How would you feel about a Clinton/Obama ticket?

[PSUFAN]

You know it's coming.

[battery chucka' one]

Sounds great. I think Dems should run with it.

Rack!!! That ticket will bury anything those evil republicans put up!!!

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'd be more enthusiastic about it if you reversed the order. But Edwards is my first choice.

Fwiw, Hillary will never be the Presidential nominee. She's pretty much maxed out right now in terms of elected office (although she could become a Supreme Court Justice if a Democrat wins the next election.)

[PSUFAN]

I have to admit - Clinton does nothing for me as a candidate, apart from the sting the Rovies would feel seeing Bill back in the White House, spraying spunk on interns, calling Euro leaders by their pet names, using multisyllabic words from time to time...

I think a ticket that mobilized women and blacks would be a pretty strong one at the polls.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I have to admit - Clinton does nothing for me as a candidate, apart from the sting the Rovies would feel seeing Bill back in the White House, spraying spunk on interns, calling Euro leaders by their pet names, using multisyllabic words from time to time...

I'm pretty much with you on that one.

I think a ticket that mobilized women and blacks would be a pretty strong one at the polls.

Disagree. Not to sound racist or sexist, but I'm afraid that there are a bunch of people in this country who will say one thing to pollsters, but vote a completely different way in the privacy of the voting booth. Not a majority of voters necessarily, but a sizeable enough minority to make a difference in an otherwise close election.

Throw in the fact that the Republican base is demoralized, and Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure, especially to the far right. The one way you'll get a decent turnout from the Republican base is if Hillary is the nominee.

In the general election, Edwards is the most electable Democratic candidate, and it's not even really all that close.

[BSmack]

I have to admit - Clinton does nothing for me as a candidate, apart from the sting the Rovies would feel seeing Bill back in the White House, spraying spunk on interns, calling Euro leaders by their pet names, using multisyllabic words from time to time...

I think a ticket that mobilized women and blacks would be a pretty strong one at the polls.

If it did, it would be the first fucking time.

[Terry in Crapchester]

On Iraq, I suppose the best thing that can be said about Hillary is that she'd be an improvement over Smirky McFlightsuit. Then again, so would my two-year-old.

[Terry in Crapchester]

On Iraq, I suppose the best thing that can be said about Hillary is that she'd be an improvement over Smirky McFlightsuit.

Why? She voted for it, too.

She's changed her mind recently. Granted, it's a classic case of finger-to-the-wind political opportunism, but if we can keep up the pressure . . .

And btw, I mentioned that my 2-year-old would also be an improvement over Smirky McFlightsuit on Iraq. It's not like that's some sort of huge accomplishment.

You apparently assume I support Hillary. If you knew how to read, rather than just swallowing the pabulum being shoved down your piehole by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Whiner, et al., without thinking, you wouldn't.

[Dinsdale]

Which one of the candidates stood against the wave of psuedo-"patriotism," didn't take the cheap political goodwill, and stood up against popular opinion in the interest of what was right(which 70% of the American public now agrees with)? Who also stood up and voted against the (traitorous) Patriot Act, and the grounds it was a Constitutional abomination?

Who was that again?


That would be Ron Paul.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Which one of the candidates stood against the wave of psuedo-"patriotism," didn't take the cheap political goodwill, and stood up against popular opinion in the interest of what was right(which 70% of the American public now agrees with)? Who also stood up and voted against the (traitorous) Patriot Act, and the grounds it was a Constitutional abomination?

Who was that again?

That would be Barack Obama.

[Goober McTuber]

Which one of the candidates stood against the wave of psuedo-"patriotism," didn't take the cheap political goodwill, and stood up against popular opinion in the interest of what was right(which 70% of the American public now agrees with)? Who also stood up and voted against the (traitorous) Patriot Act, and the grounds it was a Constitutional abomination?

Who was that again?


That would be Ron Paul.

I thought it was Russ Feingold?

[PSUFAN]

If you can keep up the pressure, she will tell you exactly what you want to hear and then she'll cum in your in mouth. I think she learned that one from Bill.

Rack Bill. Only the most dogged, tenacious effort could make that nag a squirter.

[Dinsdale]

That would be Barack Obama.

Are you reatrded?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and voted to renew it, which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with the Constitution.


Have you considered actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about when you start spouting about candidates, or are you just trying to nog it up because your wife told you to?

[Terry in Crapchester]

That would be Barack Obama.

Are you reatrded?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and voted to renew it, which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

Link?

He wasn't in the Senate in '02. He voted against it when it came up for renewal.

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with my reading of the Constitution.

FTFY.

Have you considered actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about when you start spouting about candidates, or are you just trying to nog it up because your wife told you to?

I've said before, my first choice is Edwards. Any of the Democratic frontrunners would be a significant improvement over Smirky McFlightsuit, but there's a significant difference between them.

[Dinsdale]

That would be Barack Obama.

Are you reatrded?

Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and voted to renew it, which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

Link?

He wasn't in the Senate in '02. He voted against it when it came up for renewal.

My apologies for getting a fart stuck between my brain and my keyboard. Not what I meant to say, but it's what I did say, so I'll just mea culpa on the "voted for the Patriot Act."


But when you say he "voted against renewal," you might want to check out the flip-flop that went down between 12/16/05 and 3/2/06.

He also voted for it.

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with what the Framers said in direct statements about the Second Amendment, which was to ensure both personal defense and a means to combat tyranny.

Fixed that for you, traitor.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ.

[PSUFAN]

You mean the folks who gift-wrapped the 2000 election for Halfwit-in-Chief?

At least with Clinton, we'd have Emission Accomplished...

[Terry in Crapchester]

You mean the folks who gift-wrapped the 2000 election for Halfwit-in-Chief?

Yeah, but none of them were on the Supreme Court in 1939. We're all free to disagree with the Supreme Court, of course, but as things stand right now, they are the final authority on what the Constitution means, at least within our legal system.

[Dinsdale]

The U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ.

See if I've got this right -- to refute the opinions of guys like Thomas Jefferson in regards to the Constitution's meaning, you post a link to a decision about which types of firearms can be taxed and laws regarding transfer of ownership?

You didn't really just do that, did you?


As an aside, that $200 tax on machine guns and silencers is still in æffect to this day. You have to have your tax stamp to own and transport/fire a fully automatic weapon...which is bullshit to begin with, but that's another thread.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ.

See if I've got this right -- to refute the opinions of guys like Thomas Jefferson in regards to the Constitution's meaning, you post a link to a decision about which types of firearms can be taxed and laws regarding transfer of ownership?

You didn't really just do that, did you?

No, I posted a decision which has to do with gun control. You know -- something you said is unconstitutional. I'm not taking issue with Jefferson's opinion on what the Second Amendment means. I'm taking exception with your opinion on what it means.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ.

No appearance for appellees

Miller is garbage and you should know that.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. However, it hasn't been reversed to this day, so it's still the law of the land.

[Terry in Crapchester]

To my knowledge, it's never been challenged, at least not at the Supreme Court level. There really aren't that many Second Amendment cases on the books. But I certainly don't deal with Miller on a day-to-day basis. I could probably Shephardize or KeyCite it sometime when I get a chance.

[Dinsdale]

I'm taking exception with your opinion on what it means.

My opinion of the 2nd is the same as TJ's.

People have the Right to protect themselves and the nation, should the military fail against an invading force. People also have the Right to take up arms against a tyrannical overthrow of the government and any unwarranted suspensions of civil liberties.

This Right isn't forfieted just because a person lives in an urban area, as Obama suggests.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm taking exception with your opinion on what it means.

My opinion of the 2nd is the same as TJ's.

People have the Right to protect themselves and the nation, should the military fail against an invading force. People also have the Right to take up arms against a tyrannical overthrow of the government and any unwarranted suspensions of civil liberties.

But that isn't what you said earlier. You said:

Obama is into serious gun control -- which is at stark odds with the Constitution.

Now, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying (and if I did I apologize), but I read that as you suggesting that all gun control is per se unconstitutional. Clearly Miller stands against that premise, as does the Brady law.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I don't know. How, exactly, is that relevant?

[Dinsdale]

Now, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying (and if I did I apologize), but I read that as you suggesting that all gun control is per se unconstitutional.

I said no such thing, nor did I mean to imply that.


Although...I do believe that any control restricting law-abiding citizens' rights to equivalent sidearms that the military uses is unconstitutional.

But to tell the truth, I don't give a fuck what laws the traitors pass. My iron is unregistered(which is perfectly legal in this state), no government entity knows I own it, and regardless what illegal laws are passed, I'll still have it. I know of people who have buried high-capacity assault rifles when the traitors decided The People couldn't have them. Most said "when the day comes someone says I can't have this, it will be a damn good time to have this."


Worked quite well for the Russians, as well. People seem to want to ignore the fact that Yeltsin's revolution was failing miserably, until all of those people who ignored the gun control laws of the USSR and stashed away pilfered AK47s suddenly dug them out of the dirt and marched on Red Square. The Cold War was freaking won by people ignoring such tyrannical laws.


So the unamericans can bitch and cry all they like, but "my cold, dead fingers" still applies, regardless what unconstitutional laws the nanny-state namby-pambies sheeple their way into.


And who knows...you and your children may thank me for it some day, just as the young Russians thank their brave predecessors today.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The point is that your premise is shaky at best.

How so? Whether they have been challenged or not, the fact remains that there is at least one Supreme Court decision on the books which declined to establish a rule declaring all gun control laws (or even the one at issue in that case) to be per se unconstitutional. And there has been gun control legislation passed which has not been tossed on the basis of unconstitutionality.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I know of people who have buried high-capacity assault rifles when the traitors decided The People couldn't have them. Most said "when the day comes someone says I can't have this, it will be a damn good time to have this."

The same folks that, with great swelling in their chests, gladly send their kids to play the "IED Lottery" in Iraq.

"Sure, my legless, blind son may be shitting in a bag for the rest of his life, but I'll be dag-gum if'n I let those revenuers
set one foot on my land!"


Sweet, sweet irony.

[Dinsdale]

The same folks that, with great swelling in their chests, gladly send their kids to play the "IED Lottery" in Iraq.

Huh? Are you trolling?

Those would be the populist-types, who are, and always have been vehemently opposed to the Iraq War...some of whom have withheld their taxes since the illegal conflict began.


Bigtime swing and miss.

[Mikey]

Of all the candidates out there Bill Richardson is the most experienced and would make the best President by far.

Too bad there's about a chance in Hell of him winning.

[poptart]

Which one of the candidates stood against the wave of psuedo-"patriotism," didn't take the cheap political goodwill, and stood up against popular opinion in the interest of what was right(which 70% of the American public now agrees with)? Who also stood up and voted against the (traitorous) Patriot Act, and the grounds it was a Constitutional abomination?

Who was that again?


That would be Ron Paul.

Yeah, but he's not equipped to handle the reality of life in the 21st century, Dins.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Now, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying (and if I did I apologize), but I read that as you suggesting that all gun control is per se unconstitutional.

I said no such thing, nor did I mean to imply that.

Okay, but then you say . . .

Although...I do believe that any control restricting law-abiding citizens' rights to equivalent sidearms that the military uses is unconstitutional.

But to tell the truth, I don't give a fuck what laws the traitors pass. My iron is unregistered(which is perfectly legal in this state), no government entity knows I own it, and regardless what illegal laws are passed, I'll still have it. I know of people who have buried high-capacity assault rifles when the traitors decided The People couldn't have them. Most said "when the day comes someone says I can't have this, it will be a damn good time to have this."


Worked quite well for the Russians, as well. People seem to want to ignore the fact that Yeltsin's revolution was failing miserably, until all of those people who ignored the gun control laws of the USSR and stashed away pilfered AK47s suddenly dug them out of the dirt and marched on Red Square. The Cold War was freaking won by people ignoring such tyrannical laws.


So the unamericans can bitch and cry all they like, but "my cold, dead fingers" still applies, regardless what unconstitutional laws the nanny-state namby-pambies sheeple their way into.

Jeez, when you refer to people who support gun control legislation as "traitors," "unamerican" and "nanny-state namby-pambies" and said legislation as "unconstitutional," can you see why someone else might have gotten the wrong impression?

And who knows...you and your children may thank me for it some day, just as the young Russians thank their brave predecessors today.

Fwiw, I don't own a gun, never have. And I don't want one. I have two kids. Both are very active, very inquisitive, and enjoy pushing the envelope as far as what they are allowed to do. I work a lot of hours, and there are plenty of times when I'm not home. I'd be terrified that one or both of them would find the gun when I wasn't home. Staying a step ahead of them is very difficult at times. Why give myself one more headache in that regard when I don't need to?

I don't collect guns, hunt or sportshoot. I have no quarrel with those who do, provided they do it responsibly (although I don't think the Second Amendment covers this), but it's just not my thing. Deer season here begins in late November, which invariably brings shitty weather -- cold and damp. Tramping around a field or forest for hours at a time under those circumstances is not my idea of a good time. If I were to get away from the family for awhile, I'd be more interested in taking in a sporting event, or perhaps going on a working vacation where I could go to some destination location and earn some CLE credit at the same time.

Others have argued on several occasions that a gun is necessary for safety. I'm not in a position to judge others' opinions on that issue, but for me personally, that just isn't the case. Where I live, "crime" means things like DWI, petty theft, low-level drug possession, maybe some vandalism. Violent crime here is all but nonexistant. I've lived in this town going on ten years, and in that entire time I think there have been three shootings -- two were accidental and only one was fatal. I'm probably more likely to win the lottery and get struck by lightning -- both on the same day -- than I am to be the victim of a violent crime against my person committed by a stranger inside my own house. I don't need a gun to feel safe inside my own house, and the day I do is the same day the "For Sale" sign goes up. And no, I don't live inside a gated community, I live on a state route that happens to run through my town. I'm living proof that it's still possible to find a low-crime place to live without spending upwards of $1 million on a house. To take a gun outside my house, I'd need a concealed-carry permit. Even if I get one, in this state a concealed-carry permit does not allow you to carry inside your car. And given the amount of time I spend in my car (I put about 25-30K miles a year on my car), I question the practicality of obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

A gun to defend the homeland? There hasn't been a full-blown war fought on American soil in close to 150 years. And the Bushies' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, I believe that the oceans provide us with at least some level of protection in that regard. Never say never, of course, but if I'm a gambling man, I'm kind of liking the odds that I never see a full-blown war on American soil in my lifetime. And while one could argue that acts of war have occurred on American soil since that time (e.g., Pearl Harbor and 9/11), I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have been able to stop either one with a gun.

Which leaves us with the possible need for a gun to defend against my own government. On that point, I have to admit that my lifetime has been filled with a number of events which have called into significant question the wisdom of the level of trust previous generations had in the government -- Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the shenanigans of the current Administration, just to name a few. But on this point, I guess I've always been a believer in the adage, "The ballot is mightier than the bullet," and I do vote. Maybe this is incredibly naive on this point, my view of human nature could be overly optimistic, or perhaps the system is just broken beyond repair, but I've always believed that this problem can be minimized, if not completely fixed, by putting the right people in office. And even if I'm wrong on that point, I question whether going Rambo is the answer.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The same folks that, with great swelling in their chests, gladly send their kids to play the "IED Lottery" in Iraq.

Huh? Are you trolling?

Those would be the populist-types, who are, and always have been vehemently opposed to the Iraq War...some of whom have withheld their taxes since the illegal conflict began.


Bigtime swing and miss.

The "militia movement" cracked under Janet Reno's jackboots and 9/11 hysteria just sealed the deal on Constitutionalist based
government opposition. You're delusional.

All the government has to do is claim that Al Queda hackers tapped into gun registries and have lists of gun owners that will be targets for "sleeper cells", and dummies will beg for the cops to take away their guns.

Anyone left with a gun will just be made an example of by your increasingly paramilitary police forces.
It's good practice for them to drive a bulldozer through your front door and tazer your kids. It's sport to them.

[Dinsdale]

To take a gun outside my house, I'd need a concealed-carry permit.

Of course, out here in the Old West, all I need to take a concealed gun outside of my house is a fishing license.

Even if I get one, in this state a concealed-carry permit does not allow you to carry inside your car.

Unless you're state is even more fucked up than I thought, you certainly don't need a license to have one sitting on the seat.

And while one could argue that acts of war have occurred on American soil since that time (e.g., Pearl Harbor and 9/11), I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have been able to stop either one with a gun.

But with the help of other patriots, you sure could.


You know, it boggles my mind the lack of history knowledge of some. I'm guessing mvscal is well aware that there were not one, not two, but three attacks on the US mainland by the Japanese during WW2.

One was at Ft Stevens Oregon, which is near the Mouth of the Columbia, which is of utmost strategic importance. On 6/21/1942, the Japs attempted a stealth attack in an effort to soften up the defenses, and be able to get an inland passgae via the Columbia. Ft Stevens was fairly well armed with artillary, and the weak attack was quickly thwarted. It was the only attack on a mainland US base in WW2.

Later, they tried to sneak onshore further south down the coast. This time, they were going to try and get a small landing party ashore, and presumably try to overtake Ft Stevens. An early morning beach-combimg old man spotted the submarine, and saw it trying to launch landing parties. Old dude(and as a U&Ler, I should know his name, but it escapes me) went and rallied all of the other old dudes too old for service, and they all pulled out their Springfield 30-30s*, began lobbing lead like it was going out of style, and effectively created a shield of bullets whick stopped the landing parties in their tracks. There was no military anywhere near there, and without the actions of those brave, alert patriots, there might have been a chance that Ft Stevens could have fallen, creating a reeeeallllly big problem for Americans, should the Japanese have gotten access to an inland route. The most efficient Liberty Shipyard was right up the river, and not only were civilians at risk had their plan worked, but a major ship manufacturing plant would have been destroyed, as well.


The Japanese also attempted to invade Santa Monica , california.


But the Tillamook County invasion attempt was very definitely thwarted by John Q Public brandishing arms.


So much for that argument, eh?

Which leaves us with the possible need for a gun to defend against my own government.

Well, it's like me, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison always say...better safe than sorry.



* -- There's a museum near there devoted to the Springfield Rifle, and its place in defending the continent against the Japanese in WW2

[BSmack]

The Japanese also attempted to invade Santa Monica , california.

Dins, this was NOT a documentary.



Of course, I am still against most forms of gun control.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Even if I get one, in this state a concealed-carry permit does not allow you to carry inside your car.

Unless you're state is even more fucked up than I thought, you certainly don't need a license to have one sitting on the seat.

Your comments piqued my curiosity. I had always heard that you couldn't carry a firearm inside a car, but I decided to do a little research for myself. After checking here it appears to me that you probably can carry a firearm inside your car provided that it's registered and further provided that: (a) you don't take it onto a school campus or a school bus without express written permission; and (b) you don't have more than four in your car at any one time. Of course, unless I wind up growing three or more extra hands, I wouldn't need that many in my car. But it still stands that I don't want one in my house.

I've also been doing some thinking about your arguments about constitutionality, and it's occurred to me at a minimum, that the laws about mental health checks passed in the aftermath of the Va Tech shootings may be unconstitutional. In that regard, I'm not looking so much at the 2nd Amendment as the 4th and 14th.

For starters, criminal background checks probably aren't unconstitutional, at least not under a 4th Amendment analysis. 4th Amendment deals with expectations of privacy and society's willingness to recognize a right to privacy. With respect to criminal records, your right to privacy is limited at best. For example, a prospective employer is certainly within his rights to inquire as to whether you've ever been convicted of a crime. Depending on where you live, it might not be lawful for any Tom, Dick or Harry to access your criminal records for the hell of it (although you can buy them on the internets), but that's probably about the extent of your right to privacy in that regard.

Health records are a different story, however. HIPAA out front told me so. (True story: I once had a client I was representing in a divorce. He had also pled guilty to DWI and was going to an interview for his PSI report two days prior to the divorce conference. I got a call from the Probation Officer who was supposed to interview him, and apparently he was so shit-faced that the Probation Officer didn't even try to conduct the interview, just called an ambulance to take him to a detox center. I knew where he was, he even called me from there, but I couldn't get the place to confirm it due to HIPAA.)

Now of course, consent is one of the ways, at least in criminal procedure, that the police get around the issue of a bad search. And the state could certainly borrow that line of reasoning here, and argue that an application for a pistol permit is tantamount to a waiver of one's right to privacy as to one's mental health. The only problem is, such a waiver is effective only if it is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. The more red flags that come up in a mental health records check, the greater the possibility that such a waiver is ineffective. Ironic, eh?

And while one could argue that acts of war have occurred on American soil since that time (e.g., Pearl Harbor and 9/11), I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have been able to stop either one with a gun.

But with the help of other patriots, you sure could.

Not me personally. Dude, I was relatively close to 9/11, physically speaking, from a greater perspective. But there's no way I was anywhere near close enough to shoot the planes down, nor was anyone else in my neighborhood.

[Dinsdale]

Now of course, consent is one of the ways, at least in criminal procedure, that the police get around the issue of a bad search. And the state could certainly borrow that line of reasoning here, and argue that an application for a pistol permit is tantamount to a waiver of one's right to privacy as to one's mental health. The only problem is, such a waiver is effective only if it is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. The more red flags that come up in a mental health records check, the greater the possibility that such a waiver is ineffective. Ironic, eh?

Interesting points.


Here in Oregon, oh, I guess 15 or so years ago, the SC ruled that the juridiction (I belive it's done through the county) has to prove why you can't have a permit, rather than the old standard of the applicant having to prove why they should.

Since then, the number of permits has gone up exponentially. And not one person has been found guilty of using unneccessary force who held one...not-a one(IIRC, one person got in trouble a few years back for brandishing, because it fell out at a bad time...charges might have been dropped, don't quite remember). Permit holders have saved a few lives since then. Gee, go figure -- that 2nd Amendment works, after all. Couple that with the clear link between percentage of gun ownership in a area being in inverse proportion to violent crime, and the nannies should STFU and quit trying to overthrow the government.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Couple that with the clear link between percentage of gun ownership in a area being in inverse proportion to violent crime, . . .

I don't quite agree with that point.

You posted a link on that one awhile back. Trouble with your point was that New York has one of the tougher handgun laws in the country (all handguns must be registered), yet had relatively low violent crime levels with one notable exception (I think it was robbery, although I don't recall 100%).

Of course, violent crime stats are measured per capita. Being the 3rd most populous state helps New York out in that regard.

[Goober McTuber]

Of course, violent crime stats are measured per capita. Being the 3rd most populous state helps New York out in that regard.

Excuse me, but doesn’t “per capita” neutralize any advantage of being more populous?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Of course, violent crime stats are measured per capita. Being the 3rd most populous state helps New York out in that regard.

Excuse me, but doesn’t “per capita” neutralize any advantage of being more populous?

Truth is, "per capita" is probably the most equitable way of measuring crime stats, particularly when you're talking about comparison between U.S. states with widely varying populations.

What I was trying to get at was, that as a populous state, New York would be less hurt in a statistical analysis of violent crime by a number of violent crimes than would most other states.