Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?
PAD
• 
Students of history may remember, that’s how we won the Revolution…
Yeah, but we also had just a wee bit of help from the French in that one.
I understand the argument, Fred, but I don’t think it’s valid.
Students of history may remember, that’s how we won the Revolution…
Completely different situation.
The weapons that the colonists had were about equal to that of the British. That is not the case with the duck hungers. The colonists understood the value of camouflage, while the British stubbornly refused to considered it. Our military does not have that weakness.
If you think a small group of amateurs have the cabability to match the training and resources that the US military can bring to the table, again, you have a serious screw loose. At best, they could make a nuisance of themselves for a while with some guerrilla tactics, but eventually, they’d be hunted down.
There are valid reasons to defend the 2nd amendment, but saying we can use to take on the US military is not one of them.
As for the soldiers fighting the Taliban: The Taliban are not a bunch of untrained duck hunters. They cut their teeth fighting the Soviets for many years. In fact, they received weapons and training from US! They are not a bunch of amateur duck hunters.
Not that I believe any of this would happen but if we ever get to the situation where the miltary is killing duck hunters I don’t think it would be quite so one-sided; I suspect that many in the military would be on the side of the duck hunters.
Any attempt to do a military coup, from the right or left, would have to contend with the fact that large segments of the military would not go along. A civil war would be likely.
I wonder what the strategy will be now that Miers withdrew her nomination this morning.
Actually I thought that her withdrawing today was meant to distract attention from the indictments…which I expected today but so far nothing.
And now they have a much better news story–the next pick. I’d pick Bork. It would drive the Democrats crazy and he’s certainly more accomplished than Meirs.
As for the Democrats, I see Chillary much the same way that Bill sees Santorum: she’s the candidate that most republicans would like to see run, but I don’t see a huge groundswell of support for her candidacy on the democrat side.
Every poll I’ve seen puts her ahead. She’s raising tons of cash. She can get on TV any time she wants. She’s the frontrunner. But of course, as I said, for a Democrat that’s not a good thing.
Actually I thought that her withdrawing today was meant to distract attention from the indictments…which I expected today but so far nothing.
It sounds like the indictments won’t come today.
It’s sad, but distractions from this Administration are common. They they can’t keep playing the sleight of hand game they’ve gotten away with since Bush took office.
Hopefully it all backfires next year and in 2008.
I haven’t seen any polls that actually show Chillary up against any other democrats. The only polls I’ve seen compare to Giulliani and McCain, as if the pollsters have already assumed that she’s won the nomination.
As for parts of the army siding with the duck hunters. I suppose that’s possible. It would depend on what the circumstances were and why the duck hunters decided to rebel. But wouldn’t be duck hunters vs. the US military. That would be the US miltiary + a few duck hunters vs the US military. That’s not really the scenario people invoke to argue that the 2nd amendment is needed for citizens to fight against the US government.
Rex said:
Also, the camera analogy is a specious argument at best. A camera has legitimate, perfectly legal uses, and people will always find ways to use legal items illegally. The ONLY function of a gun is to kill, and no civilian needs an assault weapon. (I’m all for allowing special dispensation for law enforcement, however.)
Let’s see… I grew up around guns. I can remember shooting small caliber weapons when I was very young. As a teenager, I went hunting regularly, and though I’m too much of a softy to have ever actually shot an animal, I spent a good deal of time target practicing. A couple of weekends ago, I spent a few hours with my friends target shooting and lining up sights.
The point? I have used guns. If the only use of guns was to kill, then, logically, I must be a killer. Since I’m not a killer, that seems to disprove the “guns are only good for killing” fallacy.
As for special dispensation for law enforcement, law enforcement is a specialized group of people who devote their time doing the duty of all citizens. They are not a special class who deserve rights not given to the rest of us.
I’m not convinced there will be any indictments tomorrow either. The laws covering disclosure of classified information are fairly murky in this regard. At most, I expect there may be an obstruction or perjury charge. Which of course will mean that the conservative pundits will follow Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s lead and start talking about how perjury is such a meaningless charge.
“The point? I have used guns. If the only use of guns was to kill, then, logically, I must be a killer. Since I’m not a killer, that seems to disprove the “guns are only good for killing” fallacy.”
I think the point was this, Robin: The reasons that guns exist, period, is to kill. They aren’t there to help you build a house, or milk a cow, or start your car, or go to the store to pick up some fresh ginger. The reason they were invented is to have a more effective means for killing people. You can argue the point all you want, that that’s the truth. Whether or not that’s what you use them for is beside the point. You use them for target practice, fine. But what, precisely, are you practicing for?
