Gut Rumbles

April 12, 2003

I love it

Check this comment from a leftist asshole who attempts to put ME down. Notice the TOP THREE THINGS that you will always see in every idiotarian rant.

1) Bush is a moron. (Forget his degrees from TWO Ivy-League colleges and forget the fact that he seems to have beaten the shit out of every attack Democrats mounted against him. He remains a moron.)

2) Bush is a liar. (I cannot BELIEVE that Clinton dicksuckers have the unmitigated GALL to even TALK about lying after the way they fawned over their lying bastard, blow-job-in-the-Oval-Office nutless wonder who remains their hero. Clinton? All hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas. Bush pisses better stuff than Clinton ever thought about being.)

3) There is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! (I hope the hell so. I hope it is VERY VAST.)

Okay, excuse my rant, but this is MY BLOG and I can do whatever I want to do on it. Back to the comment now:

Bush is an honest man . . . .

Bush is honest? "I won't engage in nation-building," "I'll actually do something to help education/local economies/AIDS sufferers in Africa," "I won't pass along our [national debt] to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations," "I've given up boozing," "I can speak Spanish"--THAT Bush?

Right-wingers like to pretend that dislike for Bush is a partisan thing, but what besides their own partisanship could compel anyone to support him? It's not just that he's not a Democrat; it's that he's the worst his party has to offer. If you snuck a peashooter into the REPUBLICAN convention, blindfolded yourself, spun around a few times and blew, pretty much anyone you beaned would make a better president than Bush.

I want everyone to go back and read that piece of blithering idiocy again. Now, on the count of three.... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Admit it, you brainless, holier-than-thou, beanheaded asswipe. YOUR dislike of Bush is a VISCERAL THING. You hate him because he IS honest, he DOES what he says he going to do and he IS a leader. And he's WINNING! You fucking can't stand it, can you?

Again, it's not partisan--Dole, Guiliani, McCain (and I bet you can think of more names)--do you believe that if any one of these Republicans were in the White House, he'd, say, pack the judiciary and presidential advisory groups with religious nuts, or decide that protecting his cronies from the SEC was more important than stabilizing the financial market, or let his foreign and monetary policies be dictated by ivory tower ideologues, or select an attorney general who was afraid of cats and breasts and made a point of greasing up with Crisco on big occasions, or have a VP who goes permanently into hiding? It's only partisanship from their side than keeps Republicans from seeing how looney this administration is.

Okay, it's not "partisan." You're just out of your fucking mind. "Religious nuts...cronies...looney." Have you talked to your doctor about regulating your medication?

What but GOP partisanship could make them forget that before the mid-90s, Bush basically did nothing his whole life but get high and sponge off his dad and his dad's friends? The biggest rockpile most politicians have to deal with is fundraising and holding elected office is the only real job Bush ever had. But even there, he's never had to work as hard as others in his occupation--once again, Daddy's friends have spared him from the reality check of work. So we have a president who, in times of heartbreaking national crisis, whines about how he actually had to spend time on the phone! Poor baby!!--it almost cut into his jogging time!

Read a book, you simpering shit. All you are doing here is displaying your abject ignorance, which may play well with your leftist friends, but it doesn't fly in MY arena. Do you spit or swallow? You'll damn sure suck leftist doctrine like the mindless twit you are.

Clearly you're not a fan of President Clinton, but he got to Oxford and through Yale, passed the Bar, practiced law and started a political career through his own hard work. I obviously don't agree with you on much, but even you--who got through school on your own bat, held down a job you got on your own, supported a family, apparently lived some kind of grown-up life with real responsibilities and all the trimmings--YOU would make a better president than this pisher.

Posted by Molly, NYC at April 12, 2003 04:21 PM

No, I would have been a better President than Bill Clinton. My neighbor's CAT that shits on my truck would have made a better President than Clinton. Clinton never took advantage of his Oxford opportunity except to tour Europe, visit Russia and troll for blow-jobs. He has been a shallow piece of Arkansas white trash since the day he was born. The DIPSHIT HAS NEVER HAD A REAL JOB IN HIS LIFE!!!

George Bush, on the other hand, was a fighter pilot, a graduate of TWO Ivy League schools, a successful businessman and Governor of Texas before he became President. You call him dumb.

