Sunday, June 30, 2013
Tennessee Rep. Joe Carr - Double-talking Flim-Flam Artist
For one thing, no one is talking about "removing the Second Amendment." But, even if they were, there's no reason to say its removal would jeopardize the others. This is an oft-repeated lie on the part of gun-rights fanatics.
Besides all that, he's got that insufferable arrogant way of referring to the Founding Fathers and instructing us about their intentions.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is there supposed to be a video here? Nothing is showing up. But let's remember, haven't you, Mikeb, said that you'd like to see the Second Amendment repealed? Bill Maher certainly has. So has Alex Wagner.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I've said it should be repealed. I remember saying it should be relegated to the scrapheap of anachronistic nonsense like the 3rd.
DeleteMikeb, you use weasel language to get out of any assertion that gets shown to be nonsense, but as we've said before, the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. To relegate it to the scrapheap, as you put it, requires repeal. The nation can't just decide to ignore the Constitution without doing serious harm to the rule of law.
DeleteI don't know if I've said it should be repealed.
DeleteIf any part of the Constitution is neither complied with or repealed, then the Constitution is meaningless. That, obviously, cannot be permitted.
I remember saying it should be relegated to the scrapheap of anachronistic nonsense like the 3rd.
Do you have some news I do not, about the government quartering troops in private citizens' homes without their consent, or are you going to have to admit that the Third Amendment still prohibits such abuses of federal power.
No need to repeal it so long as it is being ignored. Got it. Either way, you want The Right to be gone.
Delete"If any part of the Constitution is neither complied with or repealed, then the Constitution is meaningless. "
DeleteMade-up bullshit.
Made-up bullshit.
DeleteIt most certainly is not "[m]ade-up bullshit." A Constitution that is not binding is no Constitution at all. If the government can simply ignore parts of the supreme law of the land that it has now found to be inconvenient, there is no supreme law of the land, and no effective limits on the government's power.
So, it doesn't cheapen all of freedom if the government ignores the freedom of the press, calls the First Amendment an anachronism from a time before Terrorism, and only allows pre-vetted journalism so as to stop people like Snowden?
DeleteI remember saying it should be relegated to the scrapheap of anachronistic nonsense like the 3rd.
DeleteBad news for you and everyone else who wants the government to be able to quarter troops in citizens' homes without their consent--some jackbooted thugs are being sued on Third Amendment grounds (among others).
Some will call it a stretch, because the perpetrators are civilian cops, rather than military, but there's a counterargument:
Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called "assault weapons" (although in that context, they might call them "patrol rifles," or "personal defense weapons"), which we are told are "weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets," and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?
No link or video Mike
ReplyDeleteFixed it, thanks.
Delete"All the rights in the Bill of Rights are predicated on each other."
How's that for some made-up bullshit? I think this guy's been reading the gun blogs.
His statement there makes good sense. We've seen here time and again--most recently with the case of the boy in West Virginia--that when one right is sacrificed, all of the others are in danger.
DeleteBoth of them are also correct about how gun control freaks can't analyze data. In fact, the whole segment here was a refreshing voice of truth on a blog that usually wanders in error.
And if we just get rid of the 4th amendment so that we can be safe from the terrorists, that won't do anything to cheapen or weaken the other rights.
Delete"when one right is sacrificed, all of the others are in danger."
DeleteWe've seen no such thing, Greg. This is a bullshit talking point that you guys keep repeating. It makes no sense.
If we can ignore or wish away one right, what's to protect the others? That's the part that you never explain.
DeleteActually, Mike, what makes no sense is the apparent acceptance of the idea that liberty is not both precious and fragile. What makes no sense is the belief that if people will accept the erosion of a few liberties here and there they will somehow not accept the erosion of others but will instead remain free. It makes no sense to believe that freedom should be made secondary to social utility.
DeleteIf the government gets to ignore a right set forth in the Bill of Rights, without it being repealed by further Amendment, how does the Constitution remain the inviolate law of the land, still protecting the other rights in the Bill of Rights?
DeleteAre you a "nobody"?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteIn actuality, each of the amendments has an interest group that thinks that their's is the most important and that the world as we know it will end if it is restricted.
Here's a nifty idea. They're all terribly important, so leave them alone.
DeleteNo one is talking about that? So I just imagined all of the anti-gun people you've called fanatics and claimed that you've denounced and told to cool it?
ReplyDeleteThere may be extremists out there calling for the repeal of the 2A, but not in these discussions. Carr is making this shit up to argue against something that's not there.
DeleteBill Maher, Alex Wagner? Those are extremists? Yes, they are. But you keep using their comments and videos.
DeleteBut you said that NOBODY is calling for that, which you now admit was a false statement.
DeleteAnd now your excuse is that nobody is calling for it--in the relevant discussions. Convenient that--rewriting the parameters of the discussion.
So you say "relegate it to the scrap heap of nonsense" instead of repeal, but who relegates it? How should the process of relegating something to be ignored work? I'll tell you what, if 2/3rds of congress proposes this "relegation", and 3/4ths of the state legislators ratify said "relegation", then yes, let's "relegate it to the scrap heap of anchronistic nonsense". Fair enough?
ReplyDeleteWhat can happen, and will, I predict, is the interpretation of the 2A will change. This already whould have happened in recent years if the balance on the Supreme Court had been one single vote different.
ReplyDeleteEventually, that's how the 2A will be relegated to the scrapheap of insignificance. The "right" will be understood differently, as something pertaining to 18th century America and having nothing to do with modern society and modern weapons.
What can happen, and will, I predict, is the interpretation of the 2A will change. This already whould have happened in recent years . . .
ReplyDeleteIt already did happen, with Heller and McDonald. Those two decisions repaired some of the damage done in the Miller decision (a case decided, remember, without benefit of any defense counsel--and yet this decision, even with all its other problems, was regarded as the definitive Second Amendment jurisprudence for almost seventy years).
Finally, the Supreme Court remembered what "right of the people" means. Maybe some day they'll figure out shall not be infringed.
By the way, Mikeb, have you signed the petition yet?
ReplyDelete