Time for another open thread
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Advertisment
Time for another open thread
Via the New Zealand Climate 'Science' Coalition: Northern Ireland Environment Minister Sammy Wilson tells us that climate action will cost lots and lots and lots of money, and then tells us that climate action will help to save money.
Ahem.
Why's the NZCSC covering stuff in Ireland, anyway?
NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obam…
Thanks for the honesty, Hansen.
You would think the libertarian wing would like taxes that offer people a way to control how much they pay. I guess not. All the rich have to do is use less energy than average and they will save $$$$.
But then, the libertarian answer to global warming is that it isn't happening. Worldview saved!
nanny_govt_sucks' idea would be that the Carbon tax should be distributed in proportion to your wealth.
The libertarian answer is to severely cut co2 emissions by bringing the US military home form 135 or so countries where it is stationed around the world (thereby cutting military co2 emissions), and by ending direct and indirect subsidies to car manufacturers and the oil industry. Once the oil industry pays for their own protection overseas what do you think will happen to the price of oil? Should make alternative fuel vehicles look a lot more attractive. No government incentive required.
This may or may not affect the climate to a significant degree, but if your concern is co2 emissions, then the libertarian alternative deserves some consideration.
I was searching for something unrelated and just happened to run across [this post from Oct. 2007](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/krugman_on_gore_derangement_sy…) that, in retrospect, is pretty amusing.
That's the plan? Seriously?
But ngs, as a shiny new convert from the Global Warming Believer camp to the Global Warming Galileo camp, I suddenly remembered something that Monckton and others have been repeatedly warning us about:
Won't higher oil prices create an extra burden on all the poor people in Third World countries? That's bad, isn't it?
Also (Monckton didn't say this), if the US withdraws troops from other lands, it'll create political instability, which'll -- again -- be really bad for poor people! Oh no! Think of the poor people!
Or perhaps the higher oil prices will only create a burden if the price tags have the word "Government" stamped on them. I'm sure that's how it works. Yes, the word "Government".
Approximately six mohns to a year ago, several regular posters on this blog expressed the view that a civil war in Iraq was inevitable following a US withdrawal and went so far as to advocate an immediate complete withdrawal so they Iraqis could fulfill their "destiny" by engaging in a general bloodbath.
Others argued that the US military presence was the principal cause of the violence there and that such violence would continue and probably grow in scale so long as the US remained in Iraq.
In light of recent events in Iraq, such as the handover of Green Zone security to the Iraqi military. I wonder if either group would care to reconsider their position.
My own position was that the original US invasion was a criminal and irresponsible act compounding by the inadequate occupation forces deployed.
I consistently argued that the US needed to send additional forces ot Iraq and my principal criticism of the surge was that I initially thought the forces deployed were inadequate for the purpose. I also took the view that an immediate US withdrawal in 2007 or early 2008 would be likely to lead to an otherwise preventable spiral into a full-scale civil war,
At th risk of sounding self-satisfied, I think my view of the situation has largely been vindicated. This is, of course, largely due to the efforts of both the US military on the ground and to the millions of Iraqis who rejected extremism and sectarianism.
Soem mnay be tempted to credit George W Bush, but as in other areas of his administration in the past year or so, Bush seems finally to have recognised his own incompetence and simply yielded control to technocrats - Petraeus in Iraq, Paulson in economic matters.
If only he'd come to that realisation eight and a half years ago.
Ian Gould, so what exactly happened with the Green Zone that just proved you right?
Security at the Green Zone has been handed over to the Iraqi army.
That would have been unthinkable a year ago when the area was subject to regular mortar attacks and repeated car bombing attempts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLV652899._CH_.2400
In other news the Sons of Iraq - formerly the Sons of Anbar the US-backed Sunni militia - has been handed over to Iraqi government control and is being integrated into the Iraqi army.
http://www.military.com/news/article/army-news/sons-of-iraq-transfer-ne…
There's still plenty of potential for this to go wrong but things have been progessing remarkably well there of late.
Soem mnay be tempted to credit George W Bush, but as in other areas of his administration in the past year or so, Bush seems finally to have recognised his own incompetence and simply yielded control to technocrats - Petraeus in Iraq, Paulson in economic matters.
Ian, i agree with most of what you said, but i disagree with your view on the surge.
basically the level of violence is back to what it was, shortly before the bombing of the golden dome.
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
(when reading the numbers, you must factor in that they are based on news reports, and the number of reporters in Iraq has decreased significantly)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/business/media/29bureaus.html?_r=1&ad…
There's still plenty of potential for this to go wrong but things have been progessing remarkably well there of late.
again, i don t think so. what has happened is some massive ethnic cleansing. it can even be seen from satellites.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919
the surge did not succeed. it didn t use enough troops (and funds!) to do that. instead it stabilized the ethnic cleansing and shifted the conflict to a later point in time.
with what i know about the military and politics, here is what i think happened:
a plan was made, not to bring lasting peace to Iraq, but to provide good news for the end of the presidency. (or at least to stop the bad news)
in that respect, the plan was a success. for the people in Iraq, it wasn t.
Security at the Green Zone has been handed over to the Iraqi army. That would have been unthinkable a year ago when the area was subject to regular mortar attacks and repeated car bombing attempts.
again, i disagree. i think there are 4 reasons for the reduction in violence:
1. the ethnic cleansing mentioned above. many potential attackers have simply been forced to move away.
2. the massive walls and gates constructed by the Americans, makes guarding places much easier. (and is part of the stabilization of ethnic cleansing)
3. removing the american troops from the green zone, makes it less of a target anyway. while i don t agree with the idea that american troops are the sole reason for violence in the country, i do think that they make an obvious target.
4. most important: i am very sceptical of the idea of "handing over" command to iraqis. my own understanding of military things gives me a pretty good idea of what is really happening. with every "iraqi military operation" in the past, when i dug deeper, my view was confirmed by hidden information.
(ethnically cleansed) zones are handed over to iraqi commanders, who have in the past shown, that they will listen closely to their american advisors.
they got the training to handle the most basic stuff, real problems are handled by american air power and special rapid reaction forces.
