How stupid does [she] really think we are?

Stop talking like some elitist economist!

;-)

Comment by KipEsquire — May 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

If I qualify as an elitist economist, then we are in real trouble :)

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

I don’t know how many times I read over the post and never noticed the “she” was missing. Thanks for pointing that out.

Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

Both Hillary and Osama Hussein Obama are reflexively anti-gun. As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!

Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — May 6, 2008 @ 10:25 am

Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that? You didn’t even bother putting his first name, Barack.

Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

Aimee,

Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that?

I’m going to assume that it’s for the same reason that she chose to identify herself as Jewish immediately after she did it…because she somehow thinks that being a member of a group that’s been in conflict with Muslims and black people makes it okay for her to make racist comments about Muslims and black people (despite the fact that Obama’s not a Muslim).

By all means, feel free to correct me if there’s another reason for it, Wendy.

Comment by UCrawford — May 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

UCrawford, that was the impression I got, I was just curious.

Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Even funnier the rifel on the envelope is a German made European high end model with the bolt on the left hand side. It also has double triggers which is only popular in Europe. Someone mirrored it because left handed style of that model was never made. Here is the dugg version along with comments.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Annie_Oakley_s_Gaffe_Clinton_mailer_shows_non_existent_gun

Comment by Norm Nelson — May 6, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

She learned to appreciate the necessity for self defense in Bosnia, I guess.

Comment by hydralisk — May 7, 2008 @ 12:25 am

Yeah, HRC must be stupid if she thinks she can fool Second Amendment voters into believing she would be a staunch defender of the right to bear arms if she were president. She really must assume we are all stupid or that willing to consider her as an alternative to the other statists running for office.

Comment by Andrew — May 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

I guess South Park had it right when they compares our electoral process to the choice between a giant duesh and a turd sandwich, dems want out guns and Mc Cain will give us 100 years in Iraq. I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?

Comment by Jay — May 8, 2008 @ 5:29 am

“I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?”

To which I say: tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. I no more trust a mob to tell me what I can and cannot do than I trust a couple of politicians. The beauty of the American Constitution, at least as envisioned by Madison, is that it is set up to protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority…this turns that principle on its head.

Comment by Mark — May 8, 2008 @ 6:35 am

wow.

The guy with the pink sunglasses almost sounds like he’s speaking directly against Hayek.

Comment by John V — May 7, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

This is equal parts absurd and disgusting. What kind of “free” country does things like this. They threw a woman in jail for trying to provide for her family and delivering what her customers want. Terrence Powell should go to jail for 45 days.

Comment by Ben — April 25, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

Ummmm…Doug, can we throw something other than bacon into the Pacific? Maybe tofu dogs or something? If so, I am all for it. (Plus I think we would be doing the world a much bigger favor by getting rid of that awful “meat substitute.”)

Comment by trumpetbob15 — April 25, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

Agorism in action,

underground food FTW!!!

Comment by Matthew Lee — April 26, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

I love my state.

/sarcasm

Honestly, though, the state has emaciated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendments. The 2nd is teetering and the 3rd is anachronistic. Why shouldn’t they be going after the 6th, too?

Comment by Thomas Blair — April 25, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

No doubt. It is not like we were actually using them or anything.

Comment by MikeF — April 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm

I don’t know how to email you Brad, so I’ll ask the question here. Why hasn’t there been any commentary on the amazing results from Paraguay’s election (aside from the fact that there hasn’t been as much controversy with that election)? The job that the Colorado Party has been doing, while not having results as tragic as those of the Mugabe regime, has not yielded anything but poverty and opportunity for corrupt politicians. I suppose my reasons for asking are somewhat selfish (I have family in Asuncion), but I think an update is in order given that you mentioned it earlier.

Comment by Justin Bowen — April 23, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

Justin,

I can’t necessarily speak for the other contributors, but I’ve just been too busy. I’m not up to speed on the situation in Paraguay. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned it (I did a quick search of the archives, and didn’t see anything). I saw one article about it in this week’s Economist, but without an appreciation for the history, I just skimmed it.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 23, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

Justin,

I’ve been following the situation in Paraguay. Basically, you are correct the Colorado Party are basically a bunch of corrupt kleoptocrats. However, I don’t think the winner, Fernando Lugo, who is either a social democrat in the mold of Lula in Brazil and Bachelet in Chile or a neo-Marxist loudmouth in the mold of Hugo Chavez; depending on what you read, will do much for the country because he wants to redistribute wealth instead of creating wealth.

Comment by Kevin — April 24, 2008 @ 10:09 am

Fox News had a nice article a few days ago about how South African dockworkers refused to allow a ship filled with Chinese arms bound for Zimbabwe to be unloaded because they weren’t going to be seen as supporting Mugabe’s side in whatever happens:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351733,00.html

The man’s ship be sinking.

Comment by UCrawford — April 24, 2008 @ 10:33 am

As always with so called gun control; it’s not about guns, it’s about control.

Comment by Chris — April 17, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

I agree that bans are not workable and I demand the right to carry a gun. I dont agree that lack of legal jobs is the reason somebody is commiting crimes. I came from government housing and 16yr parents and did not get involved. It is a choice and I can tell you there is alot going on and it seems like the thing to do but most of my classmates are dead or in jail. Not to mention alot of my family is too. Its a choice and its not an excuse.

Comment by LBest — April 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm

Your argument doesn’t exist without assumption #2. Most urban dwellers don’t think of bank robbery as ordinary gun violence. Most people don’t advocate prohibition. It would appear to me, that to you there would never be an illegal gun. No restrictions at all, then I can see why you would think any need to have any laws or government, so why is there an argument.
Go live in that society. My version of love it or leave it.

Comment by VRB — April 17, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Re: “Go live in that society [one with no restrictions on guns].”

That isn’t much of an argument. It seems “the love it or leave it” approach would be better taken up by those advocating gun control — there are a lot of existing countries with much more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and those countries must be better places to live, right?

I have never understood the fear that most gun control advocates (I don’t know if this includes you, VRB) have towards guns — guns are simple tools, easy to understand, and very safe when a few simple rules are followed. A car is more complex, requires just as much (or more) skill to operate safely, and is potentially just as lethal. Yet most of us are happy to cruise along at 65mph in the middle of a 4-lane freeway, with little worry about the risks involved, but the thought of a guy in the next lane with a gun underneath his seat is more worrisome than the same guy driving distracted while he talks on his cell phone.

All violence, gun related or not, is a problem that can only be solved by addressing much deeper issues in our society. And I find that I am not very interested in talking about those issues when the gun-grabbers start by portraying guns as some evil scourge upon society that only backwards-thinking barbarians would want.

There are some objective principals behind the “gun culture” in America, such as the desire to defend one’s life and property. These kinds of principals should not be abrogated simply because it might be an expedient way to mitigate the symptons of a larger problem.

Comment by Steve S. — April 18, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

I don’t fear guns.
“There are some objective principals behind the “gun culture” in America, such as the desire to defend one’s life and property.”
Steve S. does this preclude having regulation. I can never figure that out, how it would, unless guns were outlawed. To me have some restriction on how you would buy a gun is not the same as outlawing guns. If one could not buy a case of the same gun for personal use on that day, but purchased one gun, would that not be enough for you to defend your person or property.
OK, maybe two, because you have two hands.

Comment by VRB — April 18, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

Steve S.
I do believe that certain so called law abiding gun buyers dump guns in certain neighborhoods. Gun are too easily assessable to people who aren’t even able to get a drivers license. It is a temptation. It only takes one wrong choice for a person to be murdered or accidentally killed. I think if they had to actually go to the trouble to purchase one legally, that is if they were old enough, that sometime that choice would disappear.
Quite a few of these illegal guns are not purchased by previous felons. But that is a statistic that is floated by people who really don’t have a clue; those that do not know personally people that have been murdered or where murder is almost like a genetic disease in a family. They are not the ones that know the details. The victims don’t deserved to be viewed as “you reap what you sow.”

