Why don’t they ask about associations with terrorists?

gamecock

Obama is a rogue magnet. He attracts scum. Being associated with him may be the main dis-qualifier.

azaeroprof

Question#61:
“Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used–even unfairly–to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?”

Sounds like Obama might have trouble qualifying for his own staff. Of course, he would argue that these associations would be being used “unfairly” (by unfairly, that means against him).

It’s already been said by others that the Defense Investigative Service has probably already had to issue an exception for Obama to see Top Secret material as he likely doesn’t qualify for that clearance!

izoneguy

I am afraid you are right.

kudzu630

There is no Defense Investigative Service. That went out a long time ago and was replaced by the Defense Security Service which now contracts much of its business out and gives most cases to the Office of Personnel Management.

With Clinton’s administration, DIS (as it was called then), was told to shift emphasis from drugs and other unsavory misdeeds. We’re likely to see the same thing with Obama’s people in order for them to obtain a clearance.

Dan_McLaughlin

(I haven’t checked the accuracy of this against the questionnaire):

Reader Brian Kalt, meanwhile, notes that the Obama administration employment questionnaire, noted here, does not include any questions about drug use. Apparently you can work for the administration even if you don’t use drugs.

DaveOinSF

I had to fill out a form once where I had to disclose moving violations above $50. So I had to list my speeding ticket and failure-to-stop from a decade ago.

My question is are there ANY moving violations whre the fine is less than $50? What’s the point of the $50 cutoff if it includes everything anyway?

RoxannaDanna

If he were applying for a job in this administration, he would never qualify.

Take question 10: he has 2 books and a recommendation blurb for Ayers’ book. Nothing from his college days seems to remain for the scrutiny of the press or the public.

Speeches like, and I paraphrase, “bitter folks who cling to guns and religion.” I think that kind of thing would embarrass a President-elect.

15, 16 and 17 all are questionable regarding TheOne and TheOneSpouse.

24 and some of the subsequent questions in that block: regarding questionable real estate they purchased in Chicago with/by Tony Rezko.

61 Holy cow! this one would sink TheOne. As would #62. I especially liked the reference in #62 to “news organizations” who might criticize a nomination. Which news organization would that be? Surely not Fox. No one in the new administration gives a crap what Fox says. And MSNBC will applaud all his choices.

RoxannaDanna

I have idea what happened to my font size… I didn’t think I’d changed anything.

Wow… I need to preview more often and better.

Sluf

Now I heard the new president-elect say that he wanted a civilian defense force with the power and authority of the military. The purpose will be for homeland security.

Can it be that Senator Obama is going to try to stem the 2nd Amendment by only allowing weapons to the designated civilian defense force? Why else would the administration want a full gun check on applicants in his administration?

I see nothing about drug use but I see 8 questions on if you payed your taxes on time.

grayhoundm20

I rather like the notion of liberals registering all of their weapons.

EastCoastObserver

After the SCOTUS’ decision of the DC Gun Case and seeing as how the democrats have been smart not to go after guns; gun owners can rest easy. SCOTUS stated explicitly that the 2nd Amendment gives you a personal right to own a gun. No one is taking away any guns.

10ksnooker

Didn’t know guns were registered. I guess they are in Indonesia where you need to permission of the ruling military junta to have one.

Tbone

But the Second Amendment doesn’t say we have a right to ammo not being taxed at tabacco tax level or draconian ownership rules, does it?

Does it?

In the alternative to answering that, perhaps you can put up a post to help us gauge “just how dumb you are”.

scottbomb

And he never got arrested? Maybe it’s an Illinois thing.

Here in Texas, they NEVER forget. I know this from experience!

mbecker908

wt259

I think it’s a Daley thing? They don’t forget in Michigan either. Try getting car insurance, and forgetting a ticket, accident or OWI arrest. They check eveyone, and if you happen to have one of those, they’ll let you know. And the State of Michigan will suspend your license for forgetting a moving violation. Lots of people go to jail for getting their license suspended for failing to appear.

weave

In my home state of Delaware, one can buy a gun without any type of paperwork if the sale is between private individuals. There’s no requirement to register it either.

Hence no one officially needs to know whether or not I own a gun.