Kiss my Cracker ass.


You'll never be able to talk sense into a "Molly from NYC." Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Andrea Harris on April 12, 2003 07:33 PM

Just shows how brainwashed ANY political extremist can become.

I think Clinton was a liar. AND a good president.

I think Bush wasn't elected by the public. I disagree with his economic policies. HOWEVER, he's done an awesome job with 9/11, and now with Iraq.

I think Rush Limbaugh is an asshole. I think Bill Maher is an asshole.

I THINK. For myself. I may be wrong at times, but I think.

I also have the courtesy (Unlike Molly McBitch), to respect the blog I'm at and not insult my host.

You keep on with your bad self, and ignore the Mollys.

Posted by: BeerMary on April 12, 2003 08:36 PM

I love the Beer lady.

I think Sean Hannity is an asshole.

I also think President Clinton made a good President.

Posted by: Melissa on April 12, 2003 08:41 PM

Wow, Rob:

Yore manliness been attracting all manner of women who otherwise wouldn't hang around a campfire like this blog.


Posted by: Dan Dickinson on April 12, 2003 09:35 PM

I notice she still believes that falsehood about Ashcroft covering the statues. I don't much like Ashcroft myself, but I don't have to repeat long-since disproven falsehoods to complain about the man. The Great Bong Bust of 2002 and the PayPal prosecution are good enough.

I do find it interesting that she thinks Bill Clinton practiced law. When did he do that? He went straight into politics after graduation. She devotes fully 1/4 of her screed to pillorying Bush for never doing an honest day's work then turns around and lauds a guy who never held a private sector job in his life. In fact, the only non-government job he's had in his adult life was spending a couple of years teaching law at the University of Arkansas after losing his bid for a House seat the year after he graduated from Yale. He ran unopposed for AK AG two years later and has been in politics ever since.

Gotta love lefties. Where else would we find so much humour with so little substance?

Posted by: Dodd on April 12, 2003 10:21 PM

DODD, AK is Alaska, AR is Arkansas.

I don't think any politician is honest.

Posted by: Melissa on April 12, 2003 11:55 PM

George Bush, on the other hand, was a fighter pilot,

No, just a pilot. Used father's influence to displace better qualified candidates, trained on an aircraft no longer used in combat, declined to go to Viet Nam and promptly went AWOL.

a graduate of TWO Ivy League schools,

A mediocre student--brags about it in fact--admitted as a legacy; again using his father's influence to displace more qualified candidates.

a successful businessman

Now, would that be Harkin Oil, where Bush was brought in as a director by a B of D looking to please his father (then in the White House) and in which connnection his indictments for SEC violations were aborted by his father's appointees; or the Texas Rangers deal (for which his own investment share originally came from the Harkin transactions for which he was indicted) wherein he was handed about 6.5 times his share of the profits (relative to his original investment)? Again, it's one more area where his success had more to do with who his father was than any merit of his own.

and Governor of Texas before he became President.

Indeed he was. On his watch, Texans got the most environmentally slutted-out state in the Union, Bush personally made his 15 mill on the above-mentioned Rangers deal (while governor), perjured himself to protect a campaign contributer ( and kept his assets in a what was supposed to have been a blind trust except that the manager was one of his biggest contributors. One more gig he'd never have had if his father wasn't president.

I also have the courtesy (Unlike Molly McBitch), to respect the blog I'm at and not insult my host.

Bitch yourself, BeerMary. Not sure how suggesting that the blog's proprietor is probably more responsible and surely more hard-working than his C-in-C is an insult, but if you're hell-bent on finding something to take offense at, I guess I can't stop you.

But as long as he's going after me personally:

Kiss my Cracker ass.

Which no one's touched since you took up serious drinking. Front part hasn't worked either.

Posted by: Molly, NYC on April 13, 2003 12:51 AM

So, Molly... care to back your "displaced more qualified canidates" allegations up, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

And no, a friend of a friend on Indymedia doesn't count.

The rest of your crap is standard leftist spin without substance. For example, you simply assume without any backup at all that every person who's ever met Bush behaved the way they did 'because of his daddy'. Examples:

* Harkin Oil, where Bush was brought in as a director by a B of D looking to please his father... (Prove it!)