I didn’t mention “gun culture” but you imply there is another.

Comment by VRB — April 18, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

VRB,

The bottom line for all crime is human intent. For those intent on performing a crime, they *will* acquire the tools deemed necessary to perform the deed.

My supporting data for this are the 1940’s and ’50’s. Not just rifles, pistols and shotguns could be obtained via mail order with nothing more than sufficient funds, but surplus military arms were readily available for nothing more. Yet, violent crime as reported today was very rare.

I can very easily sympathize with your view of ‘reasonable’ regulation. But, there is a question. For anyone who can so easily violate the law of murder, just how effective will a law banning and/or controlling firearms will be?

The CDC gives us a hint.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Comment by Harry Rossman — April 19, 2008 @ 11:50 am

Regarding firearm regulation:

First of all, most people and organizations advocating for increased firearm regulation do not support the right of individual firearm ownership. A great way to determine real the intent of such people is to look at their position on DC v Parker/Heller – do they recognize an individual’s “right to self-defense”? Or do they believe that any regulation is justified as long it has the possibility (real or imagined) of reducing gun violence?

In fact, most gun-control proponents believe that gun ownership is an antiquated practice that has little place in modern society, and even if not their stated goal, they would generally admit that they would have no problem with the complete elimination of private firearm ownership in America.

This ambivalence (or outright hostility) towards the rights of gun owners is revealed in the proposed regulations. Take the popular one-gun-a-month laws: Why is the quota one-per-month instead of one-per-week? If the goal is to constrain gun-trafficking, where is the data that suggests one quota is better than the other? Or is it possible that the gun-grabbers, who consider all gun ownership to be a luxury, find it completely inconceivable that there is any legitimate reason to even own 12 guns at a time, let alone purchase that many in a year?

So, given all this, I tend to look rather poorly upon any new firearm regulation. This does not preclude regulation entirely, but when the Brady Campaign uses the phrase “sensible gun laws”, I know what they really mean is “whatever the hell they think they can get away with” in terms of restricting or eliminating my right to own firearms.

s.s.

Comment by Steve S. — April 19, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

VRB,

I do believe that certain so called law abiding gun buyers dump guns in certain neighborhoods.

What are you suggesting with this statement. Who do you suspect is ‘dumping’ guns in these neighborhoods?

What, do they drive by and toss them out the window? Do they go out to the ‘burbs and buy expensive guns, then resell them in the bad neighborhoods at a loss? Who’s “dumping”?

Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 19, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

Brad,
If you lived where I have lived, you would know the answer. That scenario is hilarious.

Steve S.
I am not most people or a lawyer. I do think there are more people like me than the ones you mention. Many like me that have practically had murder on there door step.

To Harry Rossman, If we wait for that perfect society, it would have evolved upon too many bodies for my taste. One other thing, a response like yours never spells out just what is your responsibility is. Is it that those people should do something. Do what? What I believe to be done take hands on and not one hand. The individual one at a time is the one that produces change, not the one who pontificate about his personal responsibility. It is aways someone else’s fault and not yours. That’s why I said love it or leave it. America can not exist without effort.

Comment by VRB — April 19, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

Brad,
It just popped in my head what you were saying. I still say that the scenario isn’t what I had in mind; but when I used the word “dump”, I forgot that this word acquired an additional meaning in the last fifty years. I was not using it exactly the same way you were.

Comment by VRB — April 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

VRB, For the benefit of our readers who haven’t lived “where you lived”, wherever that may be, what do you mean?

As I see it, there are three scenarios:

1) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and smuggles them into the inner city and sells them at a profit.

2) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and smuggles them into the inner city and sells them at a loss.

3) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and trows them away in the inner city.

In scenario 1), the man is a smuggler, like Joe Kennedy or John Hancock and is a boon to society.

