weasels in the senate

[wesw]

pick your favorite weasels....

I ll start...

schumer is more of a wolverine, so I ll leave him out.....

mc cain is more of a badger, so he is out..., plus, he s dead....

I m thinking little weasels....

well, Richard Blumenthal has to be my top little weasel.....

with tim kaine a close second...

then you have swalwell...

and coons? he is like a martin, kind of a bigger weasel....

and sessions was always a weasel...., but he doesn t count anymore.....

[Burning Petard]

There is a current fashion in business and political management scholarship to compare two different animal metaphors: The Fox and the Hedge Hog. One knows one thing very well, one knows lots of different things particulars not so good.

What is the metaphor for current GOP Senators? Fox, Hedgehog, Weasel, none seem appropriate to me. The current crop seem to be ignorant of everything and proud of it. The GOP Senators on this Supreme nomination hearing proudly state the absurd as if it were divine truth. One says the president has the right to name a nominee who reflects the president's judicial philosophy (but Trump has none). Ted Cruz, just before the lunch break the first day, spoke at length on three general statements did not even meet the low bar for 'factoids'.

1. Elections matter. The American people chose who would fill seats on the Supreme Court in an act of direct democracy. (Clinton won the 'direct democracy' popular vote--Trump won on the indirect Electoral College.)
2. Clinton supported the dangerous and freedom-hating position that the 2nd Amendment recognizes only a collective right to bear arms.
(that was the prevailing view of federal courts and legal scholars and settled law since Cruikshank in 1876 held that the 2nd amendment grants no rights to anyone, only provides a limit on the powers of the federal government. That changed with the Heller case in 2008.)
3. Dem Senators unanimously supported changing the the First Amendment to limit free speech. (I have no idea what Cruz was talking about here, but Trump has constantly complained about well settled issues of Free Speech both before and after the 2016 election)

Perhaps the animal metaphor should be Ostrich, legendary for hiding their heads from reality.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

Shorely, "mandrills"?

[wesw]

your second amendment argument it pure poppycock

I know that you are literate, read the damned thing yourself.

[wesw]

hmmmmm.

multi-colored assholes...., yeah, sounds right....

[Burning Petard]

WESW, 'my argument' is what the courts agreed on for more than a hundred thirty years prior to Heller.

If you 'just read' the amendment--NO infringement allowed. I should be able to legally own hand grenades, submachine guns, and build my own petards. My sanity or criminal record is irrelevant, as long as I am a people. Lawyers are very clear about the meaning of 'shall not' and that clarity is why modern lawyers prefer not to use the phrase.

snailgate.

[wesw]

the courts agreed?



I call bullshit.

[Burning Petard]

WESW, please cite for me one federal court ruling based on the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and upheld on appeal, prior to Heller.

snailgate.

[wesw]

no need to cite anything. any idiot can read it for themselves.

it is self evident in the text.

this is not a worthwhile conversation if you are intellectually dishonest about the simple text.

[Lord Jim]

Rand Paul currently tops my Senatorial Weasel list...

Though maybe more like an angry ferret on acid...

WESW, please cite for me one federal court ruling based on the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and upheld on appeal, prior to Heller.

snailgate.

Well, there aren't a whole lot of rulings on this from the SC historically in total, (to a large extent they've allowed lower court rulings to stand) but one thing the Supremes have certainly never done, is hold that the 2nd Amendment is limited to some sort of collective or "militia" right:

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

More decisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Where Free Press Hatin' Wes has his most fraught and confused relationship with the Constitution is in regards to the 1st Amendment, and his view that it would be made "stronger" by shutting down news operations he doesn't approve of...

He's also go serious comprehension issues when it comes to the limits of Article II powers, and the whole checks and balances thingy...

[Guinevere]

God I miss Andrew. I wish I had kept copies of his second amendment posts.

[Lord Jim]

Here's one:

There are at least 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. (That is a 2007 figure; the number now is surely higher.) According to the CDC, there were 11,078 gun homicides in 2010. (That figure includes justifiable homicides, which are not murders, and some accidental homicides, but I am feeling charitable.)

Assume that each of those gun homicides was committed with a different firearm. (An absurdly unlikely assumption, but I am feeling charitable.)

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,988,922 of them were not used in the commission of homicides. In other words:

--> At least 99.996% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not used in the commission of homicides.