* his indictments for SEC violations were aborted by his father's appointees... (So, to appear impartial to people like you, these appointees MUST move to convict regardless of merit, right?)

* One more gig he'd never have had if his father wasn't president. (Maybe, maybe not. serving 2 terms in a row is pretty rare in Texas, so he must have been doing SOMETHING right)

If you universally applied that kind of insane "the deal MUST have been corrupt because of who his family was", then I would be very interested to hear your opinions on the Kennedy family.

But of course, people only suck up to right-wing politicos, right?


Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 13, 2003 01:10 AM

Hey, GWB signed the CCW into law in Texas, and watched as the murder rate declined.

NYC, on the other hand... a model of law-abiding, gun-less citizens.

I note that "stupid" GWB graduated from one more university than "brainy" Al Gore.

F4s are what the Guard flew at the time -- and it is, regardless of status, a fighter jet. It had cannon and bombs and missiles and everything.

I wish I had one, but liberal asshole Democrats refuse to let me own one in case I use it to stick up a bank or shoot Bambi or something with it.

Posted by: Kim du Toit on April 13, 2003 02:02 AM

Molly, the front worked just fine last night, after a little elixer. I got my Cracker ass kissed, too.

Posted by: Acidman on April 13, 2003 07:42 AM

Bush didn't fly an F4 Phantom, he flew a F104 Starfighter. When he showed up at all. F104's were never used in combat.
These rants are the worst writing you do, acidguy.
Our rights have been eviscerated, by the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and other measures, and people like you seem to think that's just OK. I don't. And I shoot very damned well...

Posted by: Jeff on April 13, 2003 02:25 PM


Oh, you mean the Democrats Collect Media Accolades act?

Posted by: Rick Tengin on April 13, 2003 04:40 PM

F-104s were nasty and tempermental from what I've heard, just a big engine with fins. If the prez could handle one without killing himself, he can't be that dumb. Believe it or not, fighter jocks are mostly the smartest people on the planet.

Posted by: hjd on April 13, 2003 05:59 PM

> Our rights have been eviscerated, by the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and other measures, and people like you seem to think that's just OK.

Well, you mental midget, if you and your slime-sucking ilk had stuck to that criticism, you might find some agreement.

But there is a whole goddamn world of difference between criticising questionable laws (which dems voted for too, pal) and savaging him as dishonest , using what fighter jet he flew or who his father is as 'proof'.

But I don't really expect you to know the difference between demonization and debate.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 13, 2003 08:00 PM

Oh, and two groups of F-104Cs saw action in Vietnam in 1965-67, and they account for some of the losses of the war. So much for your "trained on an aircraft no longer used in combat" garbage.

Its amazing how 15 minutes of Google can counter years of soaking yourself in revisionist history, eh Molly? It doesn't take a brain surgeon or a researcher to ferret out the truth, all it takes is one gram of common sense... like wondering "GEE, I WONDER IF THE ARMED SERVICES REGULARLY TRAIN PILOTS ON AIRCRAFT THEY'LL NEVER USE".

All it takes is one moment of skepticism, 15 minutes of fact-checking, and 2 brain cells to rub together... which disqualifies you right off the bat.

Useful Idiot.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 13, 2003 08:28 PM

Oh, and the F-104b is designed for training and nothing else. But lets not let facts stand in the way of a good rant, eh ignoramus from assholeville?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 13, 2003 08:35 PM

(chewing popcorn)

This is getting exciting... Much better than Matlock reruns.

(crunch, crunch)

Posted by: Ravenwood on April 13, 2003 10:28 PM

I admit I get a little irritated when people attack Bush on the usual subjects. he's an idiot, or he's diabolically clever, he can't tie his shoes, he's got a plan to take over the world, etc...
As far as presidents go, he's not the worst, neither is he the best. But what amazes me is that he does have legitimate faults which could be mentioned, yet the faults that are constantly brought up are usually just speculative.
Kim says he signed the Texas CCW. Well, if Bush really believes in Rights, especially the Right to own & Posses arms, then why did he endorse a law that makes it a privilege where you have to pay a fee as you bow down to some ass who gets paid by your taxes & grovel for permission to carry? Why didn't he ask the Texas legislature to pass a law recognizing Texan's Right to carry, even concealed?
& Bush is guilty of the same offense every president since FDR is guilty of: perjury. They all swore to defend the constitution, even from domestic enemies, yet every president from FDR through Bush has been in charge of enforcing that BS they call a legitimate tax as well as federal firearms laws ( say it with me, federal firearms laws are constitutionally prohibited)
Finally, Bush, that champion of 'gun Rights' has come out endorsing a continuation of the assault weapons ban. If you visit my blog ( yep, that was a shameless plug) it's the second story from the top.