EastCoastObserver

First, as to restriction on owning guns, the Court also touched on this stating that the govt. may implement restrictions as long as they are reasonable. Now you’re going to say, “well the liberals are going to say the only thing that is reasonable is something that is unreasonable!” well probably not. By touching on the restrictions that govt. can impose on gun ownership the Court is also protecting from to broad a restriction on guns. So, because the 2nd amendment grants you the absolute right to gun ownership any excessive law will be deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, the next 2 justices expected to leave the Court are both liberals, who would be replaced with 2 more liberals, which would keep the Court where it is. That, coupled with the fact that the Court rarely overturns well-reasoned cases (as this was, by touching on our 2nd Amendment rights and a state interest to reasonable gun laws) in such a short timeframe.

Second, as to taxing ammo, yea I guess some states or local governments or the federal government may impose a high tax on ammo. However, if the tax is “draconian” and excessive, then be sure that it would be challenged in the courts, because this would encroach on the Second Amendment right that the Court just granted you.

Again, No one is taking away our right to bar arms.

You got that T-Bone or was it too “stupid” for you?

EastCoastObserver

..not to even mention the fact that the Court, after stating that the Second Amendment of our Constitution grants us this inherent right, would more than likely never take it away. The Court rarely (if ever?) takes away a Constitutional protected right. That just doesn’t happen, especially when the recent interpretation of the Amendment is reasonable and to the point. This wasn’t some vague right that they pulled from an Amendment (like abortion).

But I know….I’m an idiot. (In case you missed it, that was sarcastic).

EastCoastObserver

N/T

mbecker908

Simply pass a federal registration requirement. Ya gotta go through the system to buy a gun now (in most cases), extending the “background check” to include “registration” is a no brainer.

Registration, for ordinary gun owners, would be a nightmare. I have a very good friend who has a bevy of Class II permits (actually, tax stamps) for a variety of fully automatic and suppressed weapons. You would not believe the hoops he has to jump through and the requirements he has to follow with those weapons. Interestingly enough, various agencies occasionally try to get him to provide a “complete list” of his non-registered (and perfectly legal) weapons. He refuses. It would be a short step to move all weapons into such categories.

Tbone

However, your progress towards rock status is impressive.

Now, go find out how much the cost of a pack of cigarettes is tax. Then go find the reason those taxes were imposed. Then come back and tell us that they were imposed to make people quit smoking.

Thank goodness you are in law school where your talent for specious reasoning can be of benefit.

mbecker908

Happy Bunny is right again.

EastCoastObserver

Unlike your right to bear arms, you don’t have an explicit right in the Constitution to smoke cigarettes. Unless you want to call that your right to “happiness,” but then I guess people would start bringing claims stating that cocaine being illegal violates this right also. Not only would that fail, but it would be hilarious to watch.

mbecker908

Interesting typo, assuming it’s a typo.

There are more ways to impede the right than you’ve noted. An outright ban is not necessary. You could, for instance…

Require registration at the same time the “5 day check” is run.
Slap an onerous tax on weapons/ammo.
Require a permit for ammo.
Limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased in a time frame.
Ban self-loading.
Require that weapons be held at a range.

…just for starters. None of those bullet points (pun intended) would necessarily run afoul of the SCOTUS decision. In every case, you could “own” and “have use of” the firearm.

mbecker908

You should read it sometime. It’s purpose was to grant specific powers to the federal government, all others not specifically delineated are reserved to the states and individuals.

More important that there being nothing in the Constitution that grants my “right” to smoke, there is nothing there that denies me that right either.

Tbone

last night?

You don’t even have a hint what a “Constitutional Right” is.

Are the only rights we have explicit?

Look it up bucky.

Airion

Obama didn’t call for some civilian fighting force. He called for more people to do things like going to unstable countries and helping to improve living conditions there, thereby helping to prevent people in those areas from turning to radicalism, and thereby supporting our national security, which the military also does (but in a different way). It’s Peace Corps stuff. Nothing to do with guns, police, or fighting.

Let’s at least focus on the real threats out there.

Tbone

Those fricken ambulances are pretty fast. OTH, if Barry can be a “Constitutional Law Professor” anybody can. LOL

birdmojo

Too much, actually.

Yeah, forget I brought it up.

EastCoastObserver

Typo, yes.

But, if they are excessive then it would begin to impede on your right and thus, be unconstitutional. You make some good points and those are ways to restrict ammo, but the legislature would likely enact reasonable limits. Having a background check is a good thing. I don’t think anyone wants some psycho or ex-felon to be able to just walk into a store and walk out with a gun.

As far as the other restrictions, we’d have to wait and see, but I don’t think it is reasonable to start thinking that every legislature is about to limit you to 1 bullet a day, 10 day waiting periods etc. I think its a tad bit paranoid to think of the worst case scenario. Legislatures represent the people whom elect them. The State Legislature of Texas or Montana is likely to do little to restrict ammo. However, the city of NY will probably implement stricter regulation, and I think that would be welcomed.

Fact is the Federal government isn’t about to lay a blanket gun or ammo restriction law over the whole country. So the fear that a Liberal President, like Obama, or some future Conservative President may start drastically changing your ability to bear arms every 4 or 8 years is unfounded. You will more than likely find no difference at all. And if there is any difference, it will probably be towards some governments having to scale back their restrictions in light of the DC Gun Law case.

So again, no President, Congress, State or local govt. is taking away your guns. The SCOTUS has made this a red herring issue

EastCoastObserver

Obviously not.

You two are missing the point. Abortion isn’t in the Constitution. The Court extrapolated that right from a right to privacy. This is a Liberal thing to do. To look at the Constitution and graft it on to today’s issues. Bu this Court, a Conservative one, has looked at the writing of the Constitution and stated that there is no extrapolating necessary. The Right to Bear Arms is right there in the text of the Amendment.

So the fear that a future Court would go in and overturn what it previously found to be written in the text and not an interpretation, and extrapolation, from the text is unfounded.

EastCoastObserver

..but im not trying to work for the ACLU or chase ambulances. The ability to simply look past what someone is writing in order to talk down to them with “your stupid” and for the most part not even address what they are saying to you is quite sad. Mental Midgetry shouldn’t be something you’re proud of.

Tbone

Not our fault, you’re the one with the hat on.

birdmojo

You mean I have a right to, say, make money without the government knowing about it?

A right to hold poker (or craps or roulette) games in the basement or garage of my home?

A right to smoke the dried leaves of a plant in the privacy of my own basement?

A right to move from this state to that state without telling the government?

A right to keep a fully-automatic rifle in the closet next to my bed?

Or do you just mean the right to a partial-birth abortion?

Because, normally, people just mean “the right to a partial-birth abortion” when they talk about a “right to privacy”.

mbecker908

But, overall, the tenor of your commentary and your insistence that the federal government can’t – or won’t – do something to restrict firearm ownership/usage is simply, well, stupid and uninformed. What you are trying to pass off as “facts” are nothing more than your uninformed opinion.

These are the same genetic strain that started trying to ban smoking in the ’50′s and finally filed enough lawsuits that the industry caved. You can bet your near worthless BS on the fact that the Left has lawyers cuing up right now to customize both legislation and lawsuits to restrict firearms. And when the Democrats get through packing the lower courts and replacing both aging liberals on SCOTUS, there will likely be a string of suits awaiting appeal.

mbecker908

Happy Bunny looks.

EastCoastObserver

What is a fact is that the SCOTUS has said there is an inherent personal right to bear arms. That is a fact. The federal govt. “can” do lots of things, but to go against a recent SCOTUS case with a gun regulatory law that is far to restrictive is unlikely. Even packing the Courts won’t change this. Unless they start packing them with some absolute crazies, which is doubtful. Will they lean left? yes, but will they start rejecting recent precedent on the 2nd Amendment? Most likely not.

For all the paranoia on the Right about Liberals taking away your guns, it hasn’t happened. The same goes for all the paranoia on the Left about abortion and we’ve had far more pro-life Presidents since Roe.

Things tend to remain in a balance and the Supreme Court, even if it has a few more democrats on it, will more than likely follow the ruling in the DC Gun Law case and never overturn it. The Court was careful in that case to not only state there is an explicit right, but to also say that government can have reasonable limitations.

Never before has the Court conclusively interpreted the 2nd Amendment and now that they have a future Court will probably not change it. Scalia finally gave some clarity to the issue and made it abundantly clear. Made a logical well reasoned argument (as he often does) and explicitly laid out our Right Bear Arms.

This isn’t just some BS.

mbecker908

No, it’s not. It’s head in the sand idiocy.

Putter

Obama said he wanted a security force that was every bit as strong as the military, and “just as well funded”. That is what he said. So, he wants to spend 20% of the Federal budget on this program? You can spin that any way you want, but it is either a very scary or very stupid statement.

mbecker908

Produce some links, bubba. Like NOW.

mbecker908

Produce some links, bubba. Like NOW.

Airion

I said it had nothing to do with guns. The rhetoric in that clip is emphasizing the desire to approach national security issues without just bombs. Not just bomb terrorists, but work on eliminating the conditions under which people turn into terrorists.

“Just as strong” may be pie in the sky, but it doesn’t mean he literally wants to to have the same budget as our military. And it definitely has nothing to do with guns, police, or fighting in anyway. That’s the whole point of it.

Doc_Holliday

JLenardDetroit

Airion

It’s obvious in that clip that he’s proposing something that has nothing to do with guns. Means other than armed force.

Here’s an article that goes into greater depth:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamasciviliannational_secur.html

Doc_Holliday

he said it should be “at least as powerful as the US military!!

And I did not notice anything about sending Americans abroad to provide water or hand holding. He called for a civilian force, as powerful as our military for use in this country. Sorry if this offends you, but this sounds like a Gestapo.

The difference between free nations and dictatorships is that free nation’s miitaries point their guns outward, dictatorships and bannana republic have militaries that point their guns inward.

Putter

Either you are conceding that he is a buffoon, or, you are auditioning. His verbatim statement is “just as well funded”. You then proceed to say he meant something entirely different. Yeah, I know he is supposed to have a high IQ and all, but the evidence for this proposition declines moment by moment.

JoeG

I suspect and fear that you’re right.

I also believe that the result would be the creation of millions of criminals when a majority of the gun owners out there simply refuse to comply.

A note to mr eastcostliberal: Are you going to argue that mandatory registration would also be considered unconstitutional?

JoeG

The DC law was an outright ban.

You’re projecting your opinion on how the court would rule on an oppressive tax.

Don’t go calling folks stupid if you’re a law student who can’t see the difference.

Airion

But I don’t think he literally meant 20% of our federal budget. “Just as well funded” is rhetoric to get the crowd cheering and feeling good about themselves.

Besides that, whether or not it’s expensive isn’t what I’m trying to say here. I’m saying is it had nothing to do with armed civilians.

Airion

There’s two kinds of power a country can have: hard power, which is it’s military power. And soft power, which is it’s power of diplomacy, it’s power of cultural influence, etc.

Just as powerful as our military means just as effective in preventing conflicts abroad. Not just as powerful because they’ve both got guns. It is, in fact, hand-holding. I’m not saying his plan is going to do much good, but let’s first at least realize what he’s proposing in the first place.

The whole armed civilian fight force thing leads us into fantasy-land, while Democrats in the real world will be doing all kinds of legitimate crap unchecked.

Doc_Holliday

I am hearing the man’s words. What you have added, with no sources seems like fantasy land to me. BTW, were the libs not trying to scare people for 8 years says Bush would start a draft? Now a draft, for some force we don’t even know about is just fine?

bs

It appears they haven’t figured out that the campaign is over and insist on continuing to be apologists for The One.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Putter

When you start a sentence with “I don’t think he meant” and then proceed to knit a rhetorical Mercedes out of theoretical steel wool, you beclown yourself. He either has some scary ideas, or he is not terribly bright.

As to “eliminating the conditions under which people turn into terrorists”, are you referring to Bin Laden being born a multi-millionaire?

Airion

I did provide a source earlier actually.

Yep, some liberals truly believed that Bush really would reestablish the draft. Surprise surprise liberals, he didn’t. Now some conservatives truly believe Obama will institute an armed civilian police force.

Conservatives never believed that Bush would reestablish the draft. And liberals don’t believe Obama will institute an armed civilian police force. They’re not okay with it as you say- no one would be okay with it- but most people don’t believe he proposed it in the first place.

Airion

I’m not saying his proposal is good, bad, or makes sense here. I’m just saying what his proposal IS and what the logic behind it is supposed to be. Let’s not argue about things we probably agree about anyway.

Doc_Holliday

or you are putting words in Obama’s mouth. Heck, this idea didn’t even come from Obama, it came from his newly minted cheif of staff Rahm Emanuel. Let’s see if he is talking about a military type force or simply some expanded peace corps.

mbecker908

Yeah. Right. That’s how we know he’s a liberal. We’re not supposed to actually, like, pay attention to what he says. Just how he makes us feel.

Well, I’ve got a feeling right now I really wish you were here to share. I haven’t vomited on anybody in ages, but in your case I’ll make an exception.

mbecker908

No, actually you’re not. Because you don’t actually KNOW what his proposal is or what (or more likely whether) the logic is because he’s typically unclear and nonspecific. Except he uses words like “powerful” that have a specific meaning which you choose to disregard.

You are imputing your agenda for his meaning. A common lefty tactic that buys them time so they can be so far down the road with everyone’s assumptions they don’t have to worry about being challenged.

You’re not only an idiot, you’re a dangerous idiot.

jeanedcrusader

Obama doesn’t ask people questions he doesn’t like to answer himself. He’s giving the illuminati employees permission to have a sordid relationship history, but as long as they count up those guns, they’re ready to be sworn in.

mbecker908

Including the one on your head.

As far as “talking down to you”, you make it easy. You’re a half educated nitwit with no real world experience. It’s like fishing in a barrel with a hand grenade.

Putter

Suffice it to say, however, that I have little confidence in your ability to decipher the cryptic runes left by “the One”.

JLenardDetroit

By “denial” I mean, their willingness to delude themselves to what they “HOPE” to see in Obama (even when he CLEARLY points out his extreme Liberalism) rather than what is there. The Server would fill up if we began to list them all off here.

I hadn’t seen as many Zombies since the Michael Jackson “Thriller” album was released.

JLenardDetroit

Guess we can rest assured now. The big BO (read: stench) has been getting some “experience.”

Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship To Ease Concerns About His Lack Of Experience

I want to go back and see the “Voting Machines Elect One of their Own” next.

Airion

I guess I either have to believe the conspiracies or be a lefty-Obama-bot. I’ve made my points, but time enough will show that this idea you guys have of some gestapo in America was never actually proposed and will never come about. Waste all the time you want on it, the liberals will be all too happy to watch you take all your energy out on nothing, getting nowhere. Guess that’s the path to 2012.

Airion

And yet you all KNOW that his proposal is about an armed civilian police force? Where did you hear all those details?

And because I don’t buy the conspiracy, I’m a lefty dangerous idiot.

Moe_Lane

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2008/10/discuss-the-sec.html

Or, for that matter, still spouting off about gays and Israelis?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/FoxexecObamadidntdelay_baseball.html

Scram.

dglenn

…but don’t U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison apply here?

dglenn

hence Heller applies.

Doc_Holliday

ambulance chasing to have read about the “assault” weapons ban of 1994, also known as the Clinton Gun Ban. It lasted for ten years, did nothing, and has been dead for four years. Obama says he WILL reinstate it with even more restrictions.

Liberals know the gun banning fetish does not go over with Americans, so they play it down during elections. Gun purchases are surging not on paranoia (a libelous charge) but on reasonable facts on the ground.

The funny thing about the “assualt weapons” ban, is it was written by liberals that would not know a magazine from a newspaper. They actually banned bayonet lugs lol. btw, that means the place someone might place a bayonet, say in the Civil War.

Doc_Holliday

another irony of the Clinton Gun Ban. it banned semi-automatic weapons but not fully automatic “machine guns”. Of course the dumb liberal lied to everyone and said they were banning machine guns that “spray”, when actually they banned guns with the same basic action of many hunting rifles.

Machine guns, sawed off shotguns, silencers etc, are covered by the 1927 NFA. It was has always been legal to purchase one with an ATF check and $200 tax stamp.

then again, it was legal to purchase semi autos during the gun ban as long as they were imported or built prior to the ban. basically it was just a libs getting their rocks off wasting time and money. that is why no one tried to reinstate it in 2004. The radical Obama will do so, and our only chance to stop it are the Blue Dog Dems in the House. We could possibly fillibuster in the Senate but we have too many RINOS.

Even Bush, to his discredit, said he would sign a knew ban. Tom Delay said sorry sir, you will never get it to your desk.

seattle_ite

Are there any exemptions for vets? I already served my country, as did my dad and brother. I really don’t feel like sharing an open barracks with a bunch of spoiled brats, at least, not again, in this lifetime.

The financial survival of my family requires me to be at my job, not doing push-ups alongside people half my age for three months or more.

My opinion of Rep. Rahm is unprintable, here.

seattle_ite

I sincerely doubt that there were people prior to 1920, who thought the government or the courts would ever impose federal restrictions on firearms.

They were wrong, as history has proven.

The thing that marks the left in a bad light, especially for firearm owners, is the shady and duplicitous nature of their agenda. For me, it became crystal clear when, in ’92, Mike Kreidler was running in the 9th for the house seat. He swore on statewide TV that he was friendly to the 2nd Amendment, but was instrumental in passing the ’94 AWB.

He served exactly one term, and was replaced with a conservative. Western Wa. is about 2/3 to 3/4 liberal. What sunk Mr. Kreidler then wasn’t so much his support for audaciously bad anti-gun law, but being a bald-faced liar about the issue.

The current iteration of lefties in the Congress seem to have learned from his example. Thus, your “reasonble” assertion that we have nothing to fear is, in a word, bunk.

JoeG

Don’t be quite so smug in the responses; if that’s you’re claim, back it up.

mbecker908

Yeah, I’d agree with you, you ARE in the tank.
I don’t KNOW any more about what BO will do than you do. ie: nothing. However, I do know what words mean and you obviously don’t. As a side note, I find it somewhat humorous that people who’ve been railing about GWB’s communication skills for last seven years give this bozo (apologies to Bozo) a free pass on his inability to communicate clearly – see this issue and his recent discussion with the leader of Poland for just two examples. Well have more examples shortly.
“Details” I got from the BO himself. While I’d be the first to admit they’re a little sketchy and the devil is in the details, since I don’t trust this brain-dead lightweight SOB on anything, it’s a very short migration to expect the worst. BTW, given his history – recent history I would add – of changing positions 180 degrees at the drop of a hat and throwing everybody in his way under the ObamaBus, I don’t think expecting the worst is unreasonable.
“Conspiracy”, don’t think so. It’s just a reasonable reading of exactly what the jerk said.
As to your being an idiot, I agree. You’ve given us ample evidence to support that conclusion.

mbecker908

That, assuming it got to SCOTUS, would be 5-4 with Justice Kennedy voting in favor of heavy taxes. You might even find Scalia and Thomas voting on that side.

Given that Heller refers only to a dejure ban, this non-lawyer has a really hard time making the leap you’ve made. And you’re living in lala land if you think that people who aren’t better versed in the law than both of us won’t make that case, and won’t get it through at least one level of Appellate Court (see Ninth Circus).

dglenn

they are called Protective tariffs & Prohibitive Tariffs. Wolf is a company based in Russia that is a fairly popular brand of ammunition…Congress could make a tariff on foreign ammo that would be so as to be a de facto prohibition of importing their products…same with popular manufacturers like H & K, Beretta, Glock, etc. If Wolf was de facto banned in the scenario above, domestic ammo would become more & more expensive, thus the cost would be prohibitve…Again, oppressive tax=de facto ban.

mbecker908

And wouldn’t be treated as such by SCOTUS.

A high tariff would simply foster a domestic ammunition revival. Doesn’t serve the purpose. A tax kills all of them.

You’re really not very bright are you.

dglenn

Since the 2nd amendment is an individual right, wouldn’t it be unconstitutional for congress to interfere with it to the extent that an oppressive tax on say, ammunition, would infringe on an individual’s right to exercise it?

dglenn

it is a tax that is imposed goods as they move across borders.

Couldn’t congress impose an oppressively high tax on domestic ammo and an oppressively high tariff on foreign ammo? And since tariffs are a tax, wouldn’t such a law be unconstitutional?

dglenn

and insult me just because we disagree.

mbecker908

We, including you, have no idea. First of all, precisely what is the definition of a “high tariff”. That’s not included in the wording and is, therefore, subjective. I’m reasonably sure that Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsberg will arrive at starkly different conclusions on that issue. And Justice Kennedy would likely side with Ginsberg.

Again, we’re coming back to the point that Heller does not clear up the issue with regard to creative ways to limit (note I did not say “ban”) the acquisition and use of firearms.

Heller also specifically is mute about registration. When Mr. Heller applied for registration after the decision he was initially denied. His registration was later issued, but only because DC has long standing rules regarding registration. There is currently no federal registration requirement so the Administration could write anything they want into a new federal law requiring registration. And, again, there’s nothing that specifically says either the states or the fed can’t regulate where your guns are kept. You can have the ability to purchase all the guns you want, but if you have to store them at an approved range or similar facility, what’s the point.

You’re grasping at optimism straws that are 100% unreasonable. The battle to protect the intent of the 2nd Amendment not only is not over, it’s not even really begun yet.

mbecker908

It’s not that we disagree. It’s that your opinions are without merit, fly in the face of reality and are so uninformed that they easily pass as stupid.

Go read up on leftist attacks on the Constitution, maybe you’ll learn something. They understand that they are in a war for the soul of the country. Republicans don’t. You’re the poster boy for that.

dglenn

Address me as if I am a fairly intelligent person who is trying to argue a point. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right. Persuade me that I am wrong, and I might be willing to listen to you if you argue a point, not call me names.

mbecker908

The same Constitution that gives me the right to bear arms gives the Congress the right to levy taxes.

Again, the Constitution doesn’t define the limits on “taxes”, and specifically there is no language preventing Congress from levying any level of taxes they see fit to levy. For instance, pre-Reagan the highest marginal income tax was 92%. Congress levels a “gas-guzzler” tax on certain automobiles. There is a federal tax on gasoline that is approximately five times what the oil companies make for profit on that same gallon of gas. Shall we discuss taxation of cigarettes? And if you want a recent example of a tax that was used, probably inadvertently to destroy an industry, see the “luxury tax” on yachts.

Fundamentally, it appears – based on the history of federal taxation – that the Congress would only have to make a case for taxes at a certain level and then apply the tax revenue to offset an assumed problem caused by the item being taxed and said tax would easily survive a challenge.

The rationale for supporting Congress’ ability to tax at will v. the right to bear arms is straightforward.

Congress is not taking away my “right” to bear arms, they are simply making it more expensive.
If I don’t like the level taxes imposed by Congress on my guns and ammo, or my income, or my car, or my gasoline, or whatever, I can elect a new Congressman.
There is no specific limit to taxes levied by Congress in the Constitution. I think the Justices would want to avoid “finding” one, and I certainly would discourage them from doing so. They’ve “found” more than enough stuff that isn’t there.

Bottom line, your arguments hold water like a colander. The battle for the right to bear arms hasn’t even really begun yet. It’s probably about to.

dglenn

If you had read one of my previous posts, you would have known that a “high tariff/tax” IMO, and I think that there is a 1st amendment equivalency of some sort, is one that infringes upon an individuals ability to exercise that right by making anyone part of exercising that right cost prohibitive. Similar to how there is a “cap” of some sort on how much permits for marching down a street can cost, I think.
We might be kinda screwed there.
Agreed, although my reply to your first point might cover that.
Not grasping at straws…just trying to argue that you’re wrong

mbecker908

You have no specific precedent on any of them and, as you’ve been repeatedly shown, Heller is at best a stretch and an “end around” would not take a big legal mind to put forth. In addition, we’re dealing with federal law, so it would be easy to “shop” a jurisdiction for a favorable decision.

In addition, it’s likely Justices Stevens and Ginsberg – who would vote against any of your arguments so fast your head would spin off your shoulders – will be replaced, and be replaced by hard line leftists who will make us yearn for S&G and the “good old days when we had a conservative court”. Given that Justice Kennedy has generally no firm foundation in jurisprudence and seems to vote with the side that either pounds him or rubs him, he’ll likely become as liberal as Souter (who also may get replaced with an uber-liberal).

An excellent case can be made – not KNOWN, but made – that the Court is about see the dawn of a new and exceeding liberal day. Which simply compounds the arguments against you.

mbecker908

…you would have known that a “high tariff/tax” IMO
The key here is “IMO”. And your opinion doesn’t count. It doesn’t count because there are very solid arguments to made against your opinion, and fairly weak arguments in favor of it. Go find me a ConLawyer who agrees with you and I’ll listen (not necessarily agree), but your argument don’t, and won’t, hold a drop of water.

…and I think that there is a 1st amendment equivalency of some sort, is one that infringes upon an individuals ability to exercise that right by making anyone part of exercising that right cost prohibitive. Similar to how there is a “cap” of some sort on how much permits for marching down a street can cost, I think.
This goes beyond laughable. “I think…” isn’t a legal argument. Neither is anything in between the “I thinks”.

We might be kinda screwed there.
I don’t know that we’re screwed, but the battle is FAR from over, which is my only point. Heller is not the “be all, end all” defense of the 2nd Amendment. Leftists are very creative people when it comes to writing law that infringes on the intent of the Constitution in a way that they can find a 5/4 SCOTUS majority to support them. We have to be prepared. Relying on your arguments won’t help us get prepared.

Agreed, although my reply to your first point might cover that.
It doesn’t.

Not grasping at straws…just trying to argue that you’re wrong
No, your grasping at straws. And again, my point isn’t that I’m necessarily right in the specifics (although I think my arguments hold up well, but then again, they haven’t been challenged) but that there are solid legal arguments to be made that will allow a compliant Congress to find a way to successfully regulate the free acquisition and use of firearms without actually “banning” them.

dglenn

What I was trying to say is that a tax that would make any part of exercising a guaranteed right prohibitive due to the cost of exercising that right would be unconstitutional, even though the constitution allows for taxation.
I remember reading about a case or a legal principle in my high school government class regarding this…I forget the name though.
Heller is a good start though, because it says, and I quote the decision, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It seems to me, (again, I’m stupid, what the heck do I know?) that this would make it trickier (if not nearly impossible) for them to do such a thing. Although being the crafty people they are, they could just provide you with a disincentive of some sort if you want to protect yourself/your home using a firearm, although I do not know how such a law would meld with state “Castle Doctrine” laws.
Could we please stick to the arguments here, and not throw out any insinuations about one’s intelligence?

mbecker908

What I was trying to say is that a tax that would make any part of exercising a guaranteed right prohibitive due to the cost of exercising that right would be unconstitutional, even though the constitution allows for taxation.
And you are utterly wrong based on the facts. No court has ever attempted, let alone been successful, at reducing or eliminating a tax. Hell, the federal court in, I believe St. Louis, MO, required a tax increase on local property taxes to pay for a “school desegregation scheme” the court deemed necessary.

I remember reading about a case or a legal principle in my high school government class regarding this…I forget the name though.
I won’t even go there.

Heller is a good start though, because it says, and I quote the decision, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” It seems to me, (again, I’m stupid, what the heck do I know?) that this would make it trickier (if not nearly impossible) for them to do such a thing. Although being the crafty people they are, they could just provide you with a disincentive of some sort if you want to protect yourself/your home using a firearm, although I do not know how such a law would meld with state “Castle Doctrine” laws.
Again, I don’t disagree with your comment on your argument. It’s stupid. And while you obviously know more than nothing, you don’t know how to forge a rational argument based on available facts nor do you make or appreciate the idea of a “reasonable assumption”.

Could we please stick to the arguments here, and not throw out any insinuations about one’s intelligence?
As soon as you come to the land of rational, thinking human beings, sure.

BTW, I’m done with this. You can continue to delude yourself as you see fit, I’m opting to go play with Franz, Prince of Dogness. I need some intelligent companionship. (And since you’re new, I’ll warn you… don’t mess with Franz. He has a solid following here at RS and we may consider reinvigorating his considered Presidential candidacy for 2012.)

dglenn

nt

mbecker908

From Obama’s website…
“Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

Remember, it’s for the children. The bastards have started chipping away and we’re not even a month past the election. Democrats understand the concept of “incrementalism”, we don’t.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Why don’t they ask about associations with terrorists?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL