Jay Bookman

By hillbilly ragger

June 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

It’s not activist unelected judgin’ when we do it!

love & kisses, Jay’s Wingnut Fans

By Truth

June 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jay, I live out in the country. Everytime I go to Atlanta I make sure I have got my handgun under my seat. I have it there to protect myself from what people like you have let Atlanta become. Should I not have this right?

By James

June 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

No - you got it wrong Mr. Bookman. This was a clear and simple “orginal intent” ruling. If the American people think after 200 years we have outgrown the Second Amendment, then there is a mechanism to change it called a “Constitutional Amendment”. To have ruled otherwise would have cheapened and even prostituted a written contract between the American people and their government. The Second Amendment was actually written as a fourth check and balance against tyranical government (self defense, hunting, etc. were assumed) should it ever come to that. What that means is that if someday modern firearms become obsolete becuase the police and military have gone to “rayguns” - then I get to have my RAYGUN! It’s just that simple.

By the way: Due to today’s common sense, original intent ruling on the Second Amendment, “Old Glory” will shine a little brighter in my front yard this July 4th !

By JAY BOOKMAN

June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

So James, if the government has rayguns, you should have rayguns?

By that logic, since government has tanks and fighters and nuclear bombs, you too should have tanks and fighters and nuclear bombs. It’s just that simple, as you say.

By GodHatesTrash

June 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

Here we go again - neo-confederate morons bringing up Ronnie Rayguns!

By Eric

June 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, made it clear that a lot of government regulations concerning firearms are constitutional.

Not only the question of machine guns, but also of time and place. May someone keep a fire arm only in their home or on their person in public? In a grocery store but not on a bus? In their car, but not on an employer’s property? How does one keep/put away a gun during the course of the day? This is all suddenly very confusing and frightening. Any help on this, Jay?

By markm5

June 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

The opinion rendered by the Supreme Court is a very clear statement of the protection of the God given rights of people to defend themselves. It should also serve as a clear statement to the various states that you need to figure out how to control criminals, not guns.

By James

June 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

What it means is that the 2nd Amendment was put in there as a check and balance against tyrannical government (they even feared a standing army and ours was disbanded for awhile after the Revolution). When flintlocks went out of vogue, our government could have said no to civilians having revolvers or other modern weapons. That would have been wrong. Whatever we progress to (rayguns, killer tasers, etc.) in the future should also be available to civilians. Here’s why …..

1) There have always been reasonable regulations about civilians having machine guns, tanks, bombs, etc. That would also apply to any futuristic types of arms as long as civilians can have the basic type.

2) Everyone always says that an armed populace could never overthrow a tyrannical government and defeat our modern military. What you must take into consideration is that if America ever got that bad (and we are a long way from that but it’s always possible) then a good third to half of the military would be just as unhappy with the government as the civilian populace. Combine those two elements and you have a force capable of defeating the portion of the military that might stay loyal to that repressive government.

Our founding fathers were very wise when it came to realizing the desire of some people to want to dominate others. We would also be wise to use what they gave us to prevent that.

James USMC Vietnam Veteran U.S. Secret Service (supervisor retired)

By Winslo

June 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

Free men don’t ask permission to defend themselves.

By Abomi Nation

June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Protest and protesters are now secluded and highly regulated. Yet James thinks that we are going to be able to gather our rayguns so we can overthrow our tyrannical government??

By ByteMan

June 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

@Abomi: it’s only “tyrannical” when Democrats are in charge, you know.

By GodHatesTrash

June 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Abomi, the typical Georgian wants to die shooting up a mall, or a post office, or the cops that come to get him to keep him from pistol-whipping his wife and raping his kids. They think holding a gun on someone is an act of courage, all they are looking for is the show.

By James

June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

To Abomi Nation:

First - read what I said - “we are a long way from that but it’s always possible.”

Second - let’s debate the points not frivolity.

Third - I gave mine - what are your credentials bring to the table.

By Bud Wiser

June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Yes Jay, you got it right, only this time it is your liberal canteen that is getting pi*d in, isn’t it? Kinda feels weird, doesn’t it, when one of the lefts favorite ways to bypass the legislative process gets turned against them? Perhaps (although I doubt it) it will make you rethink your position, and a liberals position in general, about tap dancing around Congress and going the activist judge route?