So while Bush usually comes under attack from the left for things that aren't that substantial, the right has legitimate cause to criticize Bush. Unfortunately I think because the right is so busy countering attacks from the left they fail to see Bush's real shortcomings.

I could be wrong, but I think if Bush wanted to fufill his obligations, he'd announce that any federal officer, especially attorneys, attempted to enforce any federal gun laws, they'd be out of work, that the IRSS will be taking this century off, & tell Congress if they don't cut their spending by 85% (for a start) then he'd sick the prosecutors on them for every DUI they racked up while pleading congressional immunity. & to show 'em what it's like to be a citizzen victimized by their unconstitutional gun laws, he'd tell 'em that they no longer have access to the Marshalls or Secret Service except to make certain they didn't break any of the gun laws they passed. I wonder how they'd feel about passing 'victim disarmement' laws then?

But that's just me.

Posted by: Publicola on April 14, 2003 07:56 AM

Texas ANG flew F-102, "Delta Darts", when GWB was in. That was the only aircraft he qualified in. Yes, they were used in S E A.

"Believe it or not, fighter jocks are mostly the smartest people on the planet." ;-)) Thank you, HJD.

Signed: Old Fighter Jock

Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2003 09:52 AM

Oh, and F-4's were not given to the guard till 1975, two years after GWB was out.

Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2003 11:31 AM

This has been a great argument, but I see nobody challenging Molly on -

Dole or McCain? A better president than GWB?

Would that 'Dole' be the same incompetent fucknozzle who let the DNC run rings around his campaign, who blew a golden opportunity to nail the hypocrites on the left on their enthusiastic support of rape, treason, adultery and sexual harrassment and who never saw a spending bill he didn't like? I don't agree with Newt much, but he was on the money when he called Dole 'tax collector for the welfare state.'

And would that 'McCain' be Senator John 'Straight Talk Except for Charles Keating, I Never Heard of Him, And Even if I Did, I Didn't Do Anything Wrong And I Won't Do It Again' McCain?

Please, give me a break. Those two clowns ought to be run out of the GOP on a splintery rail.

Posted by: Ripper on April 14, 2003 01:26 PM

Perjury is lying under oath, not breaking an oath to do something, nor is it 'failing to meet Publicola's standards'.

We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship Publicola. You might indeed believe that the consitution requires the president (and congress, and the courts) to abolish the income tax, repeal all gun laws etc.

But not everyone agrees with you. In fact, not enough people agree with you to make it politically feasable.

If Bush actually attempted to do what you say complete with attempting to use federal agencies to intimidate senators, not only would he not succeed, the political damage from trying would render him unable to do his job. He'd be spending the reaming days of his presidency fending off a 'kook' label instead of moving the government in the direction he wants.

I'm sorry, but although you SAY Bush is ripe for criticism, the examples you provide are unconvincing. Any CCW law is better than no CCW law, and Texas's is better than most. So what if it doesn't have your preferred name-brand of uber-strict-constitutionalist hardass libertarianism?

Democracy involves compromise. Compromise dismays dogmatists of every stripe... from Communist to Anarchist, from Environmentalist to Lazziz-Faire-ist.

That's not a bug, its a feature.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 14, 2003 03:36 PM

Ryan Waxx,
When one takes an oath & then fails to keep that oath, it could be defined as perjury. After all, if an oath of office may be broken with impunity then what is the purpose of having them?
As for the possibility of not many people agreeing with me, last time I checked that was not a prerequisite to being right. This country was started by a determined minority. The majority of the colonists didn't support the revolution & there have been examples throughout history of a minority being correct while the majority was in error.

