Thinking Right

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 26, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

Here’s some more good 2nd amendment news for you and your fans Jim. Too bad the kid didn’t have a gun to defend himself with.

Police: Boy, 4, killed when neighbor opens fire

By SAEED AHMED The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 04/26/07

The man was arrested without incident following a standoff on Sycamore Lane.

The man was arrested without incident following a standoff on Sycamore Lane.

Sheriff’s officials told reporters at the scene that the suspect, a teenager, had quarreled with his neighbors, then fired several shots at the house.

The boy was in his mother’s arm in the doorway of the house and was struck, authorities said.

The teen neighbor’s mother, Chandra Davidson, told WSB-TV that her son, Colby, is bipolar.

Davidson said the argument first began between her daughter and the neighbor’s children. When Colby stepped in, he was threatened, she told the television station.

“I don’t even know how it [the argument] ever got there,” she said.

“I feel bad” for the neighbors, she added. “That is not going to help them now.”

Late Wednesday night, he was being interviewed by Douglas sheriff’s deputies who plan to charge him with murder.

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Peculiar that Jim selects this topic, as it was our dinner-time discussion last night, and the topic is abnormal for a meal. The ensign – off in Pensacola, of course – received a fund-raiser letter from Mitt Romney yesterday. My resident-older son asked my analysis of Mitt (understand that dads especially appreciate being asked an opinion by sons) and I gave him my broad view, that Mitt is more conservative than John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, but that Giuliani was outpolling both Hillary and Obama in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, and thus he was probably our most electible potential nominee. (Although we have strong libertarian tendencies, we generally vote with the more conservative major party.) I also disclosed my preference for unannounced Fred and/or Newt. Ultra-pragmatic older son proclaimed himself in the Giuliani camp, as “we have to win.”

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Dear jacp @ 8:36, you will want to see Chairman Ann’s essay this morning, on your topic. Opening paragraph:

“For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don’t listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media’s demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.” http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

By Van

April 26, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

Perfect example of how things should work.

Person commits crime and gives up without a struggle.

I think the police and the relative that talked him into surrendering did an excellent job.

By Billy

April 26, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

Let’s be honest. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are not strict constructions, as Jim Wooten is well aware. Any justice who perpetuates the lie that corporations are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution is a judicial activist. Any justice who considers the Ninth Amendment, from which our right to privacy is derived, to be an ink blot (as Robert Bork referred to it) and should be ignored, is a judicial activist. And - any justice who perpetuates the lie that the Second Amendment gives individuals not affiliated with a State militia (i.e. The National Guard in this day and age) the right to own a gun, so that people like Cho Seung-Hui can purchase them, is a judicial activist.

Jim is right about one thing — it IS time to get practical. Any national Republican capable of getting the nomination is not somebody you want leading this nation in a time of war. Too, if another right-wing judicial activist is appointed to the Supreme Court, that body will be aimlessly adrift for decades. And for those who bear the burden (all of us), even higher taxes for future generations, further environmental destruction, increased worldwide nuclear proliferation, an even deeper national debt, increased instability in the Middle East, increased economic and health care insecurity for most Americans, a continuation of the growing violent crime rate, a continuation of the growing infant mortality rate, and a continuation of the growing poverty rate are all certainties with a Republican in the White House.

By Howard

April 26, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this

Jim…great column as usual…Republicans and their various factions had better get their heads out of the sand and be prepared to throw aside differences and vote for whoever is chosen to carry the GOP banner in 2008. Democrats in this country only win elections when people on our side pout and take their ball and go home…and NOT vote! These evil people must not be allowed to take full control of this country…God help us all if Obama or Hillary get into 1600 Penns. Avenue. You think “Dingy” Harry Reid and “Miss America” Nancy Pelosi are bad now??? If one of those aforementioned two presidential candidates win, you ain’t seen nothing yet!!!!!! They would hand over the keys to this country to Islamic fascists…if alowed to stay in power!!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 26, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

Van & Jbmlaw,

A 4 year old is still dead.

What’s Chariman Ann’s solution for that?

Is that a perfect example of how a 4 year old should die?

What’s the perfect example for how his parents should react?

Should they kill the man who killed their son? With their gun? That they purchased legally?

By ABS

April 26, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

“Any national Democrat capable of getting the nomination is not somebody you want leading this nation in time of war.”

Jim, Please explain to me…how is it that your Republicans have done so much better?

The Republican Party also shot itself in the foot when it aligned itself with the Christian fundamentalist freaks of this country. You made your bed — I find it totally hilarious that Wooten and other neo-con freaks are back paddling as fast as they can.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

By Claude

April 26, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

I don’t think there’s any danger of conservatives trying to be purists in 2008. George W. Bush in 2000 didn’t run a pure conservative. He was promising a bigger role in education and a prescription drug plan for seniors. He ran Spanish language campaign ads and said he wanted to be “a uniter, not a divider.” Conservatives just wanted an end to the Clinton/Gore years, and they supported Bush because he was electable.

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Poor Billy @ 9:06, you make a common leftist error in your Constitutional analysis, your assertion that government grants rights under the Constitution. It is the opposite, the government gets all of its rights to control us – and no more – from the Constitution. Our rights are much greater.

By getalife

April 26, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider voting for a gop candidate in 08.

Dusty actually blamed the Tillman family for the lies and cover up of a great American hero’s death.

That is scum and these people do know right from wrong.

Yea right Jim, vote for people who do not know right fron wrong and belong in prison.

God save America.

By GodHatesTrash

April 26, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Whoever it is, the GOP candidate will run on a pure bullshiite* platform.

By Van

April 26, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this

Billy,

Sorry you feel that way, but I think you may have been sipping some far left kool-aid.

In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company,1886, The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1965 the Supreme Court made the right to privacy explicit in Griswold v. Connecticut. The Court found the right to privacy implied in the Constitution in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Regarding the second amendment, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms…” What part of this clause do you not understand? At that time as it is today the general population is considered the militia as opposed to a professional army.

By jm

April 26, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Hmmm, sounds like Mr. Wooten has become a yellow dog republican.

By Shar

April 26, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

I can only hope that Democrats abandon their usual philosophy of nominating candidates that voters “should”, our of some amorphous moral superiority, support and instead “attach special value to electibility” themselves. The current contenders, like Gore and Kerry before them, are simply not supportable by the majority of the country. The national Republican Party has nothing but godawful failures to struggle with in the coming election, but with Hilary Clinton on the ballot even Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind, signing statements, the deficit, Abu Ghraib/Guantanemo, abrogation of the Constitution and the prospect of a packed Supreme Court will not be enough to make their candidate lose. For Democrats, it is past time to get focussed on nominating a candidate who can win, and to me that could possibly be Edwards but is most likely Bill Richardson.

By getalife

April 26, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

KO ripped Rudy a new one last night

And

Jon Stewert destroys McLiar

By Van

April 26, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

Wake up, what happened was tragic and senseless.

The shooter was talked into surrendering averting anymore loss of life.

The criminal is not the firearm, but the actions of someone that had a low opinion of everyone else. After all, your favorites, John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer, never used a firearm.

By Jim

April 26, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Van,

What part of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” do you not understand?

The entire Second Amendment states: “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.” The NRA (and Van) tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a “well-regulated militia.”

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own “militia” - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was “well-regulated” in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The “militia” was not, as Van claims, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III’s troops fresh in their minds, many of the “anti-Federalists” feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today’s equivalent of a “well-regulated” militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today’s militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement.

By getalife

April 26, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

So, I had some friends over last night and showed them Dusty’s trash blaming the Tillman family.

They said OMG who are these people?

I replied scum.

They agreed along with many posters on other blogs

By jm

April 26, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Van & Jim, personally, I don’t object to unlimited ownership of single shot muzzle loaders. Heck, I think everyone should have a kentucky rifle or brown bess. Maybe even a brace of pistols, complete with shot and powder (sarcasm intended). Just like the weapons the founding father wrote about.

By Courtney

April 26, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Van wrote, “After all, your favorites, John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer, never used a firearm.”

Van,

You’re a pathetic and despicable little man (and I use the word “man” loosely).

By Van

April 26, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Jim ,

Again, someone that thinks we get our rights from the government.

The first clause of the 2nd, is the reason for the second clause. We the people, okay. Back then it was anyone over the age of 17 and male, those requirements would not stand up in todays liberal courts, were part of the militia, a citizen army, under the control of the states.

They were in other words, the entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster.

In common usage, a “militia” is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.

Of course these came from other places, in fact the President of the NRA has a grand article on this subject.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 26, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Van,

Yeah…what Jim said.

Actually, I’m kinda down on gun control myself. The cat’s out of the bag. We’re getting what we paid for.

I do think that the NRA is milking the emotional side of the issue to ensure that their lobby, the gun manufacturers, can continue to make money. They give a rip about individual’s rights. They’re paid to ensure the viability of that marketplace against more government regulations. Period.

And Jim’s right (the one above, not Wooten), the 2nd amendment was written at a time when the stability of the country was at stake, and a coup was more likely. Unfortunately it’s morphed into a cult document that serves very vew, yet makes life extremely difficult, if not devastating, for many.

All that blather about people using weapons to defend themselves is just that, blather. Since last week over a half dozen people have been killed in Atlanta by gun violence.

And it wasn’t because they didn’t have weapons to protect themselves, it’s because a document written at a time that we can hardly relate to is being mis-read and mis-applied by a group of people with a financial stake in it being read a particular way.

So knock yourself out. Carry a concealed weapon, or keep a handgun in your night stand. All you’re doing is exponentially increasing the odds that you’ll create a tragedy for yourself or someone else.

By comparison, the odds of you being a hero are just about zero.

By Brady

April 26, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Following up on Jim’s excellent post, even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms (it doesn’t), does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over thousands are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47’s with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father’s guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it.

Would most citizen advocates of the “right to keep and bear arms” support the right to keep and bear a suitcase nuke or an anti-aircraft gun? By definition, these two weapons fall under the definition of “arms”.

The question isn’t, do we set limits on the ownership of firearms? The question is where do we draw the lines?

By ron

April 26, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Once the well regulated militia is established,be it the National Guard,The Army,The Marines,or any other name,the right of the people; and that includes you and me Bud; to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Dear Jim @ 10:21, I think Van parsed the 2nd Amendment correctly and you did not. The right is with the “people;” the justification, for the individual right to bear arms, is to ensure the potentiality of a well-regulated state militia. The Constitution does not mandate the existence of a well-regulated state militia; it does mandate the absence of infringement of the right to bear arms.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

April 26, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

The Pope is Ourself against gun control- the unwashed heathen redneck gunowners should each be given a loaded handgun with the caveat that they must leave it loaded on their coffee tables, or on the front seats of their pickemup trucks or pimp rides at all times.

As a society, we need more gun murders and gun accidents in the redneck community, not less.

The demise of the redneck is important to the survival of the human race.

By Shar

April 26, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Here is the “common usage” of “militia”, as supplied by Merriam Webster: “a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.” There are three other, less preferred definitions given, but all of them include a reference to organization and training.

Armed citizens are strongly discouraged by the police any paramilitary organizations to assist in their response to “a threat to public safety.” Van, please don’t go running out to shoot at bad guys in a helpful spirit. The police will neutralize you.

The Second Amendment was also written at a time when shooters had to make their own ammunition, and when gun options were very limited. There is no guarantee that any particular kind of gun can be owned, and there is no mention of whether or not there is a right to shoot unlimited projectiles from it. What if there was a limit on the amount of ammunition that could be bought, or some kind of competency firearm test or background check whenever a purchase was made? If ammunition was as expensive and difficult to obtain as prescription drugs are, perhaps people would be less likely to grab one and bang away, like that teenager this morning shooting at the house and hitting the child.

By jbm fan

April 26, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw wrote, “I think Van parsed the 2nd Amendment correctly and you did not.”

Of course you do, jbmlaw. You’re as predictable as the ending of a Chuck Norris movie.

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Dear Gun Controllers, I have a resolution that would satisfy your goals as well those of us who advocate for non-infringement: Let’s add language requiring property ownership – much as the original voting requirements – so that nobody can get a weapon unless they own real estate. I think that would take care of most responsible gun owners, and would exclude the homeless thugs. I think most Republicans would find my solution an acceptable compromise.

By deegee

April 26, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Conservatives can’t be purists, and they can’t stand too close to our Commander in Chief.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/26/news/mccain.php

Here is what JW is saying. To hell with your principles, elect a Republican to the White House. Vote for whoever gets the best ratings. Hold your nose and vote Republican.

By Van

April 26, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Courtney,

Was I wrong? I apologize, I guess your favorites did use firearms.

By jbmlaw's doctor

April 26, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

You have a yeast infection. Fungus is growing out of your ears. Take your Monistat!

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Somehow, in Mr. Wooten’s column today, this remark got placed at the end of a topic that had nothing to do with taxes, “And for those who bear the burden, higher taxes are a certainty with a Democrat in the White House.”

“…those who bear the burden”. And just who would that be? Conservatives?

Here we are as a debtor nation borrowing more and more money from foreign nations to run our country (including the billion a week to run the Iraq war) and Mr. Wooten is more concerned about tax breaks for “those who bear the burden”.

Yes, the stock market hit 1300, but how much of that is on paper and how much if that is REAL money?

And then, “…until another strict constructionist is appointed to the Supreme Court, that body is aimlessly adrift.”

Here, Mr. Wooten exhibits the maturity of a true conservative. The issue is not will a Justice rule impartially, but will a Justice rule “our way”.

What should we do, put the Constitution on a par with the “infallible” bible, or the bible on a par with an “infallible” Constitution?

For anyone awake, neither have the answers to all of life’s problems. But they seem to, or do, if you listen to and accept the conservative point of view.

Mr. Wooten goes further, “The stakes are far too high in 2008 to sulk over the absence of a perfect conservative. The difference that matters is electability.”

“The difference that matters is electability.”

Leadability doesn’t matter.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

April 26, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Brady,

You are correct, we have set requirements on things as free speech, search and seizure and other rights.

There have been many modifications to the extent that the second amendment only allows a person to possess a legal weapon. Such items as suitcase nukes are clear forbidden and most crew served weapons are also not permitted. In several cases, the term arms mean hand held individual arms.

The state of Georgia in its constitution agrees with the second amendment, but adds, they shall have the right to decide how and where you can bear arms.

With the regulation already in place and the background checks, these “infringements” are part of the sometimes necessary restrictions, and have been upheld in court.

With the latest decision regarding the Washington DC restrictions, the court also upheld that the 2nd applies to individuals and not a collective right as so many gun control group wish for.

As a side note, there are few restrictions on black powder firearms, whether replicas or of modern design, including cannons. Finding a place where you can use one is the problem.

By Greenwald

April 26, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Regarding Mr. Wooten’s comments about leadership during time of war, in the context of 2008, of course, Bush isn’t running — but Republicans who support his efforts are. Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are quite proud of telling voters that when it comes to counter-terrorism and foreign policy, they’re anxious to pick up where Bush leaves off. They’ll keep America “safe” and “strong” by following the very policies that have undermined our security and weakened the country overall.

Republican foreign policy has it backwards. It’s making us less secure and increasing the danger for us and our allies.

As you may recall, in September, the National Intelligence Estimate made quite clear that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism. Bush’s Iraq misadventure has put this country in much more danger than it was. Terrorism is a serious threat, and these Republicans are the last people we should trust.

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

By Billy “April 26, 2007 9:06 AM “Any justice who considers the Ninth Amendment, from which our right to privacy is derived, to be an ink blot (as Robert Bork referred to it) and should be ignored, is a judicial activist.”

By jbmlaw April 26, 2007 9:29 AM Poor Billy @ 9:06, “you make a common leftist error in your Constitutional analysis….”

I’m with Billy, which will not surprise you, but, given that you like to be so wordy, what is your interpetation of Bork’s “ink blot” comment?

There is nothing in a strict, “the word”, interpretation of the Constitution that covers all of the problems people face. “Strict construction” was never the intent of the founding fathers.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

April 26, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Dennis,

You do forget, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As stated in Article VI of the constitution

By Curious Observer

April 26, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

I feel so much better now that I have been assured that stable people like Van are ready and willing to rush out and blaze away at any malefactors who might intend me harm. And, of course, his explication of the 2nd Amendment is invaluable to the rest of us, who stand ready to rush out and join the local militia in the event the army or the Marine Corps wanted to usurp our liberty. I fondle my rusty, 20-gauge shotgun lovingly in anticipation of that day. I regard it as a pity that the Marine Corps forced me to relinquish my trusty M-1 before giving me my DD-214. It was an extremely shortsighted action.

Of course, I favor no restrictions on handgun ownership or possession. After all, rednecks with the IQ of a hound should have the right to pack heat anywhere they desire, especially in their pickup trucks during road rage incidents. Ditto for gangstas and assorted other sectors of the population. It is much more important to show one’s macho character than to be concerned with petty matters like public safety.

Of course, we will invariably lose a few 3-year-olds to gunshot wounds in the course of maintaining our inalienable right to bear arms. Carjackings, collateral damage from gang warfare, and assorted domestic killings stemming from the use of handguns will be inevitable. Such is the price of liberty.

I will sleep much better tonight, knowing that somewhere out there, a highly dangerous individual, armed with a Glock, is patrolling the streets in defense of my right to bear arms.

By Shar

April 26, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

As far as adherence to the Constitution goes, last week’s decision on IDX abortion was radical. The Court held that the government has the right to intervene in the treatment options of a pregnant woman, regardless of her health, her doctor’s recommendation or her own wishes, on the basis of some unspecified moral standard. This decision was made by five people, all white, all men, all Roman Catholic, all middle aged or older, all unaffected by the ramifications of the decision. The assumption of “morality” as just cause to insert the government in the private patient/doctor relationship is a radical departure from “strict constructionism”, but it seems to only win praise from conservatives.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 26, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Regarding Jim’s topic today,

Dennis and Jim (Wooten) are both right. It’s not about “leadabiltiy”, it’s about “electability”.

And by “electability”, what we really mean is “who’s the best politician”.

And by “politician”, what we really mean is “among the few who have the most money and corporate backing to conduct such a campaign, who is best at lying when looking us in the eye.”

None of these current chumps can hold a candle to Clinton, including Bush. But that’s not to say that Bush isn’t lying…he’s just not as good at it as Clinton. In fact, he’s horrible at it, which is why he’s in the mess he’s in now…he keeps flubbing Rove’s lines.

So really what we’re saying, is “which liar will we elect to lead us”?

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

By Van April 26, 2007 11:33 AM “Dennis, You do forget, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As stated in Article VI of the constitution”

As I read those three paragraphs, I see that that article has to do with treaties, past and future trade and the oaths of elected officials to uphold the constitution.

It says nothing about you or me having to uphold the constitution. To say that it’s there is a “liberal” interpretation of that article.

Which is more important, to uphold the letter of the law/constitution, or to do justice?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

April 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

Strange, I got my M1 Garand from the feds after I got my DD-214. They even fedex’ed it to me.

Again, this insipid rant from the left that the 2nd amendment says we can go out and blaze away. The “shall not be infringed” applies to possession. This is just another example of how the lefties and mid-town dwellers feel they know what is best for the rest of us. Oh, guns are bad, lets take them from the common folk. Oh, guns kill, lets make sure only the bad guys will have them.

Blaze if you want to, but be prepared for Mr. Policeman to come and visit you.

By jbmlaw

April 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 10:54, the second amendment was also written at a time when the central government and state government combined had a negligible effect on the lives of all. Had founding fathers envisioned Leviathan claiming one-quarter of all revenues, they would have mandated gun ownership.

Dear Shar @ 11:45, the court action last week was only to ensure the lives of babies had some consideration when a killing is planned; mothers and doctors interests are minimal compared to those needs of the helpless. For example, I favor abortion so long as the standard of proof mirrors that of condemned prisoners – solid proof that they committed a crime and deserve to die is sufficient to satisfy me.

Dear Dennis @ 11:24, I’m with Justice Bork – the ninth amendment is the black hole in the constitution, now devoid of all meaning due to prior activist court constructions of other statutes.

By lovelyliz

April 26, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

The difference between being a purist and a hypocrite depends on your political party affiliation.

By Van

April 26, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I guess I am a little more liberal regarding abortions.

If there is a real medical need, mothers life versus the baby’s life, I would vote to save the mother.

Also, a point missed by our pointy headed lefties, the ruling on Roe V. Wade allowed states to have a say, in certain circumstances.

In Section 3 of the ruling the justices state “…Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.”

By Shar

April 26, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw: I agree that the Founders would reel at much of what we have done under the cover of guessing at their intent. However, the Bill of Rights reflects the experience of the people at the time - the outside pressure on the nascent union as well as the inability of the new government to materially defend the individual. Therefore, I agree that the government of the time had a negligible effect on citizens, but that absence is in itself an effect.

As far as the abortion decision goes, your comments pertain to the legality of the procedure, and do not at all reflect the issue that the Court decided, which was how the legal right to abortion can be carried out. The life of the baby/fetus is not under discussion, although I understand and respect your right to have the views that you do. The nature of the IDX procedure was judged to be sufficiently morally abhorrent to usurp the doctor’s best recommendation to the patient or the patient’s right to decide on her medical care, and to justify the insertion of the government in the discussion. That is a radical departure from precedent and has nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not the right to abortion exists. It is, of course, an incremental undermining of the availability of safe abortion options, and is meant to serve the purpose of gradually outlawing them all, health or will of the woman notwithstanding.

By rarringt

April 26, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Good afternoon all,

I’m always intrigued as to how a judge becomes an “activist” the moment they issue an opinion someone (usually conservative-minded) doesn’t like.

The point of being a (non-neo) conservative appears to be to generally preserve the status quo. How extraordinary it is then, that much of the proud history of this country has been devoted to challenging entrenched yet exclusionary beliefs.

Contrary to the conservative mindset, the 9th and 10th amendments have long been viewed to have null effect, due to the interpretations of other amendments (notably, the 1st, 2nd, 5th 8th and 14th), although I do get a kick out the occasional “states rights” argument.

The Constitution, despite what Ann Coulter thinks, is not a limited document. It is a document of limitations, which is a very different animal.

Here’s the quickie summary: the Preamble covers who we are and what we (purport to) stand for.

The Articles discuss what the government can do (organization, powers, etc.)

The Amendments (at least the ones we tend to argue over) cover what the government can’t do.

The Supreme Court hashes it out when somebody or something thinks they have some right that others disagree with.

Ok, 3rd grade civics class is over. My point: the constitution is just some rapidly-fading writing on parchment. However, the notions contained within it are, by nature, present a living, breathing, robust example of a better society. Of course we’re sworn to uphold the constitution. It is who we are.

But to truly uphold the spirit of the constitution means to advocate, to fight for whatever it is you believe. The envelope is meant to be pushed, argued, expanded, retracted, empowered. That’s the strength of democracy.

To blindly acquiesce and allow the “powers that be” to guide you on the false pretext of conservative strict constructualism will only lead us to…well, to a place where otherwise reasonable people blindly follow a leader who revels in insular ignorance.

By JW

April 26, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

In 2005, approximately 9000 Americans were killed with a firearm. 143 of those were justifiable homicides. Gun-lovers, you have a better chance of being struck by lightening than of encountering an intruder in your home. Glad you’re ready for the intruder. How are you preparing for the lightening strikes?

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw said, “Dear Dennis @ 11:24, I’m with Justice Bork – the ninth amendment is the black hole in the constitution, now devoid of all meaning due to prior activist court constructions of other statutes.”

Meaning what? You and Bork, i.e.?

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In what way does this support Bork’s “inspot” that we do not have the freedoms that we think we have?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By melo

April 26, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

The current contenders, like Gore and Kerry before them, are simply not supportable by the majority of the country.-Shar

I presume you were born yesterday or that you are in a cave!! Gore got the popular vote in the last election. Ignorant people all around you? YEP!!

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

April 26, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Curious Observer,

It may also help you sleep better to know that Van and Jbm are ready to defend themselves should the need arise.

Van,

Why are you insuinating that the left is claiming to know what’s best?

To the best of my recollection, it’s the right that is telling us when we can and cannot purchase alcohol, when a woman can have an abortion, who can get married, who can(‘t) use medicinal ganja, what acts I can perform with my wife in our bedroom, what patriotisim is, what religions are acceptable, what books my kids can read at school, etc…etc…etc…

Is that cherry picking you’re doing? Using selective instances of ideology to make your point while simutaneously ignoring other examples that detract?

Sure it is.

By Filster

April 26, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

I may be wrong, but I believe that the imminent legal scholar, Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe ( a decided liberal) has opined that the 2d Amendment guarantees the general public’s right to bear arms. Once of the reasona for a State milita was to oppose any tyrannical movement by the larger federal government. I’m surprised no one tried to drag the National Guard as being the modern militia into this argument, but the NG Is, after all, just another government controlled entity.
That said, people who dislike guns will always so so and there is no reasoning with them. They would strip the general populace of all arms, leaving only those who will not comply with the law (that’s criminals, ya’ll) with guns. Sort of reminds me of the abortion argument that outlawing unrestricted abortion will drive women to the back alley butchers. If you outlaw guns, won’t we be forced to buy them from the creep in the alley? And woldn’t both, i.e., the abortion and the gun purchase, be illegal under those respective lawws? Think one step further re guns. Outlawing legal ownership will only result in people buying guns on the street. Or do you think that if you outlaw guns there won’t be any available, like the U.S. is the only country which manufactures firearms. Or are you planning on outlawing guns in the entire world? Fasce it. Since the Geico cavemen we humans have hit each other over the head with clubs, stabbed each other with swords and no gun each down with semi-automatics. They problem isn’t with guns. The problem is why as a race we haven’t been subject to natural selection.

By JK

April 26, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

To the best of my recollection, it’s the right that is telling us when we can and cannot purchase alcohol, when a woman can have an abortion, who can get married, who can(‘t) use medicinal ganja, what acts I can perform with my wife in our bedroom, what patriotisim is, what religions are acceptable, what books my kids can read at school, etc…etc…etc…

This is my perception as well. Mr. Wooten, forget about being “purists” for a minute. CAN CONSERVATIVES EVEN BE CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE? Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater were conservatives. This bunch of yay-hoos for whom you are a daily cheerleader: NOT!

By Van

April 26, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Jim’s a Cherry Picker,

More kool-aid drinking, those are all restrictions in place by an act of either the state or federal governments.

Just so you will know, when you reach 18, you can buy a drink on Sunday, if the local jurisdiction allows it.

If the left didn’t think it was always right, why is the lefties whining the most about these things.

By harold

April 26, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

There is nothing conservative about social conservatism.

You can’t be all “MINE IS MINE AND YOURS IS YOURS” about everything until it comes to personal habits that make you uncomfortable: “MINE IS MINE AND YOURS IS MINE TOO”

This is why conseratives are doomed. You did it to yourselves.

“Conservative” is the “Liberal” for the 21st centurey!

By getalife

April 26, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

The final Iraq bill did pass. 51-46.

It included money for the Gulf Coast, troop care, military readiness and raising the min. wage. to $7.25 over two years and tax cuts for small business.

It has benchmarks for the Iraq government. If not met, withdrawal at the end of this year. Some troops will stay.

Most gop all voted no and Lieberman. Hagel voted yes.

It is a great bill, too bad w will veto.

By Redneck Convert

April 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Well, I know you all are probly mad that you ain’t heard from me till now, but I been at the hospitle with little Sonny Zell George. He got ahold of some of my boys best stuff by axident and almost done hisself in. Anyway, the cops was everywhere asking questions and it was a big mess. I told them Sonny Zell George needed to wait till he was at least 15 or so before he started using that stuff but they shouldn’t arrest him now. They looked at me kind of funny.

Anyway, Wooten makes a good point. The next president needs to be a good Republican even he don’t hold to everything we do. The debt and war and all that stuff don’t matter. What matters is who gets to set on the Supreme Court. With one more good conservative on that court we can put a stop to all the abortions by these uppity women that won’t stay pregnant when we get them that way. It don’t matter much what happens to these kids oncet they are born, and I don’t want to pay taxes to care for them. But it just ain’t right that a woman can get rid of a baby after us men has gone to the trouble of making one.

Talking about guns, I was real desapointed that the boys down at the capital didn’t pass the heat packing law. I was looking forward to putting my .45 in the truck and then using the GA 400 tollbooths to restock after I run out of ammo from shooting at libruls and other people that did me wrong on the road. I guess we got a bunch of wimps in the state house. Just the other night at Ryans I wished I had my pistol to take care of a guy that jumped to the head of the line when the missus was trying to get her steak.

Anyway I got to finish my lunch and keep stocking the bars on my run. I got a notion that with the weekend coming up the Baptists will be mighty thirsty. I guess TFTT is still in the mental hospitle and Dusty ain’t woke up yet. It must be nice to wear a robe around the house and not have to go out to work and still know everything.

By van's a nose picker

April 26, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Duuuuuhhhhh, what?

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

By Dennis April 26, 2007 11:54 AM | By Van April 26, 2007 11:33 AM “Dennis, You do forget, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As stated in Article VI of the constitution”

As I read those three paragraphs, I see that that article has to do with treaties, past and future trade and the oaths of elected officials to uphold the constitution.

It says nothing about you or me having to uphold the constitution. To say that it’s there is a “liberal” interpretation of that article.

Which is more important, to uphold the letter of the law/constitution, or to do justice?

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By JohnD

April 26, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

The Left today denounces the recent “partial Birth” abortion ruling while in some of the same posts the Left stands in favor of gun control.

A disconnect if ever one existed. An abortion always results in death to an innocent while gun ownership, despite the ranting from the Left, seldom results in a death.

The acts of two deranged individuals are offered here today as proof of the need for gun control. A child needlessly dies in an Atlanta suburb and 32 innocent students and teachers were killed at Virginia Tech. Sad results of the illegal use of guns.

Does anyone really believe more laws are the answer? The criminal and the deranged will carry out their illegal acts regardless of the number of laws.

More government is not the answer.

All the statistics cited above are just that - statistics. I read that more Americans were violently killed in Detroit in January than in Iraq, so by the Left point of view we should be withdrawing from Detroit.

You do not have to be a self-absorbed, shallow thinking, impose my will on everyone Liberal to fail to see the dichotomy but apparently that thinking helps.

By Brad

April 26, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Filster moves from the legal arena to the pragmatic arena with his argument that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. However, our shared goal is to reduce the number of firearm deaths that occur every year in this country from tens of thousands down to dozens. Countries all over the world demonstrate, year after year, that strong gun control laws work to achieve this goal. The empirical evidence is irrefutable.

So, the pragamatic thing to do, at a minimum, is to strengthen enforcement of existing gun control laws (the VT madman should never have been able to purchase a gun under current federal law), reinstate the assault weapon ban that went into effect under Clinton and was allowed to expire under Bush, institute a national seven-day waiting period, and eliminate the gun show loopholes.

By Shar

April 26, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Van, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 prohibits disursement of federal highway funds to any state that permits people under the age of 21 to buy alcohol. It sets a de facto national standard for purchase, although some states allow those younger to consume alcohol for religious purposes or when at home with family members present.

Melo @12:42, that is an argument that is over and done with. If Gore had been sufficiently popular, he would have won, within the electoral rules laid down in the Constitution. Also, he did not run in the last election, but in the 2000 race. It is counterproductive at this point to bemoan the loss. My point is that Democrats need to nominate someone who can energize and inspire enough centrist voters to win outright, a goal they at present seem to be ignoring. Rabid adherents right and left will vote predictably; it is the centrists who will decide the election.

By Aquagirl

April 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Ah, I see the social conservatives are at it again. When the Second Amendment is attacked with inflammatory language and weak logic, you correctly point out such idiocy.

You then adopt the same tactics to go after abortion rights. Sorry, I have no idea why you think I should have no legal restrictions on firearms, but are fine with medical procedures being decided by law, not medical criteria, just because you are all weak-kneed buttinskis.

No matter how much social conservatives squirm, they’re the same as bedwetting liberals. They are going to use the government to enforce their own ideas of right and wrong. Wingnuts.

Dang, at least all the Democrats want is your wallet, not your genitals.

By harold

April 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

what part of “well regulated militia” means “un regulated gun owndership”

“well regulated” means strict gun control, stupids, and “militia” becamse the national guard

so, national guardspeople should be able to own guns under the tightest of controls. nobody and harold means NO-BODY else should be able to own guns

(unless rebpulicans somehow gain power again in which case we will all need our guns to either kill oursellves or overthrow them)

By pimp my lib

April 26, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

jw’s 12:39 -{keep your kommunistic ways out of my household}- This is a great read for those who do not have gunophobia and want to learn the truth about guns. link

Carbon credit fraud. We’ve been hoodwinked by lib econuts like the algore. Scam artists abound.link We have all paid for this with higher prices. People think our economy is bad now? Wait until the econuts on the left get in total control and ram that 80% carbon reduction into legislation.

By Dennis

April 26, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

By Jim’s a Cherry Picker “April 26, 2007 12:51 PM Van, Why are you insuinating that the left is claiming to know what’s best?

“To the best of my recollection, it’s the right that is telling us when we can and cannot purchase alcohol, when a woman can have an abortion, who can get married, who can(‘t) use medicinal ganja, what acts I can perform with my wife in our bedroom, what patriotisim is, what religions are acceptable, what books my kids can read at school, etc…etc…etc…”

Van’s response, “By Van April 26, 2007 1:14 PM Jim’s a Cherry Picker, “More kool-aid drinking, those are all restrictions in place by an act of either the state or federal governments.”

Jim’s a Cherry Picker is exactly right, and you are dodging the issue because you know s/he’s right.

Are you trying to insinuate that all of these restrictions are the results of liberals in government?

Hardly. It’s the religious/political neocons who are wanting to tell everyone how to live their lives.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By pimp my lib

April 26, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Look Daddy, record high tax revenue receipts! link Watch the socialist demolib heads spin and explode with this story. ‘This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006,’ Man that just plain sux. All those selfish rich folks having all the fun of paying taxes on their investments and earnings. Look Mommy, the Dow hit 13,000! link That’s the horror of this economy under W according to the Reynold’s Wrap heads.

By W

April 26, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Did anyone read about the 3 year old that fell of of the trampoline and died?

How about the one where the 4 yr old got run over by a lawnmower?

How about when those kids turned over an ATV and got killed?

I propose that we ban anything that can kill kids, Trampolines, Lawnmowers ATVs and of course guns.

After all more government control is what a Democracy is all about right?

By getalife

April 26, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

John McCain to Murtha: ‘Lighten Up,’ ‘Get a Life’

Hahahaha.

By pimp my lib

April 26, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

I read about that poor kid who ran out in front of a car and got squashed. And those Bronx kids who died at the hands of portable heaters. Then there was the time I read about a 4 year old beating his infant sister to death with a bat. Kwazy libs don’t ever talk about those things.

By liberals are verminous SCUM

April 26, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

I see the evil far left child molestor rednekkks NAMBLA has already puked up its usual unhinged witless bilious liberal hate speech, as ever psychotically encapsulated in its embittered, irrational envy of southerners.

The complete eradication BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY of liberals is what this country desperately needs, along with the swift enforced deportation of the illegal mexican type infestation. Clearing out once and for all this malevolent, genetic detritus will selflessly liberate the long suffering American people and allow clear visionary patriotic thinking to once again dominate the political scene. Not the endless despicable moral and political cowardice and queer loving leftist fascism we are sourly enduring today.

Liberals and leftists have even less worth than bewildered parasitic cockroaches … the glorious life-affirming benefits of exterminating ALL liberal vermin would transcend even the abstract niceties of Thomas Moore’s Utopia albeit transposed to a modern day paradise such as a Gingrich run USA.

By W

April 26, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

I’m glad there is no “Right to Bear Portable Heaters” amendment or the libs would want to squash that one too after that NY fire.

By V

April 26, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

W,

Have thousands upon thousand of children been killed by lawnmowers and trampolines?

You’re comparing apples and oranges.

By W

April 26, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

V, “Thousands upon Thousands”

is that an official statistic?

By KRL

April 26, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

“pimp my lib” at 1:42 is correct. The top one percent own 22 percent of the wealth in this country. That’s the highest disparity since 1929 (I believe that’s the year the stock market crashed).

By W

April 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Here’s a statistic for you

According to figures from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1996, 138 children died in gun accidents, compared to 3,015 in car crashes and 966 in drownings.

Should we take away cars and swimming pools too?

By rnm

April 26, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

“Any national Democrat capable of getting the nomination is not somebody you want leading this nation in time of war.”

I am continually amazed that Mr. Wooten is provided a place in this paper to espouse his rigidly partisan views. I always thought that the purpose of journalism (if what is published in the AJC can be called that) was to educate readers on the facts, not to provide platforms for personal viewpoints. I’m sure plenty of people agree with Mr. Wooten and they certainly have that right and can express their opinion at the ballot box. However, why does the AJC not provide an outlet for another “journalist” who has an opposing viewpoint? And btw, I’ve seen Mr. Donohue on the news many times and he always comes across as a bully. Now we know he’s also a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe in what he’s doing, but is more interested in being “prudential.” Oh well.

By Shar

April 26, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Upon reflection, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Wooten’s headline today, but I don’t think it goes far enough. Perhaps the single most egregious failure of the current Administration has been its absolute refusal to allow dissenting voices to be heard, much less to negotiate or compromise. When policy is enshrined in law, it has either chosen which part of the law it decides is applicable to itself or simple ignores the law altogether, falling back on a strategy of personal attack when caught. We the people have followed the Administration’s lead, resulting in the extreme polarization that is reflected in many of the posts on this blog.

The fact is that we are better than that, and the country deserves better. No one on either side can afford to be a “purist”, to insist that only their views be implemented, that litmus tests be applied to insure one side’s hegemony. There are many people on this blog, a small microcosm of the nation, who have interesting ideas and valuable perspectives. We need to truly listen with respect and insist that our representatives do likewise.

By 10tacle

April 26, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

KRL -> The top one percent own 22 percent of the wealth in this country. Yet they amazingly pay 36 percent of all private income fed tax revenue. Any questions?

By harold

April 26, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

yes, cars and swimming pools and trampolines should all be banned

By rnm

April 26, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

“liberals are verminous SCUM” you are hilarious! are you a professional comedian? ‘cause you’re a hoot!

By MC

April 26, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

By Jim Wooten | Thursday, April 26, 2007, 08:07 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The message comes early: The stakes are far too high in 2008 to sulk over the absence of a perfect conservative. The difference that matters is electability.

Jim, the lunatics on the far right don’t understand that.

By Aquagirl

April 26, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

rnm, did you miss the “opinion” title of the entire section?

And the AJC has certainly afforded an opposing viewpoint to Jim’s. Cynthia Tucker. She won a Pulitzer for her writing. In a display of class and bipartisan journalism, Jim Wooten congratulated her in his column.

So lay off Jim. His viewpoint isn’t mainstream, so what? Afraid someone might make you think?

By W is outdated

April 26, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

W, Here’s another statistic for you - more recent information, instead of the 11 year statistic you just threw out:

The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventionshow that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.

By liberals are verminous SCUM

April 26, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Cheers mm for the kind, highly astute words.

One naturally does one’s best in the face of bloated narcissistic corrupt pinko self absorption. I wish there was a button that one could simply push just once that would the rid the world of leftist and mohammedan fascists and illegal immigrants. Then we could all have some fun figuring out the best way to immediately enslave and then severely chastise and ultimately murderously oppress the French and certain elements of the leeching black racial spo