****
the whole war must be seen in the context of other developments: the increase of violence in Afghanistan. the Mumbai attacks, the wars in georgia and gaza, that all draw fuel and/or legitimacy from what the Americans did in Iraq.
the world as a whole will pay a heavy price, for what Bush did to Iraq.
Another entry for the chronicles of "Independent? Independent of whom?".
Anthony Watts was nominated for the Weblog awards, as were CA and RC. Perhaps the denialist votes will be split this year.
My father always said I should get an award for being this stupid, but Anthony has realized my pop's dream. Go, stupid, go!
Here's the link
I'm looking for help debunking the latest brand of stoopid coming from a "skeptic" on a forum I frequent.
It's the BS "It says the sky is blue. Therefore, it's red" interpretation of Compo et al's "Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming". This idiot keeps citing the "warming is largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases" sentence as a slam dunk disproving AGW. It's a move reminiscent of the CEI's attempt to portray Curt Davis' research as disproving AGW, but I don't really have a counter other than "No, it doesn't refute AGW. You must be high." and the resulting "Yes, it does" "No, it doesn't" argument isn't very convincing. Are there any other statements or papers from Compo that might help with such an ignorant analysis, a la Davis' response to the CEI ad?
There's an Adelaide Advertiser's War on Science too. Will be of interest to Deltoid readers.
Bravenewclimate has just done a debunking of it.
Strange, the link I embedded didn't work? Well, here it is in raw form:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-vi-chris…
Hansen didn't say anything about redistributing wealth.
What kind of mushrooms did your nanny give you, nanny_gov? Them's powerful 'shrooms!
Heretic there is always z's classic in response to another a causes b causes c confusion
Well, this is fizzling out, so how about a new topic: More Guns, Less Crime. And before you get all Urbarn vs. Rural on that one, shouldn't there have been at least one gun murder in North Dakota, given all the guns, and the Brady Campaign rating of 44/50? They don't even ban "assault weapons," but that didn't lead to any blood in the street. How can that be?
"Well, this is fizzling out, so how about a new topic: More Guns, Less Crime. And before you get all Urbarn vs. Rural on that one, shouldn't there have been at least one gun murder in North Dakota, given all the guns, and the Brady Campaign rating of 44/50? They don't even ban "assault weapons," but that didn't lead to any blood in the street. How can that be?"
\begin{Whack a mole}
Ben Ben Ben Ben Ben, where have you left your thinking cap?
In order for there to be gun murder you have two have two people close enough for one of them to shoot the other. As I recall, in biological modeling, interactions which require two individuals (sex, disease propagation, or in this case murder) vary with the square of the population density. In North Dakota this would be approximately 0 (trust me, ND is close to my old stomping grounds). Ergo no murders.
The shocking thing is that Japan with an astronomical population density has a much lower murder rate than US with its much much lower population density. What ever could be the cause of that? It must be that the Japanese are naturally pacifistic and non-violent.
\begin{Cough}
tell that to the Chinese and the Koreans
\end{Couch}.
\end{Whack a mole}
elspi:
Furthermore, the article only refers to 2008. Won't it be, I don't know, sounder scientific practice to consider the rate of gun crimes over the entire history of gun ownership?
It's like the "it's now winter so AGW's a hoax" argument.
In order for there to be gun murder you have two have two people close enough for one of them to shoot the other.
They did have two stabbing murders. Last time I checked it seemed that two people had to be a lot closer to stab each other.
Japan eh? Well, Japan has suffered their own mass murders, some with knives, and some with poison gas. Psycho killers manage to find a way.
> Well, Japan has suffered their own mass murders, some with knives, and some with poison gas.
But the sarin gas attack didn't happen in 2008.
You can't compare murders in North Dakota in 2008 with murders in Japan in 2008 and other years. That's just bullcrapping.
ben, it may help to decide what statistics you're analyzing exactly, and why.
Well, this is fizzling out, so how about a new topic: More Guns, Less Crime. And before you get all Urbarn vs. Rural on that one, shouldn't there have been at least one gun murder in North Dakota, given all the guns, and the Brady Campaign rating of 44/50? They don't even ban "assault weapons," but that didn't lead to any blood in the street. How can that be?
many factors influence violence.
here is some data:
http://www.stategunlaws.org/
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
and the cherry pick of north dakota 2008 is getting much attention over the net:
http://tinyurl.com/8qyer4
I think you all are missing the point. The Brady Campaign says that more guns = more crime. North Dakota scores near the worst on the Brady "score sheet." If all those guns are so darn bad, then you'd expect to see "blood in the street" especially since ND doesn't ban scary "assault weapons" and "50 caliber terror" rifles. Those things can shoot accurately quite far, so the fact that North Dakotan's are spread out shouldn't matter. And yet it does. They aren't killing each other like mad. Why not?
Second, North Dakota has one of the highest levels of firearms ownership in the country with over 50% of households having at least one firearm. Now isn't there some dorky stat that says something about how "a firearm in the home is 827 times more dangerous than a plutonium rod" or something dumb like that? And don't most murders involve family or acquaintances etc? Well, why aren't all those households with guns shooting themselves up like mad?
The "wisdom" that guns cause crime is totally defeated. And it's hardly a cherry pick. North Dakota has always had low crime, even though it has always had high gun ownership. From the chart here you can see that there was a high murder rate of about 2.3/100k in 1981, and a low of 0.2/100k, which is not anomolous, with an average of about 0.9/100k.
I'm sure it's just because North Dakota is along the Canadian border, and Saskatchewan's rate of 3.01/100k people influences things (one of the highest rates in Canada, by the way, Quebec is lowest at 1.17). I suspect that poverty, social networks and other 'soft' factors have a role. At least, that's what people who actually try to explain and predict crime rates say. Guns don't cause crime - but they can make crimes more lethal.
\begin{ whack a lying shack of shit}
And here I was thinking that ben was arguing honestly. Silly me.
So that number is pure cherry-pick. Wow. And ben is too stupid to avoid given the game away with his
"They did have two stabbing murders"
Since gun murder is much more common than stabbing murder this gives the game away.
ND got lucky with gun murders last year and ben cherry picked it, and I was dumb enough to think he was arguing honestly.
Never again.
\end{ whack a lying shack of shit}
Er, what's not honest about it? This year was interesting, and it was not an anomaly. The link above shows that ND has had many years with fewer than 5 murders. I can't find any data on the breakdown for firearm/non-firearm murders, but that's not my point.
My point is that anti-gun groups claim that more guns = more crime, and certainly more guns = more gun murders. Well, North Dakota, over the last 50 years, disproves those claims quite well. ND has a very high level of gun ownership and a very low homicide rate. They also claim that guns in the home are super dangerous etc... well, ND does not bear this out. There's certainly a high level of scary "assault weapon" ownership in ND, just like any other state in the union that doesn't have a ban, and there does not appear to be blood running in the street. The anti-gun groups, such as Brady, funded by the Joice Foundation, are full of crap. That's my point. Now what exactly is dishonest about my argument?
ben:
> I can't find any data on the breakdown for firearm/non-firearm murders, but that's not my point.
So first you touted North Dakota because there were no murders by guns (though there were 2 stabbing murders).
Now you're saying that it doesn't matter whether the murders were committed by gun or not, because "that's not my point".
What a load of bull.
Argh! You are missing the point. There are 650k+ people living in ND, and there are firearms in most of the dwellings in which those people live. There were NO firearm homicides among those 650k+ people in the last 365 days.
Now, the leading anti-gun group, the Brady Campaign, ranks ND near the bottom of states with "common sense" gun control laws. They claim that having all those guns is ultra-dangerous. My point is that they are full of crap.
The Brady Campaign says that more guns = more crime.
you got it wrong. why not read what they really say?
Each day in America more than 80 people die from guns and another 200 are wounded but survive with injuries. This level of lethal and traumatic violence is much higher than other developed countries. ... This tragedy will continue unless we adopt strong, sensible gun laws to make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on firearms.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/
so what it really says is: better gun laws = less gun violence.
obviously North Dakota is not a counterexample. (other things can lead to less gun violence as well. like low population density, age structure, ...)
> You are missing the point.
In other words, yes I'm right that you're using statistics incoherently, but I'm still wrong because I'm "missing the point".
You know, when you put forward an argument you're supposed to substantiate it, properly. Rather than simply saying 'You are missing the point! The point is that you're wrong! And that I'm right!'
Vernon, you definitively need to get your vision checked. The prediction for global surface temperature made in 1988 is excellent, as are other predictions made in the 1988 paper
So once again we are left with the question of whether to believe our lying eyes or our lying trolls.
Link for the Hansen 1988 prediction
you got it wrong. why not read what they really say?
Each day in America more than 80 people die from guns and another 200 are wounded but survive with injuries. This level of lethal and traumatic violence is much higher than other developed countries. ... This tragedy will continue unless we adopt strong, sensible gun laws to make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on firearms.
'Fraid not. Apparently you don't get their press releases by email like I do. Here's their latest on why allowing concealed carry in national parks is bad:
a. not last minute, as this has been in the works for a couple of years, b. can not be scientifically shown to jeopardize the safety of anyone, c. does not help criminals or other "dangerous" people to carry firearms anywhere. Brady folks are LIARS.
This is a lie. While the first part might be true, the qualifier is complete B.S. They are claiming more guns = more crime, and this is patently false. And the truth is that concealed carry permit holders are much more law abiding than your average citizen, i.e. much less likely to commit a violent crime. That, and the number of guns owned by civilians in the US has been going up steadily, and the amount of gun crime has been decreasing.
Also, where'd I misuse the statistics? This year was not particularly unusual in North Dakota.
ben,
Drawing conclusions from a sample size of one data point is dire abuse of statistics, dude.
Note that the Brady Center isn't against concealed carry laws, per se, but poorly regulated, poorly administered, and poorly monitored conceal carry laws with minimal licensing, background, educational and training requirements, of which the Bush Administration ruling allows the poorest state permitting rules equal footing with the best, potentially endangering the park going public.
ben,
Here's some fun with statistics:
ND averages ~11 murders/year in a population of 640K â 1 murder/60,000 inhabitants
Los Angeles has a murder rate of ~1/10,000, so one could reasonably assume LA is 6x as dangerous as ND.
However, the population density of LA is 840x that of ND, leading to a plausible argument that the average North Dakotan is as much as 140x more dangerous than the average Angeleño.
you all don't understand. if global warming is real, then the temperature can never drop again, anywhere, however briefly. and if the Brady campaign is right, then nobody who owns a gun can not be shot. any demonstration of a temperature dropping however briefly or limited in area is enough to debunk global warming, and any locale where there hasn't been a shooting in a while despite the presence of guns is enough to debunk the myth of the dangers of gun proliferation. or maybe it's the lack of shootings that debunks AGW, i forget, but you get the point.
Note that the Brady Center isn't against concealed carry laws, per se...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa.... oh mercy!
z, you miss the mark. If guns are really as dangerous as the Bradys claim, then it is remarkable that one of THEIR LOWEST RANKED STATES has had no gun murders in a year. They are the ones who claim "blood in the streets" and make other outrageous claims about the dangers of guns. If guns were the problem, and were as dangerous when owned by law-abiding citizens, then I'd expect at least some gun homicides in ND.
ND averages 1.2/100k murders per year, according to the link I posted above. How many of those are from firearms? I don't know, but the statistic is that the guns in ND are not causing more crime. The one data point is simply illistrative of this, but the trend is already there.
My own Washington State has one of oldest and easiest permiting systems in the country. You need to pass the FBI background check, pay $60 and that's all. We don't seem to have a problem. How is it that people are safe in the grocery store in Seattle or in our state parks with folks like me carrying concealed pistols, but now take us out into a national parks and things become magically more dangerous? This makes no sense.
> you all don't understand. if global warming is real, then the temperature can never drop again, anywhere, however briefly. and if the Brady campaign is right, then nobody who owns a gun can not be shot. any demonstration of a temperature dropping however briefly or limited in area is enough to debunk global warming, and any locale where there hasn't been a shooting in a while despite the presence of guns is enough to debunk the myth of the dangers of gun proliferation. or maybe it's the lack of shootings that debunks AGW, i forget, but you get the point.
The real question is, is gun control really a plot by the UN, Al Gore, and the Phantom Soviet Empire to impose a New World Order? Perhaps in cahoots with the all-mighty Freemasons?
Well, what was it when Hitler imposed gun control on the jews in the ghetto? What was it when US southerners imposed gun control on recently freed slaves? Didn't they have some kind of a world order in mind?
Emphases added by yours truly:
> Well, what was it when Hitler imposed gun control on the jews in the ghetto? What was it when US southerners imposed gun control on recently freed slaves? Didn't they have some kind of a world order in mind?
So, I wonder what's the select subset of the population (in bold letters) that Al Gore + the Freemasons + the UN + the Phantom Soviet Empire want to impose gun control on?
Oh, I forgot. They are trying to impose gun control only on those people who don't want gun control imposed on them.
ben, you believe people should be allowed to carry automatic weapons in national parks? What for? In case Iran parachutes commandos into Yellowstone?
Barton,
Just about every Australian reading would be wondering why on earth ben needs to carry a concealed pistol to the local grocery store, or to the nearest National Park...
ben, you believe people should be allowed to carry automatic weapons in national parks?
Automatic weapons? You mean machine-guns? Or are you referring to semi-automatic (i.e. automatic loading, not automatic firing) guns? There's quite a difference.
There are several reasons for carrying a firearm in a national park. For one, cougars live there. I don't know about you, but the extremely minor risks involved in carrying a firearm balance just fine with the fairly minor risk of being attacked by a cougar. I'd like to be able to protect myself and my family. Second, there are the actual criminals there. Whatever the case, I claim that carrying concealed weapons in a lawful manner has proven coincide with extremely minor risk to the public, and Americans just aren't ready to roll over and show criminals and cougars our bellies like they do in the UK yet.
well for the record, I'm not a big believer that guns are a huge factor in the murder rate; give Lott credit for proving at least that much.
of course the one big factor missing in the simple gun/murder function is population density; both for the reasons already given, that murder requires two people to meet (therefore probably closer to population density squared, although suicide, not so much) but also because of the demographics that are related to population density; crime, rootlessness, psychosis, etc. Cities breed armed robbers more than wildernesses do, for the good reason that there wouldn't be anyone to rob. that's why the big driver in the "excess death correlated with firearms", howsoever small it is, is domestic violence.
so what it all boils down to is the same thing you would be likely to believe, i guess; a firearm is probably less risky in the hands of the vast majority of people than an automobile, and the problems come from a distinct segment of society. if you can keep firearms from this population then you will reduce violent crime, if not then you're just fooling yourself. there are more of these dangerous folks per capita in Washington DC than in north Dakota. and maybe that's a good reason to have different gun laws in different places.
related to that, however, after wrestling with the issue, i see no way to get around the second amendment, and the intent thereof of allowing a defense by the general populace against government tyranny. i don't agree with it being in any way realistic or effective, mind you, even if it made sense in 1776, but i am resigned to it being the letter of the law in the US, one of the things which makes the US "unique", and who am i to argue with Jefferson et al. but i don't see it as being a huge problem, in that in general the courts and intelligent sane citizens recognize that keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals, the insane, and 5 year olds (not to mention insane 5 year old violent criminals) is not in violation of the second amendment.
so it all boils down to things like background checks by private sellers, and/or mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms. to me that doesn't sound too odious or a violation of the second amendment. but there are of course those who do think so.
that being the case, however, it seems equally clear that the second amendment doesn't refer to a right to arm oneself against criminals or to go hunting; those may well be any citizen's right, but it's not a second amendment issue. and ironically, it would seem that the weapons the second amendment most applies to are "military style" weapons, those the most likely to be seen as a threat to public safety.
"Well, what was it when Hitler imposed gun control on the jews in the ghetto? "
Actually, the Weimar gun control laws were put in place in 1928, well before
Hitler
came to power. Hitler liberalised those laws in 1938, lowering the age
at
which a person could carry a gun and extending license periods from
one
to
three years. When Hitler started bottling Jews up in the ghetto, not having access to firearms was at that point among the least of their problems.
so it all boils down to things like background checks by private sellers, and/or mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms.
That, and vigorously prosecuting those who commit violent crimes using the laws already in place. Too many times have we seen someone given one chance, or 5 chances too many and they offend again and again. Gun violence, and violence in general, is a greater problem among the nation's poor, but you cannot go and disarm anyone not earning a middle-class income. That would be highly un-American, and wouldn't solve the problem anyway.
The background check is fair, but it needs to be affordable, and there has to be a guarantee that the records will be destroyed very soon after the check is completed. z, you are absolutely right about what the 2nd amendment does and does not do. I am in favor of the current regulation system for fully-automatic weapons... noting that since 1934 there has been only one homicide committed with a legally-owned automatic weapon in the USA.
And you are right about Nazi gun control. The gun-rights side of the debate would be wise to learn the truth about that.
The introduction of handgun control, restricting firearm ownership to nazi party members and other "reliable" people, barring Jews from businesses involving firearms, and eventually, under regulations of the 1938 law, specifically barring Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.
This was "liberalising" gun control laws??
Yeah, cause like the 'letting the populace be armed to the back teeth to protect themselves against the worst excesses of Teh Evil Government Overlords' thing really worked so well in the USA over the last 8 years.
Oh, wait...
Sorry, wrong universe.
WotWot just won the thread.
Can I have a "we're not worthy"
Yeah, cause like the 'letting the populace be armed to the back teeth to protect themselves against the worst excesses of Teh Evil Government Overlords' thing really worked so well in the USA over the last 8 years.
Er, that'd be lost the thread. The guns are for when the government won't stand for re-election, among other things. Seems they just stepped down after their 8 was up. And I don't see any of you complaining about real government excess at Waco or Ruby Ridge. I mean, so what if Clinton-era FBI agents shoot an unarmed mother holding her baby?
z,
I largely agree with your post on guns, with the exception of your claim that the second amendment only protects guns for the purpose of allowing a "well regulated militia".
This is a subordinate clause and does not limit the main clause "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Read Scalia's majority opinion in Heller v D.C. for a well annotated and reasoned exposition on the matter.
ben,
FBI agents who were deployed by the Bush I Justice Department. Janet Reno inherited a pair of no-win situations.
Cops all over the US are way too quick to use lethal force. I don't think it's part of a Liberal plot. It might have something to do with so many civilians packing concealed weapons, though.
Clinton-era, ben?
Lance, z never did write that. He wrote that the primary point of the second amendment was to ensure that the civilian population could arm itself as a protection against a potentially tyranical government. With z's formulation, the second cannot be used against us by way of claiming that the National Guard is the militia so hand over your guns.
Luminous, I agree that cops are too quick to use force. Tim, Janet was in charge during Waco. My bad about Ruby Ridge, that was Bush I. In either case, nothing Bush II did at home compared to either of those two. Further, all three of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II stood for re-election and bowed out when they lost or retired when their term limits expired. As long as they aren't gassing Jews (or something equivilant) and they are standing for re-election, it's still too soon to shoot the bastards.
Lance, z never did write that. He wrote that the primary point of the second amendment was to ensure that the civilian population could arm itself as a protection against a potentially tyrannical government. With z's formulation, the second cannot be used against us by way of claiming that the National Guard is the militia so hand over your guns.
Ben, when z says "that being the case, however, it seems equally clear that the second amendment doesn't refer to a right to arm oneself against criminals or to go hunting; those may well be any citizen's right, but it's not a second amendment issue" he is saying that the second amendment "only" protects a citizen's rights to own weapons for use in a militia and that somehow the right to use "arms" for other purposes is affirmed, or not, by some other unnamed source.
This is giving the subordinate "militia" clause preeminence over the primary clause and is in conflict with the majority opinion in Heller.
If the constitution had said "Sweets being an important part of breakfast the rights of bakers to make doughnuts shall not be infringed." this would not just protect bakers that made doughnuts for breakfast.
I will give him credit for at least acknowledging the fact that "the people" means all citizens instead of appealing to the often used contrivance that "the people" means governmental military personnel, as if the framers would feel the need to protect the rights of sanctioned military bodies to posses firearms.
Whether this protection against the rise of a tyrannical government is anachronistic or not is the subject for a different discussion.
...he is saying that the second amendment "only" protects a citizen's rights to own weapons for use in a militia...
I disagree. I read what z wrote as saying that the second amendment protects the rights of individuals to own guns in order to protect their liberties from the tyranny of the government. He does not use the word "militia" anywhere.
...and that somehow the right to use "arms" for other purposes is affirmed, or not, by some other unnamed source.
Right, z does not name the source.
Holy Mackeral, now this is an argument I never thought I'd be having at Deltoid.
#57
ben, ben, ben.
If you don't think that the good and well armed citizens of the USA just bent over, looked the other way, whistled Dixie, and took whatever foul deviancy their government gleefully served up to them from behind over the last 8 years, then I have several bridges and a couple of Eiffel towers to sell you, real cheap, no questions asked.
And whatever the evils of the Clinton era admin may have been (and there were some), they pale into insignificance compared to those world-class exponents of incompetence, greed and venal thuggery, the Bush II neo-con admin.
And then they were voted out. It's not time to start shooting yet, sorry.
ben writes:
I am so sick of this lying right-wing meme. There was one person and one person only responsible for every death at Waco -- David Koresh. Not Bill Clinton, not Janet Reno, and not Louis Freeh. Let's review what happened, shall we?
ATF agents were sent to arrest Koresh on federal weapons charges. Maybe the charges were justified and maybe they weren't; the traditional American way to settle such things is with a trial. Instead, Koresh's people shot the ATF agents.
There was a long siege. At the end, when the FBI finally moved in, Koresh and his pals, who had stockpiled flammables all through the compounds, set fire to them and killed everyone inside, including women and children, to the tune of about 80 people.
The person to blame for Waco is the child-molesting, cop-killing, baby-burning bastard responsible: David Koresh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the unarmed mother holding her baby also holding an assault rifle? And wasn't her family, at the time, engaged in a firefight with FBI agents?
There's an easy way to survive when arrested by the ATF or FBI: When they tell you to lay down your weapons and surrender, you LAY DOWN YOUR FUCKING WEAPONS AND SURRENDER. If you instead decide to fire at the ATF or FBI agents, my sympathy for anything that happens to you subsequently is limited.
BPL,
The ATF staged a surprise military assault on the Branch Davidian compound over the matter of a $200 tax stamp. The rest of your "baby raping" accusations are irrelevant and after the fact excuse making. Check the warrant if you doubt me.
Here was a group of people that thought that they were the only uncorrupted people on earth and that the world was coming to an end based on their kooky religious beliefs, some of which you share, and what was the response of the ATF to the situation? To send a para-military assault team to storm the place.
Good thinking.
What could go wrong with that plan?
The Ruby Ridge incident was even more dubious. The FBI entrapped (not my opinion but the opinion of the jury that later acquitted him) Randy Weaver on bogus guns charges to coerce him into being an informant against the Aryan Nation. When he refused they sent another military assault team to arrest him. They never requested anyone surrender and they shot a 14 year old boy in the back in their initial approach..
The sniper you mention had no idea whether the woman was holding an "assault rifle" or just the baby or a beer since he shot her through a closed door from over 500 yards away. The sniper was later indicted for manslaughter in Idaho but the feds claimed jurisdiction and quickly dismissed the charges. Nothing shady about that huh?
You seem to be cool with it but even FBI director Loius Freeh described it, before the U.S. Senate hearing investigating the incident, as "synonymous with the exaggerated application of federal law enforcement" and stated "law enforcement overreacted at Ruby Ridge."
The surviving members of the Weaver family also later won a wrongful death suit for over $2 million.
You seem to be just fine with these outrageous abuses of power and your sneering dismissal of the death of innocents really shows your "Christian love". Of course I'm sure you're going to tell me that the Branch Davidians and the Weaver family deserved it because they weren't "true" Christians.
ben, Lance,
Don't forget Fred Hampton.
ben,
ATF raids Branch Davidian compound, Waco, Texas: February 28, 1993
Janet Reno confirmed Attorney General: March 11, 1993
Then there was that charming gift from GHWB in Somalia. Wasn't that fun?
Can we talk about Haiti?
well, i was approaching it more of a "making excuses before the judge" thing rather than a group right vs individual right. i.e. when joe blow gets hauled up in front of a judge and says 'the second amendment allows me to keep a gun to fight off drug addicts', in my opinion the judge should say 'no it doesn't'. however if he were to say 'the second amendment allows me to keep a gun to fight off potential government tyranny' the judge should say 'why, you are correct, sir!' i guess i lean towards the individual side of the argument. boy this is an argument i never thought i'd be having.
Then there was that charming gift from GHWB in Somalia. Wasn't that fun?
You mean the Blackhawk Down incident? That was 1993 and was Clinton.
As for Waco, didn't Reno "accept full responsibility" for the debacle when it was all done?
You can talk all you like about Haiti, and I'll let you start. I'm not even sure what is the point. My point is government excess. I only pointed out what I thought were Dem transgressions (and I goofed) but I have a problem with government tyranny of all forms and from both sides.
Let's talk about Cory Maye while we're at it.
And now for some totally unrelated weirdness:
> Is a Google Operating System Built on Android, Gears in the Cards?
> [...] Andy [Patrizio] interviewed Net Applications about an anomaly the stat crunchers uncovered at Google, where as much as a third of traffic streaming out of Google's Mountain View headquarters is stripped of the usual identifying information that accompanies such traffic. The other two-thirds of folks are using Linux for the most part. Andy wrote:
> > One-third, however, were unrecognized even though Net Applications' sensors can detect all major operating systems including most flavors of Unix and Linux. Even Microsoft's new Windows 7, which is deployed internally at Microsoft headquarters, would show up by its identifier string. But the Google operating systems were specifically blocked. "We have never seen an OS stripped off the user agent string before," [Net Applications Executive Vice President Vince] Vizzaccaro told InternetNews.com. "I believe you have to arrange to have that happen, it's not something we've seen before with a proxy server. All I can tell you is there's a good percentage of the people at Google showing up [at Web pages] with their OS hidden."
> So Net Applications is concluding that many Googlers are running a clandestine operating system of undetermined origin.
Lance continues the right-wing mythmaking:
The fourteen year old boy was carrying a weapon and looking for federal agents to shoot. As I said, my sympathy for people who engage in firefights with cops is limited. And the remarks about my religion are amazingly straw man.
BPL,
If by "myth making" you mean stating the facts as laid out in court transcripts and a senate investigation.
The asides to Christianity have to do with the inconsistency of your sneering indifference to the loss of human life with the claimed "compassion" of your faith.
ben,
Yes, Reno accepted responsibility for bad shit that went down under her watch. Isn't that what is expected of public servants? Compare to Alberto Gonzales. Donald Rumsfeld. George Bush.
What is it with Republican's demanding personal responsibility for everyone but themselves?
Lance,
You are conflating two events. The firefight in which the Weaver's dog, Samuel Weaver and US Marshal William Degan were killed and sniper fire on the next day that killed Vicki Weaver.
""Then there was that charming gift from GHWB in Somalia. Wasn't that fun?"
You mean the Blackhawk Down incident? That was 1993 and was Clinton."
No ben.
She was pointing out the fact that GHWB sent the troop into Somalia, in clear violation of the Powell Doctrine, just before Clinton was sworn in.
A Muslim country invaded and occupied by infidels.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I do mean to imply that GHWB acted treasonously.
And yes, I do hold him responsible for the mess he created to sabotage the next presidency.
LB,
The entire incident was an egregious example of the abuse of power by the FBI.
I have no political axe to grind with either the Republicans or the Democrats only with the expansion and militarization of federal agencies.
The idiotic and wasteful "war on drugs" and now the equally vacuous and useful "war on terror" (as if you can have a war with a nebulous state of fear) have been used as excuses to finance and build federal para-military forces that have little regard or even complete contempt for the constitution.
Waco and Ruby Ridge are just two of the more famous examples of this evolving problem.
Lance,
I have no argument with your general claim. What I find peculiar is the narrowness of your focus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/
http://www.amnesty.org/
LB,
Those were just the two that Ben introduced and to which BPL responded.
I object to abuses of power no matter the politics of the victims.
Lance,
Thanks for adding a voice of sanity to this board. Like you, I also object to the abuse of power. However, I realize that it is not the abuse of power that is the problem. It is the power to abuse. If benevolent saints were the only ones elected to positions of power, I guess there would be no problems. But we elect humans and humans have faults. Humans with faults with power leads to abuse. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton. So my solution is to take away the power.
Lance, ben,
What I find peculiar in using Waco and Ruby Ridge as prime examples of government tyranny is that Randy Weaver and David Koresh weren't exactly innocent. Weaver was selling weapons, whether they were illegally modified or not, to white separatists he knew were seeking to overthrow the government and was actively resisting a legal warrant. Koresh, besides illegally buying up large stores of illegal weapons which he and others used preemptively against lawful agents serving legal due process, was busy as a jackrabbit, knocking up little girls from the moment of their first menarche, and boasting of it.
Badly bungled and unlawfully executed as these operations may have been, the FBI and ATF had legitimate cause and obtained legal due process to apprehend these men.
There are infinitely more tragic examples of police overreaction and carelessness than in enforcing weapons laws against people who are shooting at them.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/06/BART.shooting/?iref=mpstoryview
You and what army, nags?
"Become the change you seek."
-----Mohandas K. Gandhi
So my solution is to take away the power.
Excellent: chaos. Viva la Revoluccion!
Best,
D
Me and all those with libertarian leanings.
That should be: "Excellent chaos".
Anarchy is peace.
Haven't we had enough government warfare?
Warfare is human. Religions have taken it up, demagogues, everyone. Getting rid of th' ding-dang GUMMINT won't stop war, not even in someone's wishy-wish world.
