Go Home

2nd amendment

4 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Stupid Right-Wing Tweets: Neal Boortz Edition

Neal.jpg

In case you were wondering-- yes, the "Obama's going to take your guns!" crowd is having a complete meltdown over perfectly sensible gun safety measures.

How does the slippery slope thing work, anyway? Obama passes, say, mandatory background checks -- then a few months later the ATF is raiding Boy Scout camps for .22s?

Anyway, only right-wing extremists like Boortz and the gun lobby oppose these common-sense measures. But when you make millions peddling lethal assault rifles to children, you're going to fight like hell to protect your profit margins.



Would Scalia Protect My Right to Bear a Suitcase Nuke?

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (296)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2358)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

[H/t Dave]

I got to thinking about Justice Antontin Scalia's train of logic on the Second Amendment, at least as he explained it to the talking heads yesterday:

"We'll see," Scalia replied. "Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It's to 'keep and bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons."

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to -- it's will have to be decided," he added.

That's it? That's the criteria as to whether or not the right exists to keep and bear a weapon of any kind -- its portability?

Wow. Or as my redneck friends back in Idaho who like to blow shit up would put it: Yeeeeeeeehaw!!!!

Scalia seems to be opening the door not just for legalizing fully automatic guns, but all kinds of weapons. I mean, hell, pipe bombs -- which, let's be honest, really aren't quite up there in the rocket-launcher category in terms of lethality -- are currently illegal as hell and tightly regulated by the ATF and various other federal agencies right now.

So, for that matter, are all various kinds of portable bombs, particularly those made with C-4. They pack quite a kick, too.

And I guess if we continue to follow the impeccable logic of District of Columbia v. Heller, as Scalia is doing here, then we'll soon loose the dogs on a whole range of weapons that are currently regulated -- because they certainly can be carried.

But hell, why stop there? Go all the way: Let's establish the right to keep and bear a suitcase nuke, since obviously, it's a kind of arms and you can bear it, too.

In fact, I think every American ought to have a suitcase nuke for their personal use. That way if some nutcase comes into a theater and tries to blow everyone up with a suitcase nuke, the entire audience can set off their own nukes. God Bless Murka!

Thanks, your honor. We owe you one.



NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg appeared on Meet The Press yesterday to push for gun control, pointing out, "You’d think that if a congresswoman got shot in the head, that would have changed Congress’ views."

If anything, the picture in Congress is even bleaker than Bloomberg suggests. In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to make the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) a Senate-confirmed position. Since then, the Senate has been unable to confirm anyone to serve as the chief enforcer of firearms laws due to the combination of gun lobbying and the nearly-unbreakable filibuster. President Obama’s nominee was blocked because he opposes allowing civilians to purchase a weapon capable of punching a baseball-sized hole in 2.5 inches of bulletproof glass.

Not content simply to erect barriers to enforcing federal firearms laws, much of Congress also wants to strip states of their power to enforce reasonable gun regulations. The House recently passed the “National Right To Carry Reciprocity Act,” which forces nearly every state to honor concealed carry licenses issued by the states with the laxest licensing rules. Half of North Carolina concealed carry permit holders with felony convictions have been allowed to keep their permits, and Florida issued 1,700 concealed carry permits to people with “criminal histories, arrest warrants, domestic violence injunctions and misdemeanor convictions for gun-related crimes.” Under this NRA-sponsored bill, all of these permit holders [would] be allowed to carry concealed firearms in 49 of the 50 states.

Nor are federal lawmakers the only ones looking for new and more creative ways to arm the nation. Several states are pushing efforts to force colleges to allow concealed firearms on campus — because clearly what America needs are rooms full of fraternity members packing heat right after they each consumed a case of Milwaukee’s Best. Not to be outdone, Colorado lawmakers are pushing a bill to allow firearms in elementary schools.

As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in D.C. v. Heller, respecting the Second Amendment does not mean filling every building with firearms, or eliminating concealed carry rules, or placing guns in the hands of convicted felons or the mentally ill. Sadly, far too many lawmakers have let the NRA convince them that the myth of the Second Amendment far exceeds the reality.

This "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" ad ran during last night's Super Bowl:



FCC to Fox et al : Cursing won't cost you

A US Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the FCC policy of fining broadcasters for airing curse words, whether they're sexually oriented or not.

ABC News:

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague and could create a chilling effect beyond "fleeting expletives" heard on broadcasts, an appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York arose from a case over Bono , frontman of the rock group U2, who used an expletive when he received an award during the live broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards.

News Corp's Fox Television, CBS Corp's CBS Broadcasting and others sued the FCC, which regulates radio, television, wire, satellite and cable communications.

Fox sued after being fined for Bono's expletive, and the court agreed:

"We now hold that the FCC's policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here," the panel of appeals court judges said in a written ruling on Tuesday.

The ruling is a victory for the First Amendment, but I wish that Fox News weren't the victor.