& I must disagree: any CCW is definitely not better than no CCW law. & even though Texas law may be better than some others, it still places an unfair burden on the citizen. Vermont is the only state that has gotten it right. But the point I was trying to make is that instead of 'any' CCW Bush, along with every other governor could have pushed for a constitutionally correct CCW: no permit, no fees, etc... Instead they compromised.
So my criticisms of Bush stand: he isn't doing a great job of defending the constitution, he seems to be giving lip service to the second amendment while enforcing laws that go against it, & he seems to be in favor of extensions of laws that are not only ineffective at their intended purpose ( fighting crime) but again are constitutionally prohibited.

& may I point out, this is a republic, not a democracy. The idea behind having a republic instead of a democracy is that the rule of law is paramount instead of the rule of the majority. The majority is wrong to interfere with the rights of the minority, just as it would be wrong for the minority to interfere with the rights of the majority.

When you start compromising Rights, then you are already too far down a long & winding road that leads to moral relativism. I know this might be hard to take, but some Rights are absolute. making exceptions to them here & there will not only be harmful to the Rights, or parts of the Rights you wish to protect, but it is harmful to your character.

One last thing. G.H.W. Bush broke a promise about taxes & he banned the import of asault weapons. In 92 he lost the election. I'd say there's anecdotal evidence to suggest that perhaps enough people agree with me at least in part to make it politically feasible.

Posted by: Publicola on April 14, 2003 05:00 PM

After all, if an oath of office may be broken with impunity then what is the purpose of having them?

It is your OPINION that he broke his oath. Not everybody agrees, and more importantly no one who is constiutionally empowered to make that judgement agrees. There are people whose opinion it is that the war in Iraq constitues not only a breach of that oath, but also constitues an impeachable crime. So why not listen to them, too?

Opinions are like assholes... Which i'm sure is a mortal insult to you, for you are in possession of THE TRUTH (tm).

As for the possibility of not many people agreeing with me, last time I checked that was not a prerequisite to being right.

But it is a prerequsite to getting your way in a democracy. Thankfully.

could have pushed for a constitutionally correct CCW: no permit, no fees, etc... Instead they compromised.

Yes, and they could also have failed. Passing a law that gets repealed later because it overreached also counts as failure., BTW.

he isn't doing a great job of defending the constitution,

Considering that the worst that you have said is that he does as badly (according to your criteria) as every other president, I'd give him a pass.

he seems to be giving lip service to the second amendment while enforcing laws that go against it,

He seems to be re-establishing a gun-owning culture, which is necessary for the kinds of reforms you want. Moreover, he's tilting the balance of law TOWARDS the 2nd amendment. That's a victory.

& he seems to be in favor of extensions of laws that are not only ineffective at their intended purpose ( fighting crime) but again are constitutionally prohibited.

That one I will grant you, though it must be noted that the reason he supports it is because dems can use it as a political weapon if he doesn't. That pesky 'listening to the people' thing again.

So my criticisms of Bush stand:

Yes, they stand. They stand in the middle of a hurricane and shout at the wind to stop all that racket, but they stand nonetheless.

may I point out, this is a republic, not a democracy.

Thank you for the Obvious Observation of the Week (tm). Though I'm sure you are aware that democratic republics can be called democracies, and often are.

The idea behind having a republic instead of a democracy is that the rule of law is paramount instead of the rule of the majority.

You have a poor understanding of what a republic is. The primacy of The Rule of Law is a seperate concept... You can have a direct democracy with respect for the rule of law, and you can have a republic that has little respect for the rule of law.

And we'll finish up with this...

I know this might be hard to take, but some Rights are absolute.

I know this might be hard for a dogmatist to understand, but no Rights are absolute. NONE. For example, EVERY single personal right stops where the rights of others begin.

The first amendment has hundreds of exceptions, for example the famous 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'. And the FDA can force companies to not lie on their labels, and make judgements as to what a lie entails.

The second amendment has several exeptions that we might agree are unconsitutional, but I guarantee you a ban on private ownership of WMD's will be regarded as constitutional by all but a few fanatics.

And in the case of "unreasonable searches and seizures", "impartial jury", "cruel and unusual punishments imposed" etc they are self-limiting, with debate focusing on just what those terms mean, and the meanings in flux.

