haven’t. Move on.

“Maybe you should find another chair. Some of the “sources” I’ve linked are from law journals and legal histories.”

Perhaps you should refrain from relying so heavily on the historical work of others and *actually do some historical research yourself,* as I have.

“FWIW, I kind of suspect you are making a mountain out of a molehill in stressing how your having taught a mere introductory course on a broad subject somehow makes you an authority on the 2nd Amendment. Sorry, I am not buying that.”

I’ve said no such thing. However, it makes me more of an authority than *you* and your ‘well, I’ve studied the topic’ gambit.

“It was “explicitly enumerated” by more than three states before 1789 (namely, Massachusetts and North Carolina) and by Tennessee shortly after (in 1796). It has since been enumerated by most of the states”

Stipulated.

“And it is explictly enumerated in the the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the document which the colonists lived by prior to the Revolutionary War and relied heavily upon in forming their own Constitutions.”

Stipulated, but not evidentiary.

“YOUR argument is that the absence of enumeration by 8 of the colonies in their State Constitutions means that they were discarding the right of an individual to bear arms”

FAIL.

That is NOT my argument.

You may now climb down off your high horse, calm the eff down and ASK me what my argument is so that I can repeat it for you once more.

“Huh? The Bill of Rights? Please re-read my earlier post. I said “challenged legislation” right after mentioning the concealed weapons law passed in the early 19th century.”

I did not make the connection. Thank you for elaborating on that. However, I’m compelled to point out that you’re relying on decisions *after* the fact to construct your Constitutional argument. One could make a *legal* argument on such a basis, but arguing the textual and contextual meaning of the Constitution is not something you’re going to accomplish by looking at court decisions that *followed* it.

“Surely you know these laws were challenged in court on Constitutional grounds (an individual’s right to bear arms) and it was decided that the 2nd Amendment meant an individual has a protected right to bear arms.”

I’m aware of that. But as I said, the existence of a legal dispute does not automatically mean that the plaintiff has a point.

“I did not when he asserted an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held with good reason”

In your *opinion.* I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I don’t find your opinion on this topic to be any more valuable than Jay’s.

“by many is “mythological claptrap” and then goes on to support that with the argument it is out of date (as if that had any legal bearing) and likely to spawn any number of McVeighs (demonstrating the very fear mongering he seems to detest in conservative politicians). He set the fire. I was telling him not to get burned by it.”

Then perhaps you should have *used* those words instead of the ’sit down and shut up’ construction you came up with. Had you done so, I might have actually argued on your side. There’s a significant difference between telling Jay he’s being a Richard and in becoming one yourself in so doing.

“Again, you need to find another seat – perhaps one in the back of the classroom instead of at the front. You have yet to demonstrate (beyond mere academic boasts) any compelling reason to accept your (deficient) “reading” of the 2nd Amendment – our exchange a few days ago included.”

The deficient reading is your own, as is your deficient understanding of my argument. And I’m not *obliged* to present you any compelling reasoning for reasons I’ve already articulated to you in the past.

“I may have “misspoken”. I was trying to use one of the terms you commonly use to wave off a point. Maybe it was “shrug”. There was nothing mean spirited in my use of “yawn”. I am not bored by my conversations with you – if I were I wouldn’t engage you much at all.”

“ROFL. Maybe YOU should take your own advice on how you address others. Hmmm?”

And here’s where you FAIL again, TC.

I taught that class nearly *20* years ago — back when I was fresh out of the Army and still firmly in the Republican camp. The point you’re missing here is that I arrived at my findings and my argument *despite* my personal beliefs and opinions at the time. The legal fact of the matter is that you can’t logically argue that the *absence* of language is textually, metaphysically or legally equivalent to the *inclusion* of that language, and despite Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller I and many other students of the law — on both ideological sides — still hold that.

Again, I don’t begrudge you your opinion on the topic, but your opinion’s *clearly* informed by your ideology and the sources you’ve cited are not persuasive — nor are they the sorts of sources I’d have expected from one of my students. Frankly, I suggest that you make a trip downtown to the GSU Law Library and start reading cases and Constitutions (not just the Federal one). Your failure to cite primary sources and your reliance on secondary and tertiary ones is troubling for someone who seems to sure of himself.

“I am sure you see I turned the tables on you above – that was purposeful (or should I say “reflective”?).”

I’m sure you didn’t, though I’m sure you *think* you did. Once again, I taught that course *long* before I ever even *thought* of voting for a Democrat.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Perhaps you should refrain from relying so heavily on the historical work of others and *actually do some historical research yourself,* as I have.”

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you claiming that you have examined the actual, primary historical documents themselves? Or are you assuming I have not looked at a number of republished (and sometimes online) versions of such documents? I have already pointed you to probably the best compilation of documentary evidence surrounding the ratification of the Constitution (the basis for much of Pauline Maier’s recent work, Ratification:

http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/RNCN.html

“I’ve said no such thing. However, it makes me more of an authority than *you* and your ‘well, I’ve studied the topic’ gambit.”

Not necessarily. Teaching a class introductory Constitutional Law class decades ago doesn’t prove that. Only having done more research would.

“Stipulated, but not evidentiary.”

In a strict legal sense perhaps, but you see that is part of the problem with your position. There can be no question but that SC justices have looked outside the text of the Constitution itself to arrive at opinions. And I think the reason is clear: in absence of absolute clarity, a judge (unless he wishes to declare a law effectively meaningless and decline to rule) must somehow resolve the ambiguity inherent in the text of the law or Constitution under consideration or review. It has been said more than once that the Constitution is no marvel of clarity.

“That is NOT my argument.”

It is essentially your argument. By claiming the 2nd Amendment does not, in its succinct language, guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms apart from a militia – that the prefatory clause modifies or limits the main clause to a single meaning, you are exactly saying that all of the ratifying states were in agreement that an individual’s right to bear arms – despite the precedent of the English Bill of Rights and the other historical evidence to the contrary – should be left OUT of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

“I did not make the connection. Thank you for elaborating on that. However, I’m compelled to point out that you’re relying on decisions *after* the fact to construct your Constitutional argument. One could make a *legal* argument on such a basis, but arguing the textual and contextual meaning of the Constitution is not something you’re going to accomplish by looking at court decisions that *followed* it.”

Look – if I am reading a 19th century novel and the author makes use of the word “gay” I will know (given the historical context of the time) that he was not referring to a homosexual. As I said, apart form any strict legal argument based on precedent, the decisions support my claim of what the common understanding of the right to bear arms was around the time the Constitution was ratified.

“I’m aware of that. But as I said, the existence of a legal dispute does not automatically mean that the plaintiff has a point.”

See above.

“In your *opinion.* I don’t begrudge you your opinion, but I don’t find your opinion on this topic to be any more valuable than Jay’s.”

I likewise don’t find your opinion to be any more valuable than Jay’s. What is your point?

“Then perhaps you should have *used* those words instead of the ’sit down and shut up’ construction you came up with. Had you done so, I might have actually argued on your side. There’s a significant difference between telling Jay he’s being a Richard and in becoming one yourself in so doing.”

Agreed. Maybe I shouldn’t have said (in so many words) ’sit down and shut up’ but the “mythological claptrap” line seemed almost childish. So mine was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Mea culpa. But hopefully he won’t come out with statements like that again. Here’s to hoping, anyway.

“The deficient reading is your own, as is your deficient understanding of my argument.”

So say you.

“And I’m not *obliged* to present you any compelling reasoning for reasons I’ve already articulated to you in the past.”

If you wish to persuade me to your POV, you are. Otherwise, you are right.

“I taught that class nearly *20* years ago — back when I was fresh out of the Army and still firmly in the Republican camp. The point you’re missing here is that I arrived at my findings and my argument *despite* my personal beliefs and opinions at the time. The legal fact of the matter is that you can’t logically argue that the *absence* of language is textually, metaphysically or legally equivalent to the *inclusion* of that language, and despite Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller I and many other students of the law — on both ideological sides — still hold that.”

What amendment are you reading? The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It IS included in the text. You just happen to think that the prefatory clause restricts the meaning to service in a militia (and that such a militia is only answerable to the federal government). And I have shown you in this post and others reasons for concluding you (and others) are flat wrong. We cannot both be right here: one of us is wrong. I think Scalia is correct on this point: that the prefatory clause is perhaps the PRINCIPAL reason for the right of INDIVIDUALS to bear arms – namely in defense of a “free State” in a militia (the contemporary term for a group of armed men – I mean no one was supposing a state would defend itself by individuals acting arbitrarily on their own; people didn’t fight battles that way back then). I once again refer you to this important document (asking you to please pay close attention to the proposed amendments by NH, VA and NY, as well as Madison’s initial draft):

http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

“Again, I don’t begrudge you your opinion on the topic, but your opinion’s *clearly* informed by your ideology and the sources you’ve cited are not persuasive — nor are they the sorts of sources I’d have expected from one of my students. Frankly, I suggest that you make a trip downtown to the GSU Law Library and start reading cases and Constitutions (not just the Federal one). Your failure to cite primary sources and your reliance on secondary and tertiary ones is troubling for someone who seems to sure of himself.”

Why don’t you leave off with your silly allusion to “students”? You are not scoring any logical points with that approach. Case law is, as you said in regard to the early 19th century decisions I cited, is not strictly determinative of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It is useful in understanding interpretive arguments people have made, and the “evidence” underlying those arguments. But that is all. I have read a number of cases and analyses of the amendment. And I would say YOUR opinion is “*clearly* informed by your ideology”, your claims to having arrived at them 20 years ago when a Republican notwithstanding. That was then, this is now. You were wrong then (perhaps just out of faulty reasoning). And you are wrong now (for ideological reasons).

I await your ineluctable response.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Discussion about Rand Paul’s questioning of Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi attacks. He was grandstanding when he said that he would have fired her: [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

And Condi did her job before 9-11? and how many died? Where was the GOP outcry then?

• Link
• Report this comment

And if I were I pirate, I would sail around in my pirate ship and stab you with my pirate sword!

• Link
• Report this comment

“That you’re not engaging in a ’strict textual interpretation.’ Moreover, you appear to be arguing in favor of something that smacks of ‘judicial activism’ rather than the strict textualism your ideological compatriots so often claim to favor.”

I see no need to apologize, JHM. Your assumption that my “temper” had “run away” with me in my last post shows that you are misreading it (and this is not the first time you’ve read anger into a statement behind which there was none). I had not the least bit of anger in me when I wrote it. And your imagining that I was somehow discrediting your claims of being a Republican and so forth 20 years ago are mere fantasies, based solely on my use of the word “claims” instead of something else like “assertions” or “statements”. And that was PRECISELY why I attributed your being wrong back then to “faulty reasoning” rather than ideology – I credited what you said as true! Further, your repeated expressions of condescension, while not really very upsetting to me (since I can be that way myself and find the assumptions underlying such expressions – particularly yours, like I have not done any historical research and don’t even understand it – are often ludicrous), are hypocritical and stand in ironic contrast to your claim of being offended. If that means you want to withdraw from further discussion, that is entirely your prerogative.

And I am not going to respond, point by point to you last post (for that is becoming more procedural than rational at this point and it seems obvious that much of it is not very germane to the topic but verbal jostling). But let’s see if we can’t take a different tact in this discussion. Let’s start with an analysis of the text itself and then work out to supporting evidence outside the text. Here is a sentence similarly phrased to the 2nd Amendment:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

How would you parse this? Would you say that it means that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” only in relation to “religion, morality and knowledge” – that the latter are the sole purpose of the former?

Or, borrowing from the conservative textual analysis of the 2nd Amendment (by no less than a former Supreme Court clerk, Nelson Lund) to which I provided you a link last week, how would you parse this fabricated “right”?

“A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”

Would you say that it means that the the people have a right to keep and read books for the sole purpose of developing or maintaining “A well educated Electorate”? Or would you concede that it can quite plausibly be interpreted to mean that because “A well educated Electorate” is is necessary to “self-governance in a free State”, the enumerated right shall not be infringed?

I think your response (or lack thereof) will help determine the future course of this discussion. If you don’t respond, then I will assume you are unable to defend your position.

• Link
• Report this comment

At this juncture, I think it all boils down to two different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment:

1) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [while they are members of] a well regulated militia [that is] necessary to the security of a free state.

VS.

2) [Since] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In the first reading, the right cannot be infringed so long as the people (or individuals) are members of a state militia. Otherwise, there is no right to “keep and bear arms”. Thus the enjoyment of the right is conditioned upon service in a state militia. No state militia, no right.

In the second reading, a state militia is provided as an obvious and clear reason for the right of the people to “keep and bear arms” and why this right should not be infringed. Being the grounds for a “free State” by means of a state militia, the right “keep and bear arms” of the people or individuals to “keep and bear arms” shall not be infringed. There is no necessary limitation on this right to service in a state militia. The right can therefore serve any number of purposes (such as for hunting, self defense and so on).

One key question is this: what reading best comports with the linguistic evidence from contemporaneous documents and references?

Another key question is this: which reading best comports with what we may best conclude was the Framers understanding and intent from all of the available historical evidence?

A third key question is this: which reading, all other things being equal and apart from other reasoning related to the first two questions, makes the most logical sense? This would include reasoning of the sort “if such and such was meant, then why…”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier — “Further, your repeated expressions of condescension . . . are hypocritical and stand in ironic contrast to your claim of being offended.”

As I have told you on several occasions in the past, I’m not aware of what *you* might find insulting or condescending any more than you’re aware of what *I* find insulting or condescending. Therefore, if you think I’ve been unkind, impolite or rude to you, I encourage you to tell me so. If you don’t, then I’ll have no idea that I’ve wronged you. Conversely, I’m obliged to tell *you* when I think you’ve been unkind, impolite or rude, for the same reason.

Therefore, if you want an apology from me for something I’ve said hitherto on this thread, you need to ask for it. And for my part, I’m still expecting one.

“I think your response (or lack thereof) will help determine the future course of this discussion. If you don’t respond, then I will assume you are unable to defend your position.”

Your announced assumption, in this case, would be wrong, but I shan’t pursue it absent an apology from you.

FWIW, you begin to approach and recognize my position in your last post, and that’s promising. What a shame that we won’t be able to discuss it further given your recalcitrance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And as I said prior to your grandiose extension of permission, you may either apologize or consider the discussion over. Clearly, given your repeated attempts to continue it, you’re either slow to grasp that or you don’t think I was serious.”

No problem. I will consider it to be over. I will therefore plan not to respond to anything you say about the 2nd Amendment in the future, and I expect you will do the same regarding my posts on the subject (in accordance with your statement above).

• Link
• Report this comment