--> Only, at most, 0.004% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were used in the commission of homicides.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 24,000 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were used in the commission of homicides.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/24,000 risk -- that a firearm will be used in the commission of one of those homicides justify taking firearms away from civilians?

In 2009, there were 55,544 non-fatal injuries in assaults resulting from assaults involving guns, according to the CDC. Add that to the number of gun homicides, and the total is 66,622. Again, because I am still feeling charitable, assume that each of those homicides and non-fatal injuries involved a different firearm.

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,933,378 of them were not involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries. In other words:

--> At least 99.975% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

--> Only, at most, 0.025% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 4,000 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/4,000 risk -- that a firearm will be involved in one of those homicides or non-fatal injuries justify taking firearms away from civilians?

According to the CDC, there were 19,392 gun suicides in the U.S. Add that to the number of gun homicides and non-fatal injuries, and the total is 86,014. Yet again, because I am virtually exuding charitableness, assume that each of those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides involved a different firearm.

That means that of the 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., 269,913,986 of them were not involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides. In other words:

--> At least 99.968% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were not involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

--> Only, at most, 0.032% of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 3,130 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/3,130 risk -- that a firearm will be involved in one of those homicides, non-fatal injuries, or suicides justify taking firearms away from civilians?

We know that civilians do, in fact, defend themselves with firearms against serious crimes. We do not know the exact numbers -- and demanding exact numbers of the serious crimes which did not occur is just silly -- but we know that it does happen.

Given that fact -- and given the minuscule risk that a firearm will be involved in such a homicide, non-fatal injury, or suicide -- why should individuals be prohibited from deciding for themselves whether possessing a firearm is better than not possessing one?

(Edited to add "in" where I inadvertently left it out.)

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8613

(Bolding mine)

You're right; he was quite good on the subject...

[Guinevere]

That, of course, has nothing to do with his posts on what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment, or his posts on Heller, which are the posts I was referring to (from the old place). But if you want to go there:

Andrew, how do you reconcile those figures and your position with the information from countries where access to guns was limited that shows gun-related deaths decreased, and, in reference to Australia in particular, mass shootings with guns ceased.

How do you tell the Newtown families that because their kids represent a miniscule percentage of gun violence, we aren't going to do anything to stop more gun violence? Or the families of the hundreds killed in Chicago so far this year?

Even in a free society, if we don't respect life, our freedoms are worth very little.

Andrew never answered my question. He didn’t comment on these stats either:

Here's some more "odds" in the same manner as Andrew's:

There are about 265,000,000 registered motor vehicles being operated in the United States. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, there were 32,310 motor vehicle fatalities in 2010.

Assume that each of those fatalities was caused by a different vehicle. (An absurdly unlikely assumption, but I am feeling charitable.)

That means that of the 265,000,000 vehicles being operated in the U.S., 264,967,690 of them were not the cause of a motor vehicle fatality. In other words:

--> At least 99.988% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were not the cause of a roadway fatality.

--> Only, at most, 0.0124% of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.
way fatality.

--> Fewer than 1 in more than every 8,200 of the motor vehicles operated in the U.S. were the cause of a roadway fatality.

Etc. etc.

There is no right in the Constitution which is absolute. Reasonable gun restrictions are no different than the restrictions placed on First Amendment rights, and it is ridiculous and dishonest to pretend otherwise.

[Lord Jim]

There is no right in the Constitution which is absolute.

Well, since I've said the same thing many times, (and am on the record as supporting a number of restrictions regarding firearms) I agree with you there...

[Bicycle Bill]

Here's one:

So why, exactly, does the "risk" -- the less than 1/3,130 risk -- that a firearm will be involved in one of those homicides, non-fatal injuries, or suicides justify taking firearms away from civilians?

Because when you, or your child, or your friend, or your co-worker, or your spouse 'beats' those odds and becomes another name on the stat sheet, you realize that these are not really long odds.  By comparison, the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot with a single ticket is 1/282,201 MILLION ... in fact, even the odds of winning a measly hundred bucks is 1/14,500.

At least the people who buy lottery tickets know — or should know — going in the lousy chances they've got.  I'm sure no one goes to a nightclub or a music fest or school or the bank figuring "I've got a 1 in 3130 risk that someone is going to use one of the 270+ million firearms in this country to shoot my sorry ass ... I'll take those chances."

-"BB"-