I can continue, but you get the idea... or not.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 14, 2003 06:37 PM

Here's Uncle Cecil Adams's admittedly leftist take on the subject of W's Guard service:

The chief point to note here is that by Autumn of 1972, it was about as likely for a Guard unit to be called up for active service in Vietnam as it would be for the Ice Capades to skate the Ninth Circle of Dante's Inferno.

Posted by: Ernest Brown on April 14, 2003 07:30 PM

Perhaps. I'm not sufficently familiar with the situation to comment quite that deeply... though I suspect he's convieniently leaving facts out. But its still a damn sight better than fleeing to Canada or going 'hippie' on a college campus.

Which reminds me... why exactly are the loony left (as opposed to the normal left) concerned with his vietnam record, given that they equate vietnam with evil? You'd think they'd APPROVE of his not hanging out with baby killers and imperiast fascists.

More proof that it matters not what weapon you use, the important thing is: MUST BASH BUSH! BASH! BUSH! BASH!

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 14, 2003 08:13 PM

Jeez, Ryan, it's all about...



Bush got a pass because he was a rich-boy, see? The fact that Clinton totally abused his deferments (probably resulting in some poor and/or minority draftee getting it in the neck) just doesn't come into account.

Posted by: Ernest Brown on April 15, 2003 01:00 AM

Ryan Waxx,
I'm pressed for time so excuse me for only addressing a few of your points.

Certain Rights are absolute. Please don't confuse that statement with the brand of vodka. Then again if it helps....

The problem with your assertion that no Right is absolute is that you do not understand what a Right is & more importantly what it isn't.

There are several kinds of Rights: societal, collective, political, individual, etc... but let's focus on one specific kind: the inherant , (or natural) individual Right.
& to use your example of shouting fire in a crowded theater...
Certain actions are neccessary to exercise a Right, such as using your voice to exercise Freedom of Speech. But sometimes the actions themselves are confused with the Rights. I think most would agree that you do have the Right to say whatever you wish, whenever you wish. That's not to say you should, but you're usually able.
But yelling fire in a crowded theater is a potentially dangerous action which only bears resemblance to a Right such as freedom of speech. Up untill you exhale while yelling fire, your Right to speak is protected. But once you utter 'fire' audibly, then what happens is you are using an action to cause potential harm. That action (speaking in a loud voice) can be the same vehicle for exercising your Right to speak, but because of it's object it is not a Right. In other words, Freedom of Speech is a Right, but saying things that are materially harmful without cause would not qualify as a Right. So yelling fire in a theater is not the limiting of a Right, it is crossing the line where the Right is seperated from the action that enables the Right.
Similarly we all have the natural & inhgerant Right of Self defense. An extension of that Right is owning & possessing Arms. It is absolute. Nothing can or at least should stop you from defending yourself when attacked & similarly nothing can or should stop you from having the tools neccesary for self defense. But does this mean that we can walk down the street shooting at people randomly? nope. Again, that would be an action which bears resemblance to the Right but is not the Right itself. The Right is absolute, but the actions used to enable the Right are not.
What both of these have in common is that prior restraint is often used to place artificial limits on the Right because of the potential (real or imagined) for the actions which enable the Right to be misused. & the Right is often confused with the actions which allow the Right to be exercised. That's where the idea that no Rights are absolute come from & it is a dangerous misconception of what Rights are.
Rights are in fact absolute, at least some of them. But it's important to know what a Right is & what a Right isn't to understand what limits are acceptable & what limits aren't.

If you're interested I have a few essays on Rights at my blog: just look under previous blogs & click on 'essays & such'

BTW it wasn't every president that I accussed of perjury in regard to unconstitional gun law enforcement, it was every one since FDR.
& if memory serves, no one is specifically constitutionally empowered with determining the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court took upon itself that responsibility in 1803 (?) when it repealed the alien & sedetion acts. But the common idea was that jury nullification (where juries judge the facts & law of a case) coupled with the will of the people would keep congress on the right track. unfortunately it hasn't worked well what with apathy & all.
& show me how Bush is re-establishing a gun owner culture? last pres we had attempt that was Reagan, but an asshole named Hughes screwed that up royally.