The socialist El Supremo judge himself, Justice Stephen Breyer, said “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” in his dissenting vote. I only presume, because of his lifetime appointment to the court by Bill Clinton in 1994, that his keen awareness of history and life back in the 18th century clued him alone to existence of “crime ridden urban areas” all over America. Just another Stanford/Oxford/Harvard educated left wing socialist pimp that lives in his non-existent fairy tale land, and does not possess the real-life intelligence or intellect to be able to correlate the world and society and history of 250 years ago, to that which exists today. The Framers of the Constitution also did not deal explicitly with the presence of illegal drugs (in the preponderance of existence that they are today), prostitution, gambling, abortion, the forceful taking by the government of private income through taxes, and, let us not forget the rights of women and blacks to vote. But we have plenty of lawyers and judges these days who are more than willing to see that their opinions on such are forced down the throats of the American people, based upon their own personal whims or political agenda.

Seeing as how this is the first and only interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in our country’s history, in itself that should tell even the most illiterate of Democrats (if you can make them understand what you are saying without them screaming “no more blood for oil” back in your face) that this particular portion of the Constitution was written pretty much air-tight, until some local politico or activist judge decided he/she would like to see it changed to conform to his/her will, thus provoking the suit that eventually put it at their door.

Sooooooooo, get over it gun-haters. Put our kids’ bb guns up for sale on ebay. Eat your free-range chicken and tofu. Don’t go bird-hunting with Dick Cheney with your cameras. Maybe you can do like Rosie O’Donnell and hire your own armed protection while you protest the existence of weapons at the same time. Be a moron. Be a hypocrite. Point your finger at the first burglar in your home who is pointing his gun at you and/or your family, and say something really effective like “I wouldn’t do that if I were you…or…You’re gonna be in big trouble if you shoot that thing in my house.” Yeah, that’s it, that ought to work.

See you at the gun show, tool.

By Fred

June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Jay, Machine guns (along with other Class 3 weapons) are covered under the National Firearms Act which allows an individual to own one IF they get permission from the ATF, pass an extensive background check,fully register the weapon and pay taxes on it. Do you think the ATF is going to give Joe Six Pack permission to own a machine gun?

By CJ

June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

What about RPG’s? Anti-aircraft missiles? ICBM’s? I have an individual right to bear arms, don’t I? Actually, not until today.

The so-called strict-constructionists (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy) proved, yet again, that they’re really the activist judges on the court. The Second Amendment never granted an individual right to bear arms…but these clowns did.

By James

June 26, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

P.S.

1) All of these 5-4 decisions mean that Presidential elections have become Supreme Court elections - something our founding fathers never intended and that an “original intent” application vs. “prostitution” of the written “contract” between the American people and their government would prevent.

2) Here’s the best line from today’s opinion :

“……….. what is not debatable is that is is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Translation: This is an “original intent” vs. “activist court” ruling. If you want to change the Constitution then amend it but don’t cheapen or prostitute it.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

June 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

When it comes right down to it only you are responsible for your self-preservation. I think the Framers understood that.

By Bud Wiser

June 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

So CJ, what part of the Second Amendment that reads… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” do you not understand? See, people? By addressing the Supreme Court justices as “clowns”, it becomes immediately apparent which side of the issue this person is on, and it isn’t the side that most of America supports. His not-so-intelligent response (FACT, not my opinion), resorting to insult instead of retort bears the mark of the liberal scorned. Libs just cannot reason out intelligent response; they simply believe that the way they believe is the way everyone should believe; and, if you do not comply, they shall find some activist judge to go around the law and interpret it ‘their’ way.

Oh, wait a minute….didn’t that just happen here, except it did not go in CJ’s favor? Tsk, tsk. I guess now all we’ll hear from the left is that we have to elect Obama now, so he can appoint some of our judges to the high court. In fact, I’ve got a dollar that somewhere on one of the “big 3” networks tonight, there will be either an announcer, or a politician being interviewed, crying that poor, sad lament. Any takers?

By James

June 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

How true Bud Wiser: ……. as I just said :

All of these 5-4 decisions mean that Presidential elections have become Supreme Court elections - something our founding fathers never intended and that an “original intent” application vs. “prostitution” of the written “contract” between the American people and their government would prevent.

By Jonathan

June 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Machine guns can - today - be legally owned and transferred with a background check and ATF stamp. What was banned by the NFA was the ability to own or transfer any new machine guns. This caused the price of old, grandfathered machine guns to skyrocket so that only the rich (and criminals) could own them. To make matters worse, the amendment to the NFA was rammed through congress with a voice vote in the middle of the night, which is a travesty of the constitution in and of itself.

Being that machine guns are already legal, I find it to be unconstitutional to discriminate between “new” and “old” machine guns. In fact, the current laws on the books seem to favor degrading equipment that is more likely to malfunction, creating a more dangerous situation than if citizens were permitted to buy newer equipment instead. It has also been long held unconstitutional by taxing something out of existence, which is essentially what the government managed to do here for most non-criminals.

Reasonable regulations are already in place to cover the ownership of machine guns - a background check and transfer fee by the ATF. It makes no sense to ban new equipment in favor of old equipment, and so yes, I would say that this law needs to be challenged. I’d like to see the voice vote outlawed in congress as well, which would have prevented many other brain-dead bills from passing.

There are even more subtle issues here that need challenging, and it’s about time they were… One thing that makes less sense than the NFS “new” machine gun ban is the “assault weapons bans” in various states. These don’t even address machine guns, but semi-automatic firearms such as rifles and certain handguns - firearms that shoot the same bullets that any other gun does. In fact, these laws don’t even attempt to ban certain firearms, they only ban certain features on certain firearms, such as a bayonette lug and flash supressor. When was the last time you ever heard of a drive-by bayonetting? And as far as flash, if silencers are legal (which they are), and why on earth would a flash supressor (which doesn’t silence noise) be illegal? Such firearms are just as deadly (or effective, depending on how you look at it) with or without the “banned” features, which people like McCarthy (who drafted the bill) can’t even identify.

It’s time every state had a good review of their gun control laws and a healthy bowel movement to clean out the ones that have long been believed to be unconstitutional. An armed society is a safer society.

By CJ

June 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

“*So CJ, what part of the Second Amendment that reads… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ do you not understand? *”

So Bud Wiser, what part of the Second Amendment that reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” do you not understand (funny how you guys never quote the entire Amendment)?

For the record, I don’t base my opinions on “what most of America supports”. There’s a word for that—groupthink (you might Google it if you ever get your head out of your a$$).

By JAY BOOKMAN

June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

To Fred:

It is the argument of the NRA and others, including James, that no one needs government permission to own guns. Their logic - and it makes sense from their point of view - is that a government that can give you permission to own a gun can also deny you permission to own a gun.

In other words, the National Firearms Act would be unconstitutional, since it denies ownership of machine guns to the vast majority of US citizens, allowing it only to a relative handful of the government-approved elite.

By Abomi Nation

June 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

I completely agree with James and Bud Wiser, the current court is a disgrace.

How do we get the type of activist judges you two want? After all, 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans. How do we guarantee that the “right” ones get appointed.

Should we just elect Democrats?

After all California, the state that gave us Ronald Reagan, also gave them gay marriage. 6 of 7 were appointed by Republicans. California needs to stop electing all them Republican Governors.

How do we get the “right” judges appointed? You know, the kind you two want. How does that work?

By GodHatesTrash

June 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

With Jay’s blog today as proof, we see that the vast majority of gun owners are too emotionally ill and mentally disabled to safely own and handle firearms…

Did the Founders envision a nation of trigger-happy sociopath idiots?

By Bud Wiser

June 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Well, well, Mr CJ goes south with the mouth again. See, people?? A liberal cannot reason out a single rational thought without substituting gutter talk for rational talk. For the record, CJ, you are the one that brought up the subject of an individual’s right to bears arms. The preface about the militia I thought even a third grade intellect like you could understand, but obviously I was in error, so I apologize. If I even thought for a nanosecond that you could debate anything intellectually, then I apologize for that, too. Now CJ, be sure to shut the computer off before daddy gets home, or you’ll be in the s* for sure.

By Tyler Kent

June 26, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

You wrote, “How would you craft a legal opinion based in the Constitution that allows one form of weapon to be banned while protecting another? The only way to do that would be to “legislate from the bench” by basing the decision on the relative risk posed by various classes of arms. But that kind of argument has no basis in the Constitution.”

Kind of like the abortion decision, eh?

By JAY BOOKMAN

June 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

That was my point too, Mr. Kent.

By James

June 26, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman:

I think there are a lot of gun laws still on the books that should not hold Constitutional muster. However, while we’re on the subject of machine guns let me just put it this way (and I speak from experience).

Let’s say someone is breaking into my home and I recognize him from the wanted poster as someone who has already killed several families - and I see he is armed.

On a table nearby I have a choice (but only one choice) to pick up a:

1) M-16 (fully automatic) 2) M-16 (semi-automatic only) 3) 12 guage shotgun (00 Buck)

In which order would I choose?

3) 12-Guage: Hard to miss and that pump action makes most idiots leave. 2) M-16 (semi-auto only): Easier to control, double taps, don’t waste ammo, don’t overshoot the target, etc. 1) Last choice is the fully automatic M-16 for reasons just explained above.

In other words, this automatic weapons thing is so much hyperbole. The semi-auto is more deadly. I served 12 months in the infantry in Nam and my semi-auto M-16 was just fine (plus my Remington 700 bolt action Redfield Scoped sniper-rife……. :o)

By Bud Wiser

June 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

To Abomi Nation, yes, the court is a disgrace. If anyone were to ask my preference on how to get the “right” judges appointed, and since you did, here goes: I would like all justices to be deeply and thoroughly grounded in constitutional law……not their interpretation of the law, but the interpretation of the intent of the law as written by the Framers.

Since that is pretty much impossible, I’ll settle for Republican appointees. So, I guess “how it works” (for you) then is to vote Republican.

Any more questions? I have three. Do you know CJ? Are you two related? Did you go to Harvard Business School, or law school, together?

By GodHatesTrash

June 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

The right to “bears arms”?

Seems like someone is even dumber than a third-grader. Or a product of Georgia schools…

By james

June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

To CJ:

If you will take the time to read the ruling the phrase is explained. “A well regulated militia” is only ONE reason for allowing INDIVIDUALS to be armed - not “THE” reason. I guess you know (I hope so) that every one of the other nine amendments apply to INDIDVIDUALS or is free speech “collective” ??

By Frnak Johnson

June 26, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

If guns cause crime, spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.

By CJ

June 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

Bud Wiser: “The preface about the militia I thought even a third grade intellect like you could understand”

The subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word “fraud,” on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime, the NRA has misled the American people…

The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon…

There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms.

By the way, these aren’t my words. They’re the words (verbatim) of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—apparently, a third grade drop out.

By Fred

June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Jay,

The point of my comment was not what others may or may not believe it was that you made the following statement: “For example, if banning handguns is unconstitutional, is it also unconstitutional to ban machine guns and other fully automatic weapons, as current law does?”
You were incorrect in this and in the interest of accuracy I thought you should know and acknowledge it.

By Bud Wiser

June 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Down in the trailer park tonight we’re havin’ a ‘kegger’ to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision on the Second Amendment.. Everbody is bringing their guns too, and we’ll be shootin empty beer bottles off the back fence bordering Billy Bob’s goat farm. But don’t worry, he gets the goats in the barn over the hill by 7 so nobody’ll get hurt.

My girlfriend cashed her welfare check last Friday and bought me some more ammo for my .38, .45, and .357. We’ll be bringin down the barn for sure! She’s a good shot with all three, but the cigarette smoke gets in her eyes sometimes when she’s shooting, and that 8 month baby belly aint helping matters neither. Oh well, as long as she don’t get too drunk she’ll probably win the shootin contest.

My neighbor’s 13 year old daughter will have her (music) box boomin with good old American made country music, and she’ll be dancin too! Ya’ll come on down!!

By Abomi Nation

June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Can you imagine putting your faith into John McCain, Bud Wiser? This guy will say anything to get elected.

We’re more likely to get a Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy type than a Scalia with McCain. Heck you could end up with a Bush Sr appointed Justice Souter type!

In fact don’t be surprised to see McCain appoint another John Paul Stevens, like Ford did.

Chances are Bud, you’re not getting the type of “activist” judge you want with flip flop McCain. He’ll go back to old John the moment he takes the oath. A person just doesn’t change as much as good ol’ John has. Especially someone that old.

Shucks!

By CJ

June 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

james,

I appreciate your comment. I’ll read the decision, but I’ve heard the position you referred to before (every one of the other nine amendments apply to individuals). Actually, this argument is less rational and more rationalization. The language of the Second Amendment stands as written (“original intent” and all that).

By Observer

June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting that people continually speak of the importance of the coming election with respect to nominations to the Supreme Court. Everyone seems to think that conservative presidents will only put hard-line conservative justices on the court and that liberal presidents will respond in kind.

Actually, seven of the nine current justices were nominated by republican presidents yet we very rarely see a 7-2 decision. It is usually 5-4. This tells me two things - 1) The system of vetting nominees through the senate judiciary committee works regardless of the party in power and 2) Justices do a better job than we give them credit for of ruling intellectually instead of emotionally.

A 5-4 ruling tells me there was a lot of spirited debate on the issue in question. Isn’t that what we want the court to do? Even though I don’t agree with some of their recent decisions, the system works very well and is yet another credit to the founding fathers for its construction.

By James

June 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

To CJ:

I’m not trying to be argumentative but consider this.

Our founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be interpreted as a “contract”. That means you go with the original intent. Business law 101 teaches you that.

When you get away from that (liberal or conservative) you get in trouble.

Here’s an easy example. Let’s say that women today still did not have the right to vote. Do you think the current Supreme Court would rule that they did? Yes (including maybe some of the conservatives) but that would be WRONG without an amendment to the Constitution (which was done in the 1920’s).

The same is true of slavery. The Civil War, or the Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT end slavery. It took an AMENDMENT passed in December of 1865 (several months after the war ended). Why? Because it was IN THE CONSTITUTION.

When you use a social agenda to attempt what is the legislative branch’s role to change the Constitution, then you cheapen the Constitution, the Legislative Branch and our entire form of government.

Is there any way you can understand this ???

By Observer

June 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

CJ writes: “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon…”

Apparently, CJ, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

By James

June 26, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Observer:

You are not being “Observant (pun intended)! It says “any” kind of weapon - not the basic right to defend yourself with “a” weapon.

Now, since you are using that above sentence out of the same ruling where the Court just said the 2nd Amendment is an “individual” right - what does that make you?

By Observer

June 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

James - I stand corrected.

By James

June 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

To CJ:

In addition, since the other nine are individual rights (no doubt about that) and the one we are debating is listed “second” don’t you think it is appropriate to “err” if need be on the side of “individual”? That’s just common sense.

And ……… it’s appropriate to have some control over guns just as there is “some” control over free speech. You can’t threaten the President (even if you are kidding) or yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

By James

June 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

To Observer:

I like a person with integrity. I have to do the same myself every once in awhile …….. :o)

By Wild Bill Hiltner

June 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Ok, CJ. Here is the whole amendment as passed by the Senate. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Lets break this down. The first clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” is that which the truly educated call a dependant or subordinate clause. The second clause, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is that which the truly educated call an independant clause. When considered in this, the proper manner, “…the right of the people to bear arms…” is the crux of the sentence and, it follows that with the right to bear arms, a necessary condition to the security of a free state follows as a consequence. The ignorami read disregard the rules of grammar to jumble the priorties of clear though to arrive at the misconception that the only reason to bear arms is to keep the military honest and that this has no standing in today’s reality. Now that you have been educated in place of that which you should have learnt in the 3rd grade, riddle me this butt-man, How come the pied piper of post partisan politics, The Obama, threw campaign finance under the bus (much in the same manner as he did with grandmama and Rev Wright when personal advantage conflicted with the goodt goverment which he proposes?

By CJ

June 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

James @3:39 — You and I agree. It is the conservatives (so-called) on the Court who assert that Ninth Amendment is essentially an “ink blot” (actually Robert Bork’s words). It is the conservatives who claim that the first clause of the Second Amendment does not qualify the second clause (i.e. the first clause is an “ink blot”). Are they applying original intent with these arguments? I think not. In November, I’ll vote for a candidate who’ll appoint justices that won’t use a social agenda to attempt what is the legislative branch’s role to change the Constitution.

Observer @3:44 — The quote you pasted contained the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger (not me). This Supreme Court disagrees with him (actually four Supreme Court justices still agree with Burger).

To all — As far as I can tell, nobody has addressed Bookman’s original question. If the individual has the right to bear arms, then where in the Constitution are we allowed to regulate the individual’s right to own assault weapons, explosives, RPGs, anti-aircraft missiles and ICBMs? If nowhere, is it your belief that individuals should be able to keep and bear such weaponry, unchecked? If not, what do we do now?

By James

June 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

CJ:

I’ll leave your last techincal question up to the legal experts but there are restrictions to all if not most of the other nine. For example, you are secure in your house … but … not if the police have probable cause and a warrant. Same thing. Reasonable …………

By JAY BOOKMAN

June 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

To Fred:

The sentence you quote was not a statement. It was a question. Note the question mark at the end. Can a question be incorrect?

By Token Gringo

June 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

C’mon Jay! If the SC had voted to keep the Nazi-esque ban in place, you wouldn’t have been crying partisanship. It works both ways. You (i.e. national socialists) win some, you lose some. Now grow up and be a man. If a citizen wants to defend his home and his loved ones he may do so freely without interference from the government. The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. That obviously includes your freedom to open your mouth and espouse socialism despite its repeated failures. Time to quit whining and be a man.

By CJ

June 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Wild Bill,

Your grammar lesson was both amusing and pathetic.

Obama threw campaign finance “under the bus” (a favored phrase among the right-wing blow holes these days) because public financing wouldn’t generate enough funds for him to compete with Swift Boat like advertisers (i.e. 527s) who can raise unlimited funds from sources who can make unlimited contributions. Given that, in violation of his own legislation, McCain is working with 527s to go after Obama, Obama was right to change his mind, reverse his position and go back on his pledge. Not to do so would have been malpractice.

Given your problem with Obama, I take it you’re angry with McCain for illegally opting out of public financing after having already opted in back when he was having trouble raising money during the primaries. I take it you’re angry with McCain for illegally exceeding campaign spending limits during the primaries. I take it you’re angry with McCain for illegally colluding with 527s (McCain’s advisor Rove is a paid advisor to FreedomWatch.org). I take it your angry with McCain for illegally encouraging 527s to go after Obama directly, even though the law says that they must limit their political activities to issues.

It appears, parrot, that McCain threw his own campaign finance legislation “under the bus”. Has the liberal media not mentioned that?

By Token Gringo

June 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Make machine guns available, but only to those who obtain a Federal license. Don’t know if you still can, but I know people who have in the past. I enjoy shooting their machine gun.

By GodHatesTrash

June 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

This SCOTUS decision is good news in the red states. Because, if guns were ever outlawed, how would these miscreant moron Republicans ever get their wives to have sex?

By Winslo

June 26, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

To GodHatesTrash:

Please go away.

By Abomi Nation

June 26, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

Token Gringo, did you even read Jay Bookman’s column? You may want to go re-read his first paragraph, especially that pesky little part where he agrees that an individual has the right to bear arms.

Its time to stop whining Token, be a man and go re-read Jays column.

By Wild Bill Hiltner

June 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

CJ, CJ, CJ, my dear, sweet, lost soul. My English major BA for the ivy covered halls of mother Dahtmouth provides confidence that my deconstruction of the sentence is correct. I’m sorry that the meaning of the written word is not that for which you hoped. I imagine that much, if not all, in your life is not as you would have hoped it to be. If 527s were the reason why The Obama stepped off his high horse to kick his stated principal to the curb, has he asked George (Legalize illegal street drugs) Soros to stop funding (bowel)movement.org. (BTW - The Obama reminds me of the old perfume commercial, “Promise her anything, but give her Channel.”)Well not exactly, it seems that the frames on either side of your support of The Obama’s most unprincipled stand form quite the dilemma. It is hard to be forced into fleeing from the 527s at the same time that one run’s for cover behind their skirts. But, just throw in a little more name calling as you did with my diagramming and you’ll be able to rationalize The Obama’s philosophical retreat, and the one after that, and the one after that, ad infinitum. The Obama would do the right thing, but for that nasty ol’ John McCain, or that nasty ol’ Rove, or laura Ingraham, and on and on. Just as President Clinton (and I do treat him with the respect a President deserves unlike the liberal sheople’s unsavory disregard for President Bush) famously stated, “I did not have sex with that women, Miss Lewinsky), The Obama has supported campaign finance reform, unconditional talks with the madman from Tehran (rather than Gen. Petraeus), the Palestinian cause v. a free democracy, opposition to NAFTA, and on and on. It is but June, and yet, The Obama has accomplished the previously unthinkable - MAKING JOHN KERRY LOOK TO BE A ROCK-RIBBED MAN OF PRINCIPAL.

By CJ

June 26, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

James,

The free speech and the “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” thing. I hear you.

So, Scalia and associates, via their decision, have inherently made the assertion that the lives of innocent people are not endangered, relatively speaking, by striking down gun restrictions such as those in Washington D.C. Maybe they’re right, but police chiefs and police officers everywhere disagree.

By Abomi Nation

June 26, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this

Gallup sure was quick to come out with a poll on gun ownership. In a poll just released, 91% say that the constitution guarantees the right for an individual to own a gun.

From Gallup.com- “In the same poll, 49% favor stricter gun laws than exist now and 38% would like to see gun laws remain as they are. Just 11% advocate gun laws that are less strict.”

By CJ

June 26, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this

Wild Bill, Wild Bill, Wild Bill,

I have never heard of Dahtmouth. Did they learn ya ‘bout paragraphs thar?

Has Obama asked George Soros to stop funding MoveOn.org? Yes. In fact, Obama asked all of his supporters to stop funding all 527s. As a result, MoveOn has shut down their 527 operation altogether.

By the way, have you noticed how well the Bush administration’s unconditional talks with that madman from Pyongyang have paid off? Things seem to be moving along nicely. Ahhhh diplomacy.

By Jay

June 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

From the view of this independent you folks are really moronic. Take your gutter trash, illogical arguments and ram them up your snout. What this country needs is a good dose of removing republicans and democrats from the public debate. You people are pretty useless. Go back to venting.

By Fred

June 26, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this

Jay, Thanks for the laugh. If you won’t admit when you made an error, that’s fine. Your question is based on the assertion that if it is unconstitutional to ban hand guns then it must be unconstitutional to ban machine guns. I realize that this is an opinion piece and that you don’t have to deal in the facts, right?

By JAY BOOKMAN

June 26, 2008 7:06 PM | Link to this

To Fred:

That’s right, that is the question I asked: How is it constitutional to ban possession of newer-model machine guns but not constitutional to ban handguns? What is your answer? Where in the Constitution do you find language justifying that distinction?

Merely citing provisions of the National Firearms Act does nothing to explain the constitutional question.

By andy

June 26, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

Any time a republican starts yammering about activist judges making law, the real issue is that the judge or judges rendered a decision they don’t agree with.

The same judge that rendered a bad decision could render a good decision several court cases later. So you have the situation where the same judge or judges could be both an activist judge depending on where they fall on the decision.

Sounds more like conservatives who complain about activist judges are like the spoiled, whining child who screams bloody murder when it doesn’t get its way unless the parent gives in.

By James

June 26, 2008 10:07 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman:

For the same reason you can have firecrackers but not C-4, that you can drive 45 mph on Rt. 141 but not 200 mph, that you can buy all the aspirin you want but not heroin. It’s just common sense and Second Amendments advocates are quite willing to let Supreme Court justices who are not “activists” make that reasonable distinction as they do on free speech limitations under the First Amendment.

To CJ:

They are right. And I believe the stats in the long run will prove them right. Criminals fear going into a home where the homeowner is armed. Surveys in prison have confirmed this. They will always go for the easy target.

Also, Police Chiefs (in general) are normally for more strict gun control. The reason is simple. They are appointed by the mayor and serve at his/her pleasure. Most big city mayors are also liberal and in favor of gun restrictions. If you will check with elected Sheriffs who report directly to the people you will find a different mindset. In addition, most rank and file police officers have no problem with armed law abiding citizens because for most of them that is what they were before they became police officers and it’s what they will be after they retire.

By James

June 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Link to this

P.S. To Mr. Bookman:

Let’s take the First Amendment as it applies to free speech:

Congress shall make no law ….. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ……

Now, the Amendment says NO law abridging the freedom of speech. So how does the Court make a distinction ?

Well, as an “originalist” back then it was meant to mean protected “political” speech because at that time you could be prosecuted for saying certain curse words in front of children or the “womenfolk”. That aside, the Supreme Court has done a FAIR job the past 219 or so years (except for kids being thrown out of schools for drawing a picture of their older brother in the Marines with his rifle)in making “distinctions” as to what is what is free speech and what is not.

I again give the example from experience that threatening the President of the United States and causing the Secret Service to have to spend a lot of time finding and investigating you WILL get you prosecuted EVEN though you can prove you were kidding. NOT a defense.

The Court has and will continue to be able to do the same thing with firearms even as technology progresses. They will make a determination as to what is a reasonable weapon for a civilian to have for self defense and what is not. We may disagree on where that line should be drawn but they have the final say.

IN SUMMARY, what constitutes “free speech” and what constitutes an “arms” is not specifically addressed in minutae in the wording of each Amendment and obviously the founding fathers intended it that way.

By Mike

June 26, 2008 11:34 PM | Link to this

No, Mr. Bookman. As usual you got it wrong including the rhetoric.A “newly discovered right” applies to something like abortion that is not mentioned in the Constitution.It doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court deciding that the Second Amendment says,well, WHAT IT SAYS!

By Wild Bill Hiltner

June 27, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this

CJ - a few things - email (and by extension, blog postings) have different structural rules than trasitional prose - also, it is hard to format anything from a crackberry, which is probably the cause for the above difference - the Bush talks were anything, but unconditional; I have yet to see the photos of W and the Korean leader and these talks occurred after much “back channel” negotiation at lower levels that established the CONDITIONS for the very sucessful Bush diplomatic initiative - The Obama, weak of logic and devoid of historic perspective, keeps pointing out that Kennedy met with Kruschev without condition (Kennedy later called it a horrible mistake) and Reagan met with Gobachev without condition, when in fact, Reagan did not meet with any of his three Soviet counterparts until reforms were underway, a condition. Finally, The Obama says that he does not support 527s and that he would rather the money go directly into his campaign coffers which brings us back to where this started. But, in truth, The Obama’s opposition to 527s (“Promisse her anything”)is little more than a disengenuous wink and nod arrangemnet (“…but give her Channel”)in light of the way he stands idly by and reaps the perceived benefits of the Alex ad and others rather than denouncing the ads.

By Wild Bill Hiltner

June 27, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this

CJ - thought you’d enjoy a link to a great article that holds The Obama accountable. I hope the voters do the same.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/theevermalleablemr_obama.html

By Jimbo, THE FIRST

June 27, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

CJ I’ve related to discussions you’ve been in numerous times why your interpretation of the constitution is wrong. Scalia tells you why you’re wrong in the supreme court decision it’s you who have the reading comprehension problem.

By CJ

June 27, 2008 11:29 PM | Link to this

You HAVE to have a law lifting the ban on weapons when you have the same stupid, hypocritical, pervert, left-wing nuts in black robes making laws catering to sex-offenders and porno-addicts.

It isn’t safe to be out anywhere without a gun!

By CJ raddy

June 27, 2008 11:32 PM | Link to this

I’m another CJ…

By CJ raddy

June 27, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this

Your ‘right to happiness’ is not allowed to trample over my ‘right to life’, sorry…

That goes for innocent children who think they’re transgendered/homosexual because they were molested by someone who should have been shot down like the cockroach he/she is(children generally can’t remnember BEING molested until the damage is done)…

By luangtom

June 28, 2008 1:08 AM | Link to this

I think that we can lay all of this debate to rest when Barack Hussein Obama gets to the White House. He helped write and form those highly successful firearms laws that work so well in Chicago and Illinois that keep people safe there. He can rewrite the Constitiution for us and we will all be safe……

By Jeff

June 28, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

Maybe Jay’s right. If so, I guess his opinion piece needs to be removed from the internet since our forefathers couldn’t have imagined an internet back then. Only government has the right to use this technology for it’s freedom of speech. And lets go ahead and remove him from newspapers and books as well…after all, they aren’t produced by the old technology of hand presses like when our forefathers guaranteed us a freedom of speech.

TV and radio? The must go as well. Only Big Brother, excuse me, government should have all these new-fangled toys to spread it’s propaganda, I mean news.

Wow…a world without having to hear Jay’s verbal vomiting…that sounds like Utopia.

By Holmes

June 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Each of the rights governed by the Bill of Rights may be abridged from time to time by a law or regulation. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly are not absolute rights in all times and all places. The courts will use one of three standards when they examine these laws to determine if they pass constitution muster. 1. Does the government have a compelling interest in regulating this activity? This is the lowest standard and in practice allows most regulations to stand. The court already signaled that a stricter standard will be used. 2. Moderate scrutiny. 3. Strict scrutiny- This is the standard used for most constitutional rights thus preserving the right over competing interests ( I can say Jay Bookman is trash…freedom of speech but I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater) This is where the fight on gun legislation will head next.

Laws like Chigago’s… you can have a gun but not unless you have owned it since 1985 will be stuck down since a right without the opportunity to exercise it is no right at all.

Ownership regulations, the regulation of certain weapons like assault guns and machine guns will be upheld.

There are two practical effects of the decision. First, the liberal attempts to outlaw private gun ownership by regulating it into oblivion is at an end. Second, millions of gun owners are now on the alert with the realization that four justices do not believe that the supreme court guarantees an individual right to own guns. Barack Obama has personally criticized the four liberal justices of the court for this very position. Obama has held up the far left gang of four as ideals for his court nominations even as he has criticized their decisions in the LA death penalty case for child rapists ( which they won) and the DC gun regulation case ( which they lost) The liberals on the court have just politicized this election giving those who prize their constitutional rights an urgent reason to vote. The four hard left justices have also drawn a clear distinction…finding rights for terrorists while becoming myopic about the rights of gun owners. If you like the idea of giving rights to terrorists while eroding the rights of Americans… vote Democratic.

By Mike Licht

June 30, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and Acting Attorney General Nickles intend to follow existing DC law, which forbids private ownership of any firearm capable of firing 12 or more rounds without reloading. This groups together fully-automatic machine guns, autoloading assault weapons, and semi-automatic handguns. There are few semi-automatic handguns that cannot be easily modified to fire 13 or even 30 rounds without reloading.

See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/the-spin-on-dc-gun-laws/