Best,
D
LB,
The only thing on that "legally obtained warrant" in the Waco case were alleged violation of the 1938 Fire Arms act based on here say evidence from the UPS guy. The modifications that they were alleged to have made to their leaglly obtained weapons would only need registration a $200 tax stamp to be perfectly legal.
Do you find the actions of the BATF to be proportional to this "crime"?
Also like BPL you are trying to drag the red herring of unsubstantiated sex charges into the discussion to further justify the outrageous actions of the federal government. If there was credible evidence of these alleged sex crimes why were they never the subject of any warrant or charge?
Also you seem more concerned about Weaver's political affiliations than the outrageous and illegal actions of the FBI.
You are making excuses for the government when they abuse their power to harass, injure, and kill those members of society that you find objectionable.
You are guilty of the very "narrow focus" of which you originally accused me.
to severely cut co2 emissions by bringing the US military home form 135 or so countries where it is stationed around the world (thereby cutting military co2 emissions), and by ending direct and indirect subsidies to car manufacturers and the oil industry. Once the oil industry pays for their own protection overseas what do you think will happen to the price of oil?
OK, OK, OK.
I rag on Na_GS a lot, but f'n a-men bruddah.
Best,
D
Dano,
Before you kiss nags full on the mouth did you notice the part about ending subsidies to car companies? I'm assuming, since I generally agree with him on most topics, that subsidies to car companies aren't the only ones he wants to end.
Are you cool with ending government subsidies to all companies or is your irrational hatred of the internal combustion engine just talking here?
Lance,
Al Capone didn't pay his taxes, either.
There was DNA evidence of Koresh's loudly professed Biblical Patriarch aspirations. I guess it never became the subject of any warrant or charge 'cause he were day-ed. They was all day-ed. The Ken Lay defense, as it were, courtesy of the Great State of Texas.
About Weaver's political affiliations, you're absolutely right. I would be greatly concerned about seeing the reins of government taken over by a bunch of Aryan Nation types. Or seeing Federal Buildings blown up.
The only thing on that "legally obtained warrant" in the Waco case were alleged violation of the 1938 Fire Arms act based on here say evidence from the UPS guy. The modifications that they were alleged to have made to their leaglly obtained weapons would only need registration a $200 tax stamp to be perfectly legal.
Is that the NFA of '34 your thinking of?
The modifications that they were alleged to have made to their leaglly obtained weapons would only need registration a $200 tax stamp to be perfectly legal.
If the mods you're thinking of were to turn an unregistered non-full-auto receiver into a full-auto firearm then you are incorrect. Any receivers not registered as of 1986 cannot be made legally full-auto. Thank Bush Sr. for that one, which is why an actual M16 costs $20,000.
Ben,
You are right on the date of the NFA (I'm going to cop to a typo on that one) and also the reciever issue except that the warrant also makes note of the lack of federal registration for the fully auto weapons that might exist so I'm not sure if they were just covering the bases or if the weapons could have been registered legally.
I wonder, in the new light of the Heller decision, if the restrictions placed on converting semi-automatic weapons to fully auto weapons by the Bush Sr. era legislation will be challenged.
I'm saying, in general, US cops are pretty focking trigger happy. Anyone who thinks he has a right to contest a point of law with a cop by brandishing a weapon is a suicidal idiot. Holding such idiots up as Martyrs of Gummint Oppression is an insult to those who have actually been forcibly oppressed.
LB,
Holding such idiots up as Martyrs of Gummint Oppression is an insult to those who have actually been forcibly oppressed.
I have nothing but contempt for Koresh and Weaver's ideas and beliefs; however the constitution is not measured by its protections of popular and powerful people but by its ability to protect the rights of the unpopular and most marginal elements of our society.
That is why the ACLU has filed suit to protect the likes of the KKK.
Your links to Amnesty International etc. seem to indicate that you only care when the rights of people you sympathize with are violated.
> by its ability to protect the rights of the unpopular and most marginal elements of our society.
Except that "unpopular and most marginal" refers to people who molest children, among other things.
I guess these people are just being oppressed after all... eh...
I'm saying, in general, US cops are pretty focking trigger happy. Anyone who thinks he has a right to contest a point of law with a cop by brandishing a weapon is a suicidal idiot.
That may be true, but the cops at Ruby Ridge did not announce themselves as such. They were just a bunch of cammo commandos who shot Weaver's dog. And then his son.
Except that "unpopular and most marginal" refers to people who molest children, among other things.
At the time this was only an allegation, and had NOTHING to do with the warrant. Innocent until proven guilty is still part of our legal system isn't it. So Lance is absolutely right.
bi, you're continuing to miss my point here. I could give a rat's ass about Koresh or Weaver. What I care about is the proliferation of federal paramilitary organizations that are more interested in justifying their existence and making military style raids than protecting the constitution.
The list of federal agencies with military style assault teams is growing at an alarming rate. The FBI, DEA, US Customs Service, Secret Service, BATF, US Marshalls, INS etc. Even the National Park Service and Department of Health and Human Services have their own SWAT teams for Christ's sake.
I am much more worried about the possible progression of our country to a police state, not to mention the waste of tax dollars, than the danger posed by a couple of kooks holed up in Idaho or a small group of religious nuts in Texas.
> Innocent until proven guilty is still part of our legal system isn't it.
So you're saying here's how the legal system should work:
1. Police officers (P) wants to arrest suspect (S) for child molesting, selling weapons to separatists.
2. S is absolutely convinced that P is the modern-day Inquisition, or perhaps S is just insane.
3. Therefore S shoots at P.
4. P shoots back.
Ooh, just feel the sheer amount of habeas corpus in S's self-fulfilling 'logic'...
> I am much more worried about the possible progression of our country to a police state, not to mention the waste of tax dollars, than the danger posed by a couple of kooks holed up in Idaho or a small group of religious nuts in Texas.
So you're saying it's an unpardonable crime to even try to carve a hole in your wallet, but it's OK to allow kids to be molested.
Or are you saying it's OK as long as they're not your kids?
Also, if by "police state" you mean a state where laws are actually enforced, then a police state isn't such a bad idea, isn't it?
bi,
Your reply is such a disjoint collection of straw men and non sequitors that I'm not even sure where to grab it to shake it apart, but I'll have a go anyway.
So because I expect federal law enforcement agencies to actually follow the law I am saying "it's OK to molest kids"?
Huh? Are you going to ask me when I stopped beating my wife next?
"Also, if by 'police state' you mean a state where laws are actually enforced, then a police state isn't such a bad idea, isn't it?"
So your definition of "police state" is any system in which laws are enforced? Perhaps you should Google the term for a more comprehensive definition. Also that double negative at the end makes it difficult to understand exactly what the hell you might be talking about.
Lance posts:
My sneering indifference to human life? It's because I value human life that I recommend people not engage in firefights with the cops. Is that hard for you to understand?
And you're still an anti-Christian bigot. My faith tells me to "honor the Emperor" and to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." When civil disobedience is called for, the Biblical prophets provide a model -- you protest nonviolently, using your own property and not destroying anyone else's. Raving white supremacist nuts firing assault rifles at the cops don't really fit that model too well.
Thank you, Luminous. You are the voice of sanity here, not Lance/Ben/Nanny. The fact that the right in this country has made a monster like David Koresh into a hero is one more reason why I can never be a conservative.
Lance writes:
Trying to arrest the perpetrators? Yes, I find that to be proportional to the crime.
Do you find the actions of David Koresh and his minions in shooting the BATF agents who came to arrest them proportional to this "crime?"
That's the problem with right-wing militia nuts. You care too much for the criminals and not enough for the victims.
Let me see, which is a greater danger to the public?
BATF raids and arrests?
Or militias that rob banks, kill people belonging to minorities, plot to overthrow the government by force of arms, and blow up buildings full of people?
If you come up with the right answer, you get an honorary junior g-man badge! If you come up with the wrong answer, you get a free copy of the Turner Diaries!
The Heartland Institute has put up a list of sponsors "sponsors" of their upcoming "2009 International Conference on Climate Change".
BPL,
The actions of the FBI and the BATF in both of those cases have been criticized by even the FBI and the BATF, and were the focus of Senate investigations and state prosecutions!
You of course spout some self-righteous (and delusional) crap about us "right-wing militia nuts" making Koresh and Weaver into "heros" even after I have repeatedly said that I think they were both despicable morons.
Is it asking too much for you to step back from your talking points and consider the facts of these cases rather than appealing to the simplistic and demagogic rhetoric of "baby-raping, bank robbing, federal building bombing terrorists" vs. "honest and forthright federal law officers"?
These morons don't have to be innocent for the actions of the FBI and BATF to be illegal and disturbing. That you seem to be willing to excuse any and all excesses that these overly aggressive and militarized federal agencies employed doesn't speak well for your concern for the civil rights of all Americans.
It would seem that you are fine with the feds pissing on the constitution and federal laws so long as they do it against people you disdain.
slight edition of Lance words:
I am much more worried about the possible progression of our country to a police state, not to mention the waste of tax dollars, than the danger posed by a couple of kooks holed up in Iran or a small group of religious nuts in Aghfanistan.
Nice, isn't it
Antoni Jaume,
Hmmm, those "religious nuts in Afghanistan" brought down the WTC and killed thousands of Americans. I kind'a think they might have deserved the attention they received.
As far as Iran is concerned I don't think we have done anything but rattle our sabres. And since bush is the lamest of ducks I kind'a doubt he will take a parting shot on the way out the door.
ben,
The dog attacked the Agents, who were not firing on the Weaver Cabin. They were observing. They shot the dog that was attacking them. Samuel Weaver then shot and killed US Marshal William Degan. Samuel was then shot in the ensuing fire fight.
Lance,
I sympathize with people whose rights are actually violated. With whiny white boys who want to shirk their responsibility to the commonweal and avoid complying with rational gun laws, not so much.
Barton,
Stay strong, amigo.
Lancre,
This kind of fails to support your slippery slope to a police state argument, don't you think?
Pardon me, of course you don't.
LB,
Ben brought up the incidents in Waco and Ruby Ridge. You and BPL dismissed them.
I entered the conversation to point out that the FBI and BATF both admitted wrong doing and were the targets of state and Senate investigations.
I'm glad that both incidents received the attention they did but that doesn't address the underlying issue; the expansion, militarization and unaccountability of federal police forces. I don't feel that either organization has been reigned in or is any less powerful or potentially dangerous than before.
When these jokers harassed MLK and other civil rights organizations and groups it was a dangerous abuse of power and I'm sure you and BPL were outraged, as was I.
It appears that the difference is that I was outraged by the actions of the FBI in all of these instances while you and BPL are only concerned when you can sympathize with the victims.
The FBI is to be vilified when they illegally harass and monitor your heroes but forgiven and even praised when they take over-reaching and illegal actions against those groups and individuals to whom you are unsympathetic.
I think the difference is the opinion we each hold of large powerful militarized federal police forces. I inherently mistrust them and think they are inconsistent with the kind of society in which I prefer to live, while you seem to approve of them if you think they are doing your bidding.
This is hardly surprising given our differing political philosophies.
Lance,
Our political philosophies may not be so far apart as you imagine.
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
But you're such an idiot I really don't want you on my side.
Samuel Weaver then shot and killed US Marshal William Degan.
Yes, the Marshall who did not identify himself to Weaver. Some guy comes on to my property in the woods unanounced in camo and kills my dog you better believe I'm going to shoot back.
Second, I also don't give a rats ass about Weaver or Koresh. They are not the point. The government's actions are the point. If Weaver was so in the wrong why did he and his family win almost $3 million in settlements with the government? Why isn't he in jail?
I mentioned this before, but it didn't take: consider instead Cory Maye.
Or how about just look up all the innocents killed in botched police raids.
"Our political philosophies may not be so far apart as you imagine."
Glad to hear that. Although your political philosophy seems to be rather self-inconsistent so it's hard to tell.
"But you're such an idiot I really don't want you on my side."
Don't worry, you've pretty much ensured that with your boorish behavior.