Knuckles:
>I think the point was this, Robin: The reasons that guns exist, period, is to kill. They aren’t there to help you build a house, or milk a cow, or start your car, or go to the store to pick up some fresh ginger. The reason they were invented is to have a more effective means for killing people. You can argue the point all you want, that that’s the truth. Whether or not that’s what you use them for is beside the point. You use them for target practice, fine. But what, precisely, are you practicing for?
While I won’t argue the reason that guns were developed in the first place, I will echo Rboin’s point. I had been taught to fire a gun and handle it safely when I was extremely young. I have no inclination to shoot another living thing. I continue to go skeet shooting with my father and brother on the rare occassion. What am I practicing for…? Simply to develop a skill that is no more or less to me than throwing darts. Well, That and, spending time with my family in a way that is a big part of their lives.
Fred
Well, Knuckles, I’m essentially going to be echoing Fred, here, but the main reason I have for target shooting is that it provides an activity that I can share with my friends and, more importantly, my dad (with whom I don’t share many interests). Why’re we practicing? Well, some of them hunt, but mostly, we get kicks out of competing to see who is the best shot, the same way that we get kicks bowling or playing darts.
The list of things that were originally designed to kill people, either directly or by allowing people to more efficiently use other tools, is fairly long. The list of things that were invented for other reasons and then perverted to be used to kill is also lengthy. I see no reason why the original purpose of an item has any bearing on whether or not it should be banned.
I have one question that I feel should be used for determining whether the government should forbid or restrict its people from owning something: Is the ownership or production of this product harmful to bystanders? If the answer to the question is no, then outlaw harmful uses of the “something”, not the actual ownership of it.
For Robin S.–
I agree that a few people with guns wouldn’t be able to do much against the Army if the people with guns were, say, bad guys. But if it was just ordinary people…there you throw a monkeywrench into the works. The Army is not some mindless automaton. It’s made up of people that live here, too. Ask a general to lead his troops against Americans…more often than not I think you’d have the general looking at his superiors and saying, “Uh, no. Those are our people. I’m not going to do that.”
You all are missing my point. Guns were designed to kill people/animals/whatever. That’s my only point. You argued that point, and I think you are mistaken. You, specifically, may not use guns for that, but that doesn’t set aside the fact that guns were/are designed to kill. This isn’t a value judgement, it’s a statement of fact.
Rat, that’s a valid point but, like Bill’s suggestion that some in the army would side with the duck hunters, that actually undermines the argument that we need the 2nd amendment so citizens can fight the US military. If we believe that our military leaders won’t launch a full-out assault on the average Americans, then we have less reason to feel that we need to arm ourselves against them.
“Apparently, being liberal means you can pronounce conservatives guilty until proven innocent, unless you’re Osama Bin Laden. Then Howard Dean will demand you get a fair trial before jumping to conclusions.”
Yet another aspect of being liberal means ignoring conservative reporters when they want you to do interviews. See, I’m funny that way: I’m not big on cooperating with people who hold nothing but contempt for my opinions.
PAD
“Students of history may remember, that’s how we won the Revolution…”
I have absolutely no trouble rolling back the 2nd Amendment so that it guarantees the rights of people to own single-shot muskets that require about a dozen steps to load, and no guns of any kind other than that.
PAD
I haven’t seen any polls that actually show Chillary up against any other democrats. The only polls I’ve seen compare to Giulliani and McCain, as if the pollsters have already assumed that she’s won the nomination.
Check out http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
Some interesting stuff. the most recent order of preference goes :
Hillary Clinton 41
John Kerry 17
John Edwards 14
Joe Biden 5
Wesley Clark 3
Evan Bayh 2
Tom Vilsack 1
Mark Warner 1
Hillary has almost as much support as all the others combined. Formidable.
Thanks for the poll, Bill. Interesting enough, the names are ranked almost perfectly in descending order of name-recognition.
And when they ask Republicans, the Rick Santorum steamroller keeps on a chugging; from a high of 3% to his new numbers of n/a.
I saw that, too. And nothing makes me happier. The sooner that sleazeball is out of Washington, the better for my state.
Unfortunately, Polling Report isn’t a terribly useful polling organization. SurveyUSA, Zogby or Gallup will come out with something at some point. But until then, take SurveyUSA’s numbers with a Dead Sea worth of salt.
Unfortunately, Polling Report isn’t a terribly useful polling organization. SurveyUSA, Zogby or Gallup will come out with something at some point. But until then, take SurveyUSA’s numbers with a Dead Sea worth of salt.
Errr…maybe I’m missing something but aren’t the polls up at Polling Report polls from reliable pollsters? They have polls from WNBC/Marist, FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Zogby America Poll, Ipsos-Public Affairs poll…
Seems pretty reliable to me, unless you know something I don’t.
Incidentally, the CNN/Gallup pol gave the following:
Hillary Rodham Clinton 40
John Kerry 16
John Edwards 15
Joe Biden 9
Wesley Clark 5
Bill Richardson 3
Evan Bayh 3
Mark Warner 2
If the “kill the frontrunner” and “never nominate a previous loser” trends hold, that would give John Edwards a good chance. (A losing VP candidate doesn’t have it held against him–witness Walter Mondale. Then again, look what happened to him.).
Nope, my bad, Bill. For some reason I’m confusing Polling Report with Rasmussen. It’s been a long goddam day.
You all are missing my point. Guns were designed to kill people/animals/whatever. That’s my only point. You argued that point, and I think you are mistaken. You, specifically, may not use guns for that, but that doesn’t set aside the fact that guns were/are designed to kill. This isn’t a value judgement, it’s a statement of fact.
I believe the comment I originally responded to was that the only use for guns was to kill, which is blantantly false. Not a value judgement, just a statement of fact.
I read your reply to that as an attempt to disprove my “there are other uses” with “the design was for killing”, and, of course, the two things aren’t mutually exclusive. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.
Rat,
I actually started to point that out, myself (and someone else did above, too, I think), but I couldn’t get it to come out well.
All,
I’ve really enjoyed this discussion, but I’m going to have to abandon it now. For one thing, this page is taking forever to load (I hate dialup), and for another, my free time is about to be consumed by City of Villains and Nanowrimo.
I have absolutely no trouble rolling back the 2nd Amendment so that it guarantees the rights of people to own single-shot muskets that require about a dozen steps to load, and no guns of any kind other than that.
Then we could just roll back 1st admendment rights to only protect what was available at that time and most pornography would be illegal.
Both admendments have limitations, as they should, but neither should be done away with or allowed carte blanche.
It’s been a long goddam day.
You too? I swear, the last few weeks have been life-sucking. And there’s no WAY this weekend will be any better since it’s Halloween time, the favorite holiday of My People.
Get some rest, man.
Tom Vilsack
I’ve only seen one article mention Vilsack, two-term governor of Iowa, as a possible presidential candidate, and that was only an opinion piece that said the whole thing boils down to the fact that Vilsack would get a “head start” by being from Iowa for the Iowa Primary.
I don’t think anybody really remembers that he was considered to be a possible vice-presidential candidate for Kerry.
Bill: You know, between being a father and a husband, and a ferry commuter, it seems like the day never ends. And yes, I relate to the whole Hallowe’en thing. And then it’s Christmas…
Well, even though Robin S may not be reading any more, just one more thing…
To get back on track slightly, what we were originally discussing was an Assault Weapons Ban, NOT a ban on ALL guns. You want to play target practice, fine. You don’t need an assault rifle for that. An assault rifle is not a “target practice” weapon. It’s a weapon of slaughter, and a civilian has NO legitimate need to own one.
-Rex Hondo-
“Then we could just roll back 1st admendment rights to only protect what was available at that time and most pornography would be illegal.”
Spoken like someone who is oblivious to the depth, availability and type of pørņ available 230 years ago.
Also, the concept of free expression hasn’t changed. The concept of what guns can do and militias most definitely has.
PAD
Spoken like someone who is oblivious to the depth, availability and type of pørņ available 230 years ago.
Well, they didn’t have, like, cameras and stuff…
Spoken like someone who is oblivious to the depth, availability and type of pørņ available 230 years ago.
“Well, they didn’t have, like, cameras and stuff…” he said, spelling “fûçkë” with an ‘e’.
Hmm… Just googled “17th century pornography” (then realized I’d given it an extra century accidentally) and was only slightly surprised by the number of hits. Didn’t actually follow any of the links, since they most likely are decidedly NOT work safe.
I guess most of it was line drawings and the like…
-Rex Hondo-
17th century pørņ was the WORST! The actors were bottom of the barrel, the dialogue was poor and those plots! Always the same- “Alas, kind sir, I hath forgotten to borroweth a halfpence from yon moneychanger. How shall I payeth for the pizza?”
It’s the splinters I get from trying to open those dámņ woodcut centerfolds that always ticks me off…
I swear, the last few weeks have been life-sucking.
Firmly seconded.
TWL
Ha!
Five-count indictment against Libby, including obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury.
Looks like Rove will remain under investigation.
Can anybody really assume that, with Cheney’s chief of staff and Bush’s closest adviser both on the hot seat, neither Cheney or Bush can be ignorant of what was going on?
I was thinking the same thing, Craig. If Fitzgerald has a new grand jury impaneled (which it sounds like a very real possibility), this could go on quite a bit longer.
I can never resist a chance to play Devil’s Advocate.
Ask a general to lead his troops against Americans…more often than not I think you’d have the general looking at his superiors and saying, “Uh, no. Those are our people. I’m not going to do that.”
Really? Never seems to have stopped Iron Curtain generals. Or for that matter, American racists. I’m pretty sure those were government agents turning the hoses on protestors back in the ’60s. And a few days ago I saw a Rosa Parks retrospective on PBS that showed an interview (I think from “Eyes on the Prize”) in which she mentioned her grandfather sitting up at night with his shotgun by his chair because the Klan was having a “meeting” that night. Don’t assume that there were no government agents in the Klan back then, either. Or, for that matter, future Supreme Court justices or US Senators. (Justice Black and Senator Byrd, e.g.)
Of course, we’re not Cold-War-era Poland, and I certainly hope we’ve moved well past the disaster that was American race relations in the first part of the last century. I agree that political culture is important. The United States isn’t suddenly going to turn into a totalitarian state, and the days are past when minorities had to arm themselves to protect themselves in their homes. I don’t think the American military is oppressive in the same way as, say, the North Korean army. But I do think it’s naive to assume that it could never happen here– or that it never has. Besides, the whole point of military training is to condition troops to obey their superiors. I would have bet money that US troops would never devastate a civilian village if I didn’t know about My Lai. Knowing that, why would you assume that our your hypothetical general would succeed where Lt. Calley failed? I think you’re probably right, but don’t assume that the people who disagree with you are absolute idiots.
Den wrote Rat, that’s a valid point but, like Bill’s suggestion that some in the army would side with the duck hunters, that actually undermines the argument that we need the 2nd amendment so citizens can fight the US military. If we believe that our military leaders won’t launch a full-out assault on the average Americans, then we have less reason to feel that we need to arm ourselves against them.
That’s true, but our society values an awful lot of rights that grew out of certain historical contexts. I’ve seen the Bill of Rights described as a “laundry list” of complaints against the abuses of the Stuart and Hanoverian dynasties. The American institution of trial by jury, for instance, was designed as a check on the government, because in the colonial era it served as such. We no longer are ruled by colonial governors and our legislatures (and prosecutors and judges in most jurisdictions) are elected. There’s no more reason to think that we need a jury, to nullify an unjust prosecution under unjust laws, than there is to think we need a citizen militia to protect us from the government. Let’s get rid of both rights, since we don’t really need them anymore.
“Students of history may remember, that’s how we won the Revolution…”
I have absolutely no trouble rolling back the 2nd Amendment so that it guarantees the rights of people to own single-shot muskets that require about a dozen steps to load, and no guns of any kind other than that.
PAD, if we could roll back the arsenals of everyone in the world to muskets, I think this would be a good idea. That would be a great genie to put back in the bottle. But it’s not as though violence, war, or crime would go away if we managed a worldwide arms limitation agreement. I’m armed to the teeth and I’ve never hurt anyone or anything. On the other hand, this morning I tried a 12 year old for choking another kid at school, and to this day neither he nor his mother thinks he did anything wrong in wrapping his hands around the throat of a kid who, he claims, picked on him for several months. The problem isn’t the weapon– the problem is that we’re an intelligent and therefore dangerous species of chimpanzee, and if no guns are available we’ll kill each other with knives or rocks or bare hands.
As for Second Amendment issues, legal gun ownership is irrelevant to saving lives, and even if you radically limit the lethality of legally owned guns (such as limiting legal purchases to muskets) I doubt there’ll be a noticeable increase in public safety. The next gun crime that I handle that involves a legally purchased gun will be the first one. The people buying guns, by and large, aren’t the ones committing crimes.
West Wing, Season 2, Episode 4:
SAM:It’s not about personal freedom, and it certainly has nothing to do with public safety. It’s just that some people like guns.
AINSLEY: Yes, they do. But you know what’s more insidious than that? Your gun control position doesn’t have anything to do with public safety, and it’s certainly not about personal freedom. It’s about you don’t like people who do like guns. You don’t like the people. Think about that, the next time you make a joke about the South.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have the statistics for how many illegal firearms used in crimes were obtained by theft from people who HAD legally purchased them?
Also out of curiosity, what’s the ratio of Legal to illegal firearms in accidental shootings?
-Rex Hondo-
Well, Dave, I’m sure both DeLay and Scooter would argue that we still need protection from unjust prosecution, no matter how personally sleezy they both are. 🙂
Actually, the one amendment that seems the most useless today is the one no quartering of troops. When was the last time the army knocked on your door and said that you needed to make room for a couple of soldiers in you house?
I’m not arguing for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, nor am I saying that the idea that an armed citizenry as a check against a tyrannical government didn’t make perfect sense in the 1780s. I am, however, saying that given the advances in weaponry and military tactics, that particular argument for keeping the 2nd amendment doesn’t hold much water in 2005.
I’m not arguing for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, nor am I saying that the idea that an armed citizenry as a check against a tyrannical government didn’t make perfect sense in the 1780s. I am, however, saying that given the advances in weaponry and military tactics, that particular argument for keeping the 2nd amendment doesn’t hold much water in 2005.
Actually, I agree with you. Without the right to keep and bear F-16s, I don’t see an 18th-Century-style militia doing any good against a 21st Century US Army. And frankly, I’m enough of a raving nationalist that I doubt I’d side with any insurgency this century, so I’m fine with that.
I think there are two extremely good arguments against repealing the Second Amendment. The weaker of the two is that a repeal would be a punishment of law-abiding citizens for, essentially, being victims. Consider Rex Hondo’s question just above: how many homicides involve stolen weapons? The implication is that we can reduce the number of violent crimes by cutting down on the available pool of stealable weapons. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve limited civil liberties in order to reduce crime, but generally that’s a bad idea.
I think the bigger objection to a repeal is the precedent it sets. We have never in our history passed an amendment to actually remove a legal freedom that our citizens enjoy. I think that’s a splendid argument against the flag-burning amendment, and I think it applies here too. Do we ever, even once, want to adopt the argument that we don’t really need one of our civil liberties? If so, why not take another look at trial by jury– I assure you it’s more a hinderance than a help to the pursuit of justice. It’s the slippery slope to end all slippery slopes.
We have never in our history passed an amendment to actually remove a legal freedom that our citizens enjoy.
IIRC, we have once: Prohibition.
Of course, that depends on whether you considering drinking a ‘legal freedom’. 🙂
And this brought on a second amendment to overturn the first.
Re: Prohibition. Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that one. It’s not on the same order as repealing a constitutionally protected right, but worth mentioning as a caveat. Good catch.
Weird, last post didn’t appear to go to the server. I apologize in advance if this looks like a double post.
Re: Prohibition. Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that one. It’s not quite the same as repealing a constitutionally protected freedom, but worth mentioning as a caveat. Good catch. Thanks.
After actually taking the time to google, it seems that there is significant legal precedence for the 2nd Amendment only truly applying to weapons with “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In other words, the first few words of the amendment, which a lot of gun nuts conveniently forget are there.
So, police and soldiers, who could reasonably be assumed to form part of a civilian militia, should the need arise, could keep the aformentioned 12-shot peashooter that they just use to lay down cover fire until backup arrives. Bubba down the street, who threatens anybody who comes near his property line with a sawed off shotgun is a little more problematic.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, there are laws in place that prevent people from owning explosive devices above a certain yield. So, the “right to bear arms” does not cover, say, a small nuke.
*shrug* Just more fodder for conversation for the thread that wouldn’t die, I suppose…
-Rex Hondo-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/28/science.debate.reut/index.html
Getting back to the earlier discussion about the growing hostility towards science in this country.
Den, good article. I have one question though, over the following passage: “For example, as CBS poll this month found that 51 percent of respondents believed humans were created in their present form by God. A further 30 percent said their creation was guided by God. Only 15 percent thought humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.”
Why would “their creation was guided by God” and “humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.” be imcompatable?
When you’re talking about bad science, polls should be right at the top of the list. Often wrong, never in doubt.