In scenario 2), the man is a charitable smuggler, kind of like a mixture of Joe Kennedy and his gradnson of that same name.

In scenario 3), the man is a litterer, and possibly crazy.

And yes, I don’t believe any weapon should be illegal, as I discuss in my first post at the Liberty Papers.

Comment by tarran — April 21, 2008 @ 8:03 am

To Harry Rossman, If we wait for that perfect society

What perfect society?? My points are the limits of law and personal responsibility to yourself, family and community.

Food for thought question: Assume for the sake of argument that you are an armed police officer in uniform. You walk around a corner straight into a holdup. While the crimininals are busy taking your possessions, how much law is at that exact place and time????

One other thing, a response like yours never spells out just what is your responsibility is.

I do not entirely see what you mean by this. However, the basis of my actions are civics and government 101. All of us must begin with definitions and structures we can initially agree with: if not how to implement them.

it would have evolved upon too many bodies for my taste

Not that I am advocating anything at this point in history, but the question comes to mind: would the American Revolution have been “…too many bodies…”??

Comment by Harry Rossman — April 21, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

I wasn’t the least bit sorry to see him go. Fucking neo-confederate slimeball who screwed over his constituents when he extorted money for himself, personally, from the insurance companies after Katrina by forcing them to pay for coverages that the insurance holders didn’t have (to cover his own underinsured house…which he’d also gotten federal funds to pay for). At least one company (I believe it was All-State) refused to do coverages in Mississippi as a result of Lott’s actions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aYjjIGyPeitA

http://unitedpolicyholders.org/articles/article_AllstateCuts.html

Comment by UCrawford — April 12, 2008 @ 9:21 am

Freedom of Speech might be an American value, but Americans don’t particularly value the practice in this era. Americans might engage in the practice unthinkingly when neccessary, however if asked to evaluate its worth or its necessity as part of the American society, most citizens would fail to connect the practice with the vitality of the Constitutional republic. furthermore, if asked, many citizens would agree that Freedom of Speech needs to be curtailed or regulated in certain cases.

so bottom line, Americans’ declining and oblivious attitudes towards Freedom of Speech is only one aspect of why *our citizens are in fact becoming socialists through and through.* and it’s no wonder that foreigners don’t value our concepts. all they have to do is regard our own attitudes towards the concepts.

Comment by oilnwater — April 11, 2008 @ 8:43 am

So has anyone else noticed that the phrase “Human Rights Commission” is now almost exactly the same thing as “Ministry of Love” or “Ministry of Truth.” And not just in Canada but also here in the US.
Oddly, I always thought human rights were something you had vis a vis the state rather than a right to not be offended by someone you’ve never met.

Comment by Mark — April 11, 2008 @ 9:28 am

[…] (h/t The Liberty Papers) […]

Pingback by Which exactly are they protecting? | It looks obvious — April 11, 2008 @ 9:46 am

[…] (source: Jonathan Kay: “A disaster for Canada’s Human Rights Commission”) (hat tip: The Liberty Papers) […]

Pingback by Free speech is too damn American « Blunt Object — April 11, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

I knew that I saw this fear predicted somewhere and I’ve found it. Two-hundred and twenty years ago last year, John Adams predicted what would happen if we had too much democracy. It is literally amazing how correct he was: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15.html

Comment by Justin Bowen — April 10, 2008 @ 10:05 am

It is quite obvious that BO & MO are closet Marxists. Look at the teachings of their church, and the not-so-subdued animosity of MO. What do we need here, a visit from “Obvious Man?”

Comment by Joe Lennar — April 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

God Bless the Obama’s they are what this country needs….OBAMA 08

Comment by lovinBO&MO — April 10, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

And by God I will use any means nessesary to get it. And for my efforts, I shall recieve a piece, and all will be well.

Comment by anonomous — April 10, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Justin, I read your link, and the thought that comes to my mind is Vizzini in the Princess Bride, complaining that “you are trying to steal what I have rightfully stolen.”