In a nutshell Bush is promoting Project Exile, which Herr Klinton also promoted. That is a program that pushes for the enforcement of federal gun laws. Now, say it with me a couple o' hundred more times: federal firearms laws are constitutionally prohibited. That's not opinion, that's what the bloody second amendment says. It doesn't say unless congress votes otherwise, it doesn't say except for a few 'reasonable exceptions' (i.e. Bush & Ashcroft's policy) & it damn skippy don't say unless it's more politically or democratically feasible ( i.e. Bush supporting the AWB): it says the feds cannot make gun laws that prevent the people from having or using them. It doesn't say they can't make laws encouraging or evben requiring their use or possesion, but it does say the feds can't make gun control laws.
Hence, Bush is not defending the constitution. Hence, he broke the oath he took when he entered office. Hence, he perjured himself.
Another newsflash: most people who don't live in big cities or have names that rhyme with Schmennedy don't care for laws that make it harder for them to own or posses guns, & most don't care for laws that make it more expensive to own or possess guns.
I know, I know... Gore would've been worse. But ya see at least with Gore we'd be on guard. With Bush 90% of gunowners relaxed & figured old' Dubya was in the House & everything would be alright. Problem is Bush is not pro-gun beyond making sure people can hunt ducks. & the second amendment wasn't designed to ensure the continuance of hunting traditions. I don't 'spect you heard, but Bush, through Ashcroft, asked the Supreme Court not to hear two very important gun Rights cases last year. One was Emerson from Texas, the other was a gent who was challenging the NFA of '34 ( the one about machine guns) Emerson was a toss up, but the one about the NFA had some merit. After all, the first time the NFA was challenged a federal court threw it out as... guess why... unconstitutional. It took an FDR packed supreme court & no opposing counsel for the feds to convince them that the NFA was alright. That's who you think is encouraging the gun culture?

Tell ya what... go visit (that's the Gun Owners of America website) Then visit (that's Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) After browsing there for a while I'd encourage you to drop yuor NRA membership & join up with those two orgs, if you care about your Rights that is.
& give Dubya credit where credit is due, but don't neglect to criticize him when it's called for.

Posted by: Publicola on April 15, 2003 05:09 AM

It would certainly be interesting to see the 2nd amendment as judicially protected as the 1st.

Posted by: Ernest Brown on April 15, 2003 08:14 AM


There's too much vested interest in getting guns out of the hands of the public by both Republicans and Democrats for the judiciary to do anything about it.

Posted by: Ernest Brown on April 15, 2003 08:16 AM

But yelling fire in a crowded theater is a potentially dangerous action which only bears resemblance to a Right such as freedom of speech.

Anotherwords, I'm right, you KNOW I'm right, and you are left with a futile attempt to define away the proof. Here's a hint: Why attempt to obscure the issue with a blizzard of verbiage, unless you are trying to hide something? Orwell would have had a few things to say about that.

No rights are absolute, because the democratic process effectively decides what they are and how they apply. But once those changes are made, then the rights DO take precedence over all branches of the government, with its representitives sworn to defer to and defend them. And that is where you are getting confused... you are claiming that because they take priority, they can't be altered at all.

Bush swore to defend the consitution, but WHAT the constitution means does change. In short, he did not swear to uphold the 1787 understanding of the constitution, but rather the 2002 understanding. And unless you posit a mass conspiracy among government, a signifigant amount of our representatives do not regard every federal gun law to be unconstitutional. Therefore, Bush did not and has not violated his oath.

Unfortunately, that gun ownership is not currently regarded as an absolute right says a lot worse about Americans than it does about Bush.

You are arguing for the current understanding of the consitution to change back to a more strict version. Fine. But don't claim that your views are absolutely, undisputedly right and therefore Bush must be an oathbreaker. That's the mark of a fanatic.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 15, 2003 11:06 AM

Ryan Waxx,
I'm trying to point out the difference between a Right, which is absolute & an action which is not absolute even if it can be used as a vehicle for an absolute Right.
Pragmatically you can assert that governments define what a Right is & isn't. Legally it usually is the government that defines what a Right is & isn't. What I'm talking about though, is the basis of Rights. Our Constitution did not 'create' Rights, it acknowledged them. While it's true that Rights must be defined before they can be acknowledged & protected that does not mean it is solely up to the government or even the electorate to define Rights. Unfortunately there are too many people such as yourself who believe for one reason or another that the government is the last word on Rights. That might be acceptable if the government was filled with inherantly good & intelligent people, but such is not the case. It's up to every individual to figure out what Rights are & then attempt to make the government recognize those Rights. Yes, there's a lot of people who don't understand what a Right is or should be & consequently push to have actions that are not Rights recognized as such, but no system is perfect.
I don't KNOW you're right. In fact I think you're wrong. You can chalk it up to a difference of opinion if you like, but I feel you misunderstand certain things concerning Rights. But if you think I'm hiding behind symantics then pray tell what is a Right? Tell me what you think Rights are, how they are & how they should be defined, etc...

& last time I checked the constitution can & should only be changed by amendment. I hope, I sincerely hope you're not about to mount a defense of the 'living breathing constitution' theory.
The constitution has been interpreted by the courts & even by congress to sometimes mean more or less than it said. That isn't the way the constitution was designed. The most prominent example of this is the use of the commerce clause to justify damned near anything congress wants to do. For the most part the courts have backed them up. But congress has abused their discretion & as a result we have too much intrusion by them under the name of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was originally intended to keep states from charging tarrifs on imports from other states, thereby promoting free trade between the states. Tell me what does that have to do with mandating a state lower it's blood alcohol level maximum from .10 to .08?

I don't believe I am a fanatic. I just have standards & principles that don't usually budge to fit my needs or comforts. I believe that there are some things which are in fact absolute. Some things are black or white, either right or wrong. Not everything but some things. You seem to be espousing a moral relativism, which if that's the case, then I understand how you see someone who believes in absolutes as a fanatic. But before you say that my views are somethign Orwell would condemn, might I suggest reading Locke, Socrates, & Jeferson? I doubt Orwell would have found them scary & don't believe my arguments are much different than some of thiers, or perhaps my technique is a more accurate description of the similarities.

& yes, the bulk of the blame for our current state rests solely with the american people. Through apathy & ignorance we've let our Rights & our principles become terribly muddied. But that does not eradicate blame from those in office. If a president or a judge or a congressman or all of them sees Rights as something they can work around to further their agenda then they are wrong. if they see the constitution as something that is not set in stone & they conspire to twist & distort its meaning till it suits their purpose then they are guilty. Even if a signifigant majority of our representatives don't see fit to respect one or all of the Rights acknowledged in the Constitution that does not mean the Rights do not exist no more than it means they are correct in redefining &/or placing limits on those Rights.
We are supposed to live under the rule of law. There is a strong incentive for those in the government to ignore the rule of law: power. Claiming its the will of the people or in their best interests does not trump rule of law. & not having a majority in the senate who see abuse of the rule of law as a crime does not mean that it's justified, it simply means that the guilty will go unpunished.
Now take Clinton. Personally as long as it was consentual I don't care what he did with Ms. lewinsky, but the fact is he lied about it. Yet he was not found guilty of perjury. Does that mean he was innocent? nope, it means that politics took prominence over the rule of law. So just because Bush will not be impeached for perjury in regard to his treatment of the second amendment does not mean he's innocent. It just means that our congress cares too much about power to do anything about it, especially since they are guilty as well.
in closing lemme leave you with this: if congress decided that the first amendment meant that they could not establish a religion, but it was within their scope to prohibit them, would that make it constitutionally acceptable? even if the courts upheld it would that make ir a just action or would it be an infringement upon a Right?

Posted by: Publicola on April 15, 2003 05:04 PM

Unfortunately there are too many people such as yourself who believe for one reason or another that the government is the last word on Rights.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. We agree that rights are not repealable and above the reach of normal law, but I disagree that their implementaion is unchangable, and I also disagree that you have the one true path of constitutionality in your back pocket.

Its a conflict of interest to make government the arbiter of rights, and you are right to be suspicious. But that doesn't change the fact that government DOES decide how a right is implemented, and if our democracy makes a descision you don't like, then tough cookies.

The fact remains: If the public took the 2nd amendment more seriously, so would the politicans. Even a supreme court packed with pro-gun judges couldn't hold out forever against a public disrepectful of its own birthright.

And vice versa.

Posted by: Ryan Waxx on April 16, 2003 12:34 AM

Have no friends not equal to yourself.

Posted by: Brittingham Smith on May 3, 2004 02:11 PM
Post a comment