Comment by MikeF — April 10, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

MikeF
[quote]Justin, I read your link, and the thought that comes to my mind is Vizzini in the Princess Bride, complaining that “you are trying to steal what I have rightfully stolen.”[/quote]

That could be used to support any number of arguments by different people. Perhaps I will know the answer to this later on, but could you humor me in the mean time and let me know which argument you’re using this quote to support?

Comment by Justin Bowen — April 11, 2008 @ 2:51 am

What code do you use for quotations, italics, and so on?

Comment by Justin Bowen — April 11, 2008 @ 11:22 am

I don’t believe Ziefman for one second when he says he fired Rodham. She worked for John Doar, who was Special Counsel to the Judiciary Committee for the impeachment investigation. Zeifman doesn’t even describe his goddamned job correctly: he was Chief Counsel to the Committee. Now, I could be wrong about whether Ziefman fired her, but nothing in any history that I have validates that, and he’d have to prove it to me.

Here’s a different point: we can rail about the “MSM” and something like this all day long, but here is a fact: David Brock described the four-corners of this story back in 1996, in his book “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham”. The *right* slagged him all they could when the book appeared, and they bear at least that much blame for watching this sink down the memory-hole.

To hell with all of them.

Comment by Billy Beck — April 3, 2008 @ 5:13 am

The science fiction novel,”LEDNORF’S DILEMMA,” details, perfectly, the cult mentality of the liberal Democrat leadership. Hillary is obsessed with power and ambition. And she is extremely angry. It is the dreadful combination put forth in that novel. It is indeed this mentality that allowed a liberal new-age church to collaborate with San Francisco’s corrupt leaders and thereby place the monstrous Jim Jones to rise in the California power structure. No book better shows the dark nature of the liberal agenda in our nation. It is rich in wisdom, and loaded with logic. As Dr. Charles McBrian (Masters and PhD, Harvard)says, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA is a masterpiece.

Comment by Clyde — April 5, 2008 @ 9:57 pm

The science fiction novel,”LEDNORF’S DILEMMA,” perfectly details the cult mentality of liberal Democrat leadership. Hillary is obsessed with power and ambition. And she is extremely angry. It is the dreadful combination put forth in that novel. It is indeed this mentality that allowed a liberal new-age church to collaborate with San Francisco’s corrupt leaders and then allow the montstrous Jim Jones to rise in the California power structure. No book better shows the dark nature of the liberal agenda in our nation. Rich in wisdom, and loaded with logic, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA is, as Dr. Charles McBrian (M.A. and PhD, Harvard) says, “a masterpiece.”

Comment by Clyde — April 5, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

The Federal Government is taking more money in taxes from those guys than their profits:

If size of their profits are immoral and hurtful, what does that make the even larger sums of money that they send to the U.S. Treasury?

Comment by tarran — April 1, 2008 @ 12:05 pm

They talk about the record profits for these companies, but isn’t the government also spending and taxing at record rates as well in absoulte terms. In fact, I would assume that they took in record taxes from these companies as well.

If they got the gov’t more out of the way in the energy business maybe some other companies could get started and compete against them, which would reduce prices.

Comment by TerryP — April 1, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

Good point TerryP, its time we bought government before a committee and got them to give back some of their huge revenues as tax cuts, and stopped spending ever increasing amounts of money.

I’m sorry, that was very dishonest of me to compare the oil companies with government.

Its quite clear to me that at least one of them didn’t engage in theft and coercion to earn its revenues.

Comment by Jono — April 1, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

Doesn’t McDonald’s make something like a 25% profit? I think we need to bring them before Congress, too. How dare they! They are TOTALLY gouging me on Happy Meal prices, and those toys are just total crap most of the time.

Drag them in! Make them DO something!!!!

Comment by Christine the Soccer Mom — April 1, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

[…] rule of thumb for me: when the Liberty Papers and Freedom Democrats both point to something and groan at the same time, it’s probably worth […]

Pingback by The Crossed Pond » Education as National Security — March 27, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

Of course I haven’t watched the Olympics since ‘92 (so I could see the first Dream Team play)…so this boycott will have absolutely zero effect on my life. I’m in. :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 26, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

What the devil are the Olympics? A pair of Greek wrestlers? Get off my lawn!

Comment by Nitroadict — March 26, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

No government has the right to tell athletes they can’t go to China to compete.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — March 26, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

Joshua,

No government has the right to tell athletes they can’t go to China to compete.

Of course by anarchist rationale no government is required to sponsor or lend their name to a team of athletes so they can go compete either :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 26, 2008 @ 8:08 pm

Joshua,

The athletes can do whatever they want as far as I am concerned. But don’t let them pretend they are representing the United States in a land of dictators.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 27, 2008 @ 5:14 am

I never watched it. It’s boring. I hope China makes money so they can use it to help prop up our dollar some more!

Comment by uhm — March 30, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

After reading 91 pages of oral argument I have to conclude that your synopsis of the proceedings seems to be spot on. Nice work in summarizing it for everyone. I agree with your conclusion and speculation, however, I question whether or not the decision yet to be made will have any real effect in “overturning” laws in the states mentioned. We’ll see. I sincerely hope so.

Comment by Jim Braaten — March 18, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

I think your analysis is excellent. I listened to the debate while reading the transcript and came to a similar conclusion. In my mission to use original rock to try and inspire people to spend the few minutes it takes to read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (at least), I have come across hundreds of speeches, writings, and letters from the Founding Fathers passionately supporting not only an individual right to own weapons of the same type used by contemporary militaries, but also the right and duty of an armed citizenry to overthrow tyrannical government when it becomes necessary. (And absolutely none that are counter to this view) This point is the heart and soul of the Declaration of Independence. What stunned me from today’s hearings was that not once did ANYONE reference the Declaration of Independence… the cornerstone of our Republic! If the Second Amendment is not understood in the context of being a final check and balance on government, then it is being misinterpreted.

Matt Fitzgibbons

Comment by Matt Fitzgibbons — March 18, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

Chris, I think your analysis is right on point. I was frustrated at Gura’s lack of preparedness & focus regarding what constitutes reasonable regulation, and for having allowed himself to be cornered by Stevens & especially Breyer. (I covered my face when Scalia actually appeared to try to help him answer Breyer’s question as to whether, given the murder rate, is a total handgun ban unreasonable (page 53 of the transcript) )

I agree with Matt, too, in that Gura never brought up the Declaration or the panoply of writings by the Founders — the Federalist Papers, the letters back & forth among the Founders, and even to spouses, etc.

I want to think that Ginsburg, Breyer & Stevens would not have been swayed by even the best arguments on reasonable regulation; that said, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that Gura’s general disorganization and mishandling of those questions won’t negatively affect the decision.

I was secretly hoping that Gura would get the flu & Stephen Halbrook would magically step in & argue the case. Ah, well.

Comment by Jason Owsley — March 19, 2008 @ 3:58 am

“Preventing libel, is a reasonable restriction on the first amendment, and is a compelling interest of the state.”

Which regulation ‘prevents’ libel (or slander)?

Are you saying there is some ‘fact-checking government required’ software somewhere on this system that scrutinized your article prior to it being posted? Libel laws are ‘reactive’ - they do not literally ‘prevent’ the crime.

Your right to yell “fire!” is only limited (illegal) *after* you’ve raised the alarm and when no fire existed. Your right of Free Speech is not ‘regulated’ based on your ‘potential’ to yell “fire!”.

Our ‘murder’ and ‘assault’ laws, can only be enforced *after* such has been attempted or accomplished. To suggest “reasonable restriction” on the Second Amendment means we should also consider “reasonable restriction” on your ability to speak (or write).

How about we all wear government devices that monitor our brainwaves to insure we never utter a slander or write a libel? Perhaps require a permit be obtained before being allowed to speak in public? Perhaps all pens and keyboards should require registration?

Hey, you wanted to equate First and Second Amendment rights. Just as your fear that one may shout “fire!” inappropriately is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to control our freedom of speech, your *fear* of what one may do with an arm is not is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to apply restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms.

Comment by Bruce — March 19, 2008 @ 7:21 am

Good point Bruce.

Comment by TerryP — March 19, 2008 @ 7:33 am

Gentlemen–

Hello. I haven’t had time to read the whole transcript, but caught bits and piece of the arguments.

Besides “reasonable regulation” unpreparedness, Gura also was unable to respond to the observation that references to the use of arms for self-defense are sparse in discussions contemporary to the drafting of the BOR. He should have stated that self-preservation was an obvious right (the Justices have heard perhaps of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), and who goes to pains to mention the obvious?

As it turns out, a couple centuries later, not stating the obvious was an error: some members of the Court have abandoned the idea of self-evident, natural (Creator-endowed), inalienable (does anyone even understand that word today?) rights; instead they profess that any right that isn’t nailed down by the Constitution and Amendments doesn’t exist (despite the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly saying that uninnumerated rights exist).

I would agree that “reasonable regulation” applies to all rights. Prior restraint, however, is never reasonable.

Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 8:13 am

Bruce,

The law on libel and slander, most of which is case law, has been part of Enlish and American common law since before the Colonial period.

It’s fairly obvious that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to overturn those laws.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:23 am

Chris,

A good analysis all around. For myself, I thought that Gura did a reasonably good job considering it was, as I understand it, his first oral argument before the Court. If he does come away from this with a win, he will have beat the Solicitor General of the US and a man who was arguing cases before the Supreme Court before Gura was even born.

I think what we’ll see, like you said, is a fairly strong holding on the individual rights basis of the 2nd Amendment, possibly including a complete reversal of Miller.

Beyond that, it’s going to take some time for the Court to work out a standard.

And we haven’t even gotten to the issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and it’s applicablity to state and local laws. Right now, Heller will have no impact on state and local laws no matter how it’s decided.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:25 am

Incorporation would simply be a matter of time. It would be obnoxious to law and common sense to have the Court recognize a fundamental right the US must respect, and then say that the member states of the US need not recognize it.

What will differ with each state is the extent to which they impose “reasonable” regulation. Kopel has written that the Court in Miller seemed to use the test that IF an arm would be useful to a militia, then that arm is protected. And that test would invalidate many portions of the NFA and GCA, so we can assume the Court will seek to develop a new test–what arms may be reasonably banned is at the heart of this case.

It would have been nice if Gura had suggested such a test, like: “If civilian law enforcement finds it useful, then it is protected.” Not only would such a test leave in place regulations on the “scarier” stuff (bazookas and hand-grenades), it succinctly restates the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment: that the Gov’t not be allowed a monopoly on the use (and means) of force.

Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 10:28 am

“Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
– Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006

The Constitution was written to restrain the power of government and put the power into the hands of the people. Anything that transfers power in the opposite direction is contrary to the what our founding fathers believed.

Comment by John D. — March 19, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

After reading the transcript, I think you give an excellent account of how it turned out.

It was a big relief to see most of the justices so visibly pro an individual stance, but I do have concerns about where those ‘reasonable limitations’ rest. I am guessing most of the argument will rest on where the limits are.

Providing we truly get a ‘reasonable’ limit, I’d be very happy as would others I’m sure.

Comment by Scott — March 19, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

Chris,

Great post.

I did find this particular passage very funny, though:

He was much weaker on his other contention however that reasonable restriction and a broad standard of review were necessary to protect the public interest in regulating firearms; specifically citing machine guns and “plastic guns designed to get through metal detectors” (a fantasy commonly used by gun banners to scare people into agreeing to bans in principle).

When the TSA proves that they can stop METAL guns from getting through their screening points, maybe they can start worrying about the plastic ones!

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm