The Post-Heller Fight for Second Amendment Rights in Illinois Proceeds

The always amazing Scotus blog earlier this week supplied a nifty update on post-Heller moves to expand Americans' Second Amendment rights in Illinois. Highlights on the story so far, and where it might be going:

three significant test cases on the scope of the Second Amendment — the “gun rights” Amendment — are moving along in the lower courts.....  

The three cases were filed swiftly after the Supreme Court, late last June, declared for the first time that the “right to keep and bear arms” is a personal, individual right.....The Justices, however, did not then settle whether the Amendment applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government and the District of Columbia.

The sequel cases tested handgun bans or controls in the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., a Chicago suburb....The Illinois cases were narrowed to the core question of whether the Amendment applied to the states.  Consolidated, the cases were decided Dec. 4 by Senior U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur of Chicago.  (His ruling in two of the cases is here; a separate ruling, applying the first, is here.)

Judge Shadur ruled against the gun control challengers, concluding that he was bound by a 1982 Seventh Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states....and did so by relying upon an 1886 Supreme Court precedent (Presser v. Illinois) to hold that the Amendment only applied to the national government.

The three cases moved on to the Seventh Circuit in separate appeals, but they have been consolidated there (dockets 08-4141, 08-4243, 08-4244).  The National Rifle Association and other challenges to the Chicago and Oak Park gun laws filed their merits briefs on Jan. 28.  The local governments’ briefs are due Feb. 27, with a final joint reply brief due March 13.

The briefs by the NRA and others seeking to curb state and local controls on guns are studied efforts to get around the Supreme Court’s 1886 Presser decision.  They argue that the Presser ruling either did not decide the issue of applying the Second Amendment to the states (because the notion of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights so that they applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment had not yet existed at the time), or that it is outdated and essentially overturned by modern Supreme Court precedent.

Two of the relevant suits come from the NRA; the third is from the Second Amendment Foundation, and that case is chronicled with links to relevant filings at the site Chicago Gun Case. And for all the relevant Heller background, see my new book Gun Control on Trial.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SpongePaul||

    I was/am under the impression that a state can not go against the federal goverment as far as rights are concerned, the states singed the const. But that a state can make a law harsher than the feds, or lesser. but that is crime and not rights. and in all reality the fed has stripped the states of the right to have lower penalties by witholding the taxpayers money from that state. aka highway funds school funds etc etc

  • ||

    (because the notion of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights so that they applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment had not yet existed at the time)

    Yeah, that would seem to be an important point, wouldn't it? I'm sure Shadur knows better than me, though.

  • SpongePaul||

    If she's hot, totally the ecstasy. Otherwise, its a coin toss for me.
    _____________________________________________
    do not be quick to dis yourself. I have found that patriots and educated men/women usually see things much clearer than a judge.

  • Jester the Molester||

    Citizens shouldn't have guns. They might accidentally kill a cop that has busted down a door in a raid on their home.

    That's what one of my colleagues had to say after I told her about the Cory Maye case. That's pretty much what we're up against: the absolute faith in govmint and its enforcing arm.

  • Jordan||

    That's what one of my colleagues had to say after I told her about the Cory Maye case. That's pretty much what we're up against: the absolute faith in govmint and its enforcing arm.



    Sounds like an anonymous phone call to the cops about your colleague's drug operation is in order.

    Note to humorless assholes: I'm joking.

  • Dello||

    "They argue that the Presser ruling either did not decide the issue of applying the Second Amendment to the states (because the notion of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights so that they applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment had not yet existed at the time), or that it is outdated and essentially overturned by modern Supreme Court precedent."


    Um, how about that the Presser ruling was just fucking WRONG. Or would that be a bad way to argue the case...?

  • ||

    Dello wrote: "Um, how about that the Presser ruling was just fucking WRONG. Or would that be a bad way to argue the case...?"

    The Supreme Court very rarely outright overturns its own past decisions. Far more likely to succeed by distinguishing the present case one way or another.

  • ||

    After Revolution 2.0 we can edit the 2nd to say,

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed BY YOU FUCKERS in Government."

    Think they would get it then?

  • Atanarjuat||

    Sounds like an anonymous phone call to the cops about your colleague's drug operation is in order.

    Note to humorless assholes: I'm joking.



    If she's innocent then she should have nothing to hide...

  • Jester||

    I suppose I should surprise her with a puppy for the cops to shoot before the anonymous call. Just for added dramatic intensity.

    Thanks for the ideas.

  • ||

    Sounds like an anonymous phone call to the cops about your colleague's drug operation is in order.

    That sounds like a good start. Get her puppy shot, have her go through that experience.

    But there is the second part.

    The second part is the home invasion where the robbers identify themselves as cops.

  • Jester||

    This is shaping up into a potential reality show concept.

  • ||

    moves to expand Americans' Second Amendment rights in Illinois.

    There have been no moves to expand anyone's rights, only to roll back the state's encroachment upon them.

    -jcr

  • ||

    There have been no moves to expand anyone's rights, only to roll back the state's encroachment upon them. -jcr

    Excellent point, sir. And I would like to point out another very common mistake. It's commonly claimed that the second amendment "gives" or "grants" people the right to arms. Not so. The amendment simply command that the right shall not be infringed (by government).

    That is because the right to arms extends from the natural right of self-preservation.

    Given the soundly established incorporation doctrine, there really is no outcome possible other than incorporating the second amendment guarantee against state and local infringment.

    And what a glorious day that will be ... particularly in Illinois ... and CA, and NJ, and MD, and HI, and MA, etc.

  • Warty||

    I don't understand the doctrine of incorporation. First, why weren't all the amendments originally presumed to apply to the states as well as the feds? Second, why didn't the 14th make it so they did? Neither makes any sense to me.

  • tarran||

    And what if the Supreme Court defies the actual words on the paper, legal theory and common sense, as they did with Wickard, and rules that the states can do whatever they want, what then?

    Honestly, appealing to the Supreme Court to limit government power is like appealing to a Consiglieri to rein in a Capo. Sure it might work, but the likelihood of it going anywhere good is pretty low. You are just as likely to get a ruling that tells the Capo to go after you more firmly.

  • ||

    This judge seems to have decided that the Constitutional proscriptions only apply to the Federal government's abridgements of our rights.

    So... if a municipality in, say, Georgia decides that they'll allow slavery, that would be okay?

    Just curious.

  • ||

    The cases on the Incorporation Doctrine are a mess. Boiled down, they seem to provide for no more logical analysis than this: the 14th Amendment incorporated those parts of the original Bill of Rights that a given Supreme Court liked, and didn't incorporate those parts a given Supreme Court didn't like.

  • tarran||

    Warty,

    I'll explain the magical, schizophrenic wonderland of the United States Constitution.

    Originally, the United states Constitution was a compact between the states and the people. Essentially, the states delegated some of their sovereign powers to the Federal Government.

    Thus, the bill of rights solely concerned the Federal Government. States like MAssachusetts and Maryland, which has incompatible state religions could get along in peace etc.

    However, the Cosntitution did allow the Federal Governemnt to dicate one codnition upon states, that it force them to be Republics (as opposed to Monarchies etc)

    Then came the Louisiana purchase. For the first time, the Federal Government owned vast territories, territories that would become states. This led to the Federal Government routinely meddling in the internal affairs of the unoriginal states, mainly because of the conflict between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions within the country.

    After the War Between the States ended, the U.S. government gained even more control over internal state laws. Since individual states had deprived black people of their rights - like ownin printing presses (or even reading and writing), the victors came up with a new amendment, the 14th that mandated that states also were limited by the Bill of Rights. However, for a variety of reasons, from racism to legal scholarship, the amendment was held to not apply universally to the whole bill of rights.

    Between the run up to World War I and the end of World War II, the system changed yet again, where the Federal Government was seen to be the dominant government, with the states being merely provinces whose leaders had to obey the dictates of the rulers in Washington DC. The largest culprit in this change was the change from having senators appointed by state governments to having them directly elected by the population.

    If one reads Madison's writings in the Federalist papers, you can see what the original Cosntitution defined the federal govenrment to be.

    If you read Brutus' writings in the Anti-Federalist Papers, you will see what the U.S. government was to become.

    The point you should get out of this is that the notion that we have a nation of laws is and always has been a fiction. Each dominant political order tries to claim legitimacy by pretending they are a logical continuation of the previous order. Their claims are impressive bits of sophistry.

  • MNG||

    tarran
    I think under quite early Justice Marshall the feds began to read the contract as favoring themselves...

    I think the 2nd should be incorporated. It strikes me the right is a lot more like those that have been incorporated (like the prohbition on unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech and exercise of religion, etc) and less like the rights that have not been incorporated (right to a grand jury).

  • Gary||

    The way you "get around the Presser decision" - as well as all other restrictions upon the Second Amendment, which is not a "gun rights" amendment, but an amendment protecting our existing natural right to defend our lives and liberties - is to REPEAL the Presser decision, as well as all existing gun laws. Period.

    75 years of restrictions upon our fundamental right to self-defense can quite easily be solved by a single stroke of the pen that would repeal all gun laws. The only impediment to doing so is the lack of will to do it. If all these states now declaring their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment truly desire to remove themselves and their citizens from the oppressive yoke of federal tyranny, they should be repealing all the oppressive federally mandated and inspired legislation they have accumulated over the last 222 years! Now, THAT would be a declaration of state sovereignty, wouldn't it?

    It is mindless articles like this one, which promote the traitorous NRA as an organization that is "seeking to curb state and local controls on guns," when the historical record shows they have backed every significant law removing the free exercise of the Second Amendment, that causes me to believe that this magazine should have long ago considered adding a "T" to the front of its name.

  • ||

    "Sounds like an anonymous phone call to the cops about your colleague's drug operation is in order."

    Don't mention that you saw them with machine guns or BATFE will be along with their MP5's.

  • ||

    Politics is the art of the possible. It's looking like we have 5 votes on the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment. We don't have 5 votes if it means that machine guns become magically and easily legal for all.

  • ||

    What's especially mystifying is how the 1st can be incorporated, despite specifically referring to Congress as the body that cannot restrict free speech, while the 2nd is not incorporated, despite saying that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged [by anyone].

    Of course the biggest practical problem is that there are four votes guaranteed against incorporating the 2nd against the states (ie, the justices who don't think the 2nd defines an individual right in the first place.

  • ||

    "The cases on the Incorporation Doctrine are a mess. Boiled down, they seem to provide for no more logical analysis than this: the 14th Amendment incorporated those parts of the original Bill of Rights that a given Supreme Court liked, and didn't incorporate those parts a given Supreme Court didn't like."

    And a large part of the reason for the mess is that the Supreme Court has ignored the plain language of the amendment. It says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. . ." It seems pretty obvious that those privileges and immunities include the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, trial by jury, etc. However, the Supreme Court has chosen to say that it doesn't include all of those things, but rather only a relatively minor set of rights such as freedom to travel. Instead, the incorporation doctrine has been based on the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses, which are much harder to grasp and so have led to murkier jurisprudence.

    It's actually really amazing how much different things would be if we really took the Constitution seriously. Besides the 14th Amendment, enforcing the 9th and 10th amendments would lead to a enormous increase in freedom.

  • ||

    The way you "get around the Presser decision" is to just start shooting the motherfuckers that try to restrict your gun ownership.

    Or, we could all stop paying taxes entirely. If they have no money, the cops will quit. If the cops quit, they have no enforcement arm. If they have no enforcement arm, who gives a shit what laws they write?

  • ||

    "The largest culprit in this change was the change from having senators appointed by state governments to having them directly elected by the population."

    I've never quite understood this argument. If people were simply saying that the Constitution rests on a fine balance between majority and elite control and that the change in Senatorial election tipped the balance too far in favor of majoritarianism, I could understand that argument, whether I agreed with it or not.

    However, what people who talk about this instead seem to be saying is that the State legislatures are better guardians of state's rights than the people are. Given the number of times state governments have been bribed to give away their prerogatives by federal money, it's not clear to me that this is really true. Would anyone like to try to explain this better?

  • ||

    "Of course the biggest practical problem is that there are four votes guaranteed against incorporating the 2nd against the states (ie, the justices who don't think the 2nd defines an individual right in the first place."

    Well, at least publicly, in their opinions, all nine justices ruling on Heller agreed that the 2nd amendment DOES grant an individual right. It's just that they disagree on the exact nature of that right (if I understand it correctly, the minority seemed to think it had to do with serving in a militia, and not owning guns per se.)

    You may say that that was simply disingenuous, and I agree that that's likely the case. But what's coming out of their mouths is that it's an individual right. This is a good thing, in that it shows that the pro-2nd Amendment people are controlling the terms of the argument right now.

  • MNG||

    "when the historical record shows they have backed every significant law removing the free exercise of the Second Amendment"

    That's stupid. It's certainly not correct. Maybe the NRA hasn't gone as far as you would like, but its been the biggest and most effective voice out there fighting gun control measures.

    I also don't understand your "repeal Presser" quote. Are you saying the federal congress should repeal all state/local gun control measures?

  • ||

    David: the rationale for having legislatures select senators is not so much that the states will protect individual liberties better. Rather, it is that the states will be self-interested in maximizing their own power rather than ceding it to the Federal Government. So senators (being answerable to their home state legislators) will far more vigorously protect the states' freedoms to operate. A by-product is that you will have more individual freedom as a result, or, if your state decides to be overly intrusive, you can at least move to a different state.

    Really, I think it was more of a perfect storm of the 16th, 17th, and women getting the right to vote that led to the exponential nanny-state we have today. (And yes, I say that as a woman).

  • Gary||

    "Politics is the art of the possible. It's looking like we have 5 votes on the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment. We don't have 5 votes if it means that machine guns become magically and easily legal for all."

    There's nothing "magical" about following the Constitution as it was written. As I said, it's simply an act of will. Either those who represent us want to do it, or they don't. I submit that, since 1913, they don't, as they have been bought off and intimidated into doing the bidding of an unseen oligarchy since then.

    Yes, machine guns should be "legal" for all to own. I doubt, seriously, that we'd facing the very real prospect of martial law in America right now had they remained legal for all, to begin with.

  • Warty||

    Is that the real Kim du Toit? I'm a fan of yours, dude.

  • Gary||

    "That's stupid. It's certainly not correct. Maybe the NRA hasn't gone as far as you would like, but its been the biggest and most effective voice out there fighting gun control measures."

    It's neither stupid, nor is it incorrect. Do your own research and find out the truth about the NRA. The leadership has continually pretended to stand up for the Second Amendment while compromising us into layer upon layer of controls and regulations of it, instead. The Amendment sates, quite clearly, that it is not to be infringed. What part of that do you object to?

    "I also don't understand your "repeal Presser" quote. Are you saying the federal congress should repeal all state/local gun control measures?"

    Then might I suggest a remedial reading course for adults? It's very simple. The Second Amendment was never supposed to be regulated at all. It even says so, itself. Thus, every single piece of gun control legislation ever passed into law - including Presser - is a violation of the Second Amendment and is, thus, illegal.

    I would have expected the readers of Reason to display some of that (reason, that is), yet, since the early eighties, the magazine has drifted increasingly toward defending statism while pretending to do the opposite. What I find amazing is that, apparently, many of the readers never noticed this. I urge you to get a copy of the magazine from, say, 1977 and contrast its content with the latest issue. Then you tell me if I'm not right.

  • Gary||

    What is all this "incorporation" nonsense? The Constitution is ALREADY the law of the land. It is supposed to be the yardstick by which all other laws are measured. It, therefore, needs no further validation from government, which, by the way - if you haven't noticed yet - is trying to snuff out the Constitution once and for all, not "protect" it.

    Honestly, I don't know where you people are getting your information (Faux News?), but you'd better wake up before we've lost our country entirely. As for Reason Magazine, it hasn't supported the ideals it was founded upon in about thirty years. It makes the pretense of doing so and, apparently, has fooled a new generation into believing it does, but if you go back and read issues of the magazine published in the seventies, you'll find it differs radically from the current magazine. Go ahead, do it; I'll wait.

  • Gary||

    "It's actually really amazing how much different things would be if we really took the Constitution seriously. Besides the 14th Amendment, enforcing the 9th and 10th amendments would lead to a enormous increase in freedom."

    Indeed! It wold be even more amazing how much different things would be if we had kept the Articles of Confederation, as the Anti-Federalists (who managed to tack on that little thing called the "Bill of Rights") urged we should do. If we still had a system in which each state coined its own money, the international banking cartel could never have established a monopoly on our monetary system and, thus, the federal colossus could never have emerged, in the first place. Sadly, the Freemasons who called themselves "Federalists" got their way and, well...you can see the results.

  • Gary||

    "Or, we could all stop paying taxes entirely. If they have no money, the cops will quit. If the cops quit, they have no enforcement arm. If they have no enforcement arm, who gives a shit what laws they write?"

    Hey! Someone who "gets it!" :) Yes! Exactly. The thing is, though, the cops are being trained to move against us, though I doubt many of them will when the proverbial feces hits the fan. Like you said, if they're not getting paid, they won't be motivated to do so, right? Unfortunately, they're not being paid by we, the taxpayers. They'll be paid by the international bankers who own and control our government - who can just make new "money" out of thin air to pay them with. The cops won't care where the money comes from, as long as they're getting it, so the show goes on. Unless, of course, we awaken enough of them to what is happening right before our very eyes.

  • ||

    Sadly, the Freemasons who called themselves "Federalists" got their way and, well...you can see the results.

    Don't forget the Getty's and the Rothschilds...

  • ||

    I hate the Colonel - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face. "Oh, your gonna buy my chicken, Ohhhh!"

  • Gary||

    "Well, at least publicly, in their opinions, all nine justices ruling on Heller agreed that the 2nd amendment DOES grant an individual right."

    Gee, how wonderful that more than half of the Supreme Court actually believes in the Constitution! Well, sort of. Note that the Heller "decision" (which was made in violation of the Supreme Court's constitutionally mandated limits of power) added the wording "...within reasonable limitations." In other words, they've effectively given the federal government carte blanche to regulate the Amendment in whatever way the government deems "reasonable." As history has shown, governments NEVER willingly restrict their own powers or relinquish them. WAKE UP, people!

  • Gary||

    "Don't forget the Getty's and the Rothschilds..."

    Oh, I'm NOT! The Federalists were Rothschild agents.

  • shecky||

    I would have expected the readers of Reason to display some of that (reason, that is)

    DRINK!

  • I\'ll Bite||

    but dad, how can you hate the Colonel?

  • Gary||

    "I hate the Colonel - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face. "Oh, your gonna buy my chicken, Ohhhh!""

    LOL! And what, exactly, ARE those "secret" herbs and spices, hmmm? MSG? Aspartame? Mercury?

  • ||

    Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartarse!

  • ||

    Well, at least publicly, in their opinions, all nine justices ruling on Heller agreed that the 2nd amendment DOES grant an individual right. It's just that they disagree on the exact nature of that right (if I understand it correctly, the minority seemed to think it had to do with serving in a militia, and not owning guns per se.)

    This is Orwellian in the extreme. A right that can only be exercised as part of a state-controlled collective is NOT an individual right. By your logic, the right to bear arms would not be violated by allowing only police to carry firearms, as any citizen has the opportunity to join the police force.

  • Gary||

    "DRINK!"

    Er...drink what, exactly? Surely, you aren't suggesting Koolaid? Seriously, if you examine issues from the seventies, you'll find well-written, lively debates between Murray N. Rothbard and others over such issues as Individualist Anarchism, how a stateless society would defend itself, etc. Where is such talk in Reason now? Hmmm? Gone, replaced by compromises with statism and the status quo. The magazine got slick, commercial and "mainstream." It almost has me wondering if Bob Poole was really working for the CIA.

  • Gary||

    "Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartarse!"

    Ah, yes! I forgot. SUGAH!!!

  • ||

    So... if a municipality in, say, Georgia decides that they'll allow slavery, that would be okay?

    As long as they don't discriminate by race, sure.

  • MNG||

    "I hate the Colonel - with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face. "Oh, your gonna buy my chicken, Ohhhh!""

    And domo the infuriating thing is, he's right.

    I am going to buy his chicken.

    It's inevitable.

  • ||

    I am going to buy his chicken.

    damn, I don't have one in my town - I'd have to drive 20 minutes. What started as a joke at Gary's expense is turning into the munchies...

  • BakedPenguin||

    Gary, you must be new here.

  • BDB||

    Keeping the Articles would have led to a total collapse of the federal government and subsequent re-colonization of North America by one or more European powers.

  • BDB||

    It also would have handed a victory to the enemies of self-government.

    "See, we DO need monarchs! Those Americans didn't make it without one."

  • ||

    They'll be paid by the international bankers who own and control our government - who can just make new "money" out of thin air to pay them with.

    The international bankers are on the list, Gary. They are on the list. ;)

  • MNG||

    Gary
    I see what you are saying now and agree. But I wonder, how should we deal with the problem of the radio waves the international banking Freemasons use to monitor and confuse our thoughts? Are you more of a tin-foil hat man or should we just line our entire roofs with lead? If the latter, should we do the same with our last-resort bunkers in the woods?

  • dhex||

    msg got a hells of a raw deal.

  • BDB||

    "dhex | February 21, 2009, 2:48pm | #
    msg got a hells of a raw deal."

    What about HFCS?

  • Naga Sadow||

    BakedPenguin,

    I could be wrong but based on his writings I would say he is the same Gary from the NORML thread of last January where he and Billy Beck got into a big internet brawl with TAO, Jennifer, J sub D, VM, etc.

    Also, I have only two less comments at wikireason than Neil. I'm soon gonna need my own listing! Sweet!

  • Naga Sadow||

    BDB,

    What's wrong with HFCS besides the fact that your body can't process it and simply stores in your body fat slowly leaking into your brain causing you to vote for Pat Buchanon when you meant to vote for Al Gore.

    *Puts on tin foil hat*

  • BDB||

    Careful there, Naga. Chris Kelly might appear if you get to crazy!

  • BakedPenguin||

    BDB, Naga - don't worry about Lonewhacker. He's on the Drew Carey thread "pwning" Jesse Walker by not answering him.

  • Naga Sadow||

    BDB,

    My apologies. I tried making a joke and nearly went full retard. Almost went home empty handed, you know?

    "Mama, I'll see you again tonight in my head movies. But this head movies makes my eyes rain!"

  • Naga Sadow||

    BakedPenguin,

    I thought it was p3wning?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Naga, was that the 2000+ comment thread? Yikes.

    Also, it could be p0uw!ning, for all I know. I'm terrible at spelling.

  • Naga Sadow||

    BakedPenguin,

    I'm not all hip and cool like you with your crazy lingo and what not. And yes. I believe that was the thread.

  • ||

    Speaking of full retard- This website has totally pwned my computer.

    I am getting some seriously fucked up page formatting. Anybody else?

  • Naga Sadow||

    P Brooks,

    Quit using a Mac. PC is your friend.

  • BDB||

    "P Brooks | February 21, 2009, 3:40pm | #
    Speaking of full retard- This website has totally pwned my computer.

    I am getting some seriously fucked up page formatting. Anybody else?"

    Nope, I think its just you.

  • ||

    Gary-

    Amen. You are most welocme here, anytime.

    If you read these here blogs, you will note that there are some here who are true libertarians, i.e., Rothbardians, those that are true anarcho-free enterprise-individualists. You will also find that there are some intellectually honest contributors, like MNG, who are not libertarians.

  • dhex||

    "What about HFCS?"

    to be honest, i never really cared for the stuff.

  • ||

    Quit using a Mac. PC is your friend.

    Bah! Sheeple OSs. Linux is where it's at. But I'm forced to use that flaky fucking Konqueror browser when I come here, because of all those infernal reasontv links.

    Not everybody has a big bore intertube, you know. Do you hear what I'm saying?

    Is this thing on?

  • Gary||

    Thanks, LibertyMike. To be honest, I haven't looked at Reason in years, but, when I have, from time to time, I've been appalled at how different it is from what I remember. When I found "libertarians" agreeing with some of the Bush post-9/11 doctrine, I concluded the movement had imploded, intellectually. Glad to hear there are some fragmentary shreds still existing. By the way, what IS the dominant libertarian take on 9/11? I see some here who seem to have their head so firmly up their false left-right paradigm they can't see the facts.

  • MNG||

    Gary
    You'll be glad to know that about 90% of the folks here bought very, very little of the Bush-post9/11 doctrine and that the reason writers themselves were against it too.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, here's a thread for what everyone really wants to talk about - Zombies: Fast or Slow?

  • jester||

    Shes not there was much better than Time of the Season. So, I d go with fast.

  • Gary||

    Ah, just tell her "no!"

  • Gary||

    Well, that's good, MNG. Any full-fledged truthers here?

  • MNG||

    Gary
    Some, a minority for sure, but some.

  • ||

    Were Gary playing by the rules, he surely would have died from alcohol poisoning by now.

  • Gary||

    "I could be wrong but based on his writings I would say he is the same Gary from the NORML thread of last January where he and Billy Beck got into a big internet brawl with TAO, Jennifer, J sub D, VM, etc."

    Not me, Naga.

  • Gary||

    "I see what you are saying now and agree. But I wonder, how should we deal with the problem of the radio waves the international banking Freemasons use to monitor and confuse our thoughts? Are you more of a tin-foil hat man or should we just line our entire roofs with lead? If the latter, should we do the same with our last-resort bunkers in the woods?"

    The aluminum foil works much better, MNG. ;)
    But, seriously, are you aware of HAARP, GWEN towers and the Department of Defense's Silent Sound Spread Spectrum technology?

  • ||

    Between the run up to World War I and the end of World War II, the system changed yet again, where the Federal Government was seen to be the dominant government, with the states being merely provinces whose leaders had to obey the dictates of the rulers in Washington DC

    Excuse me? That happened in the 1860s, when the federal government established its supremacy by force of arms, not by any legal process.

    -jcr

  • Kolohe||

    Mr. Rea-
    Love your website.

  • Kolohe||

    GWEN towers is a new one to me; I had heard of HAARP from some bill Kucinich introduces every session.

  • Kolohe||

    Looking it up, the Kucinich bill is about contrails, HAARP is something completely different.

  • ||

    My understanding is when the question of incorporation has come up, previous Courts have ruled narrowly, and have fallen back to stare decisis based on the rulings in The Slaughterhouse Cases. I have no doubt there are enough votes on the current Court to overturn Slaughterhouse, and once and for all settle the question. I look forward to that.

  • ||

    Quick follow up - Presser can be found to be the direct progeny of Slaughterhouse, by way of U. S. v. Cruikshank.

  • ||

    Amendments? WHat are those? I thought they got tossed out the window on 9/12/2001

    RT
    www.anonymity.eu.tc

  • Gary||

    Thanks, Kolohe! That's chemtrails, by the way; quite distinct from contrails, which are natural byproducts of jetfuel exhaust at high altitudes. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are deliberate chemical spraying that can occur at any altitude. the chief difference, as far as being able to tell the two apart goes, is that chemtrails, unlike contrails (which disappear in seconds or minutes) tend to persist for hours. One tactic used is the spray these trails perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction, so that, over time, the trails become spread out and more or less "cloudlike" as the wind wafts them sideways.

    If you live anywhere near a large metropolitan area, you've no doubt seen these (unless you're like my neighbors, who never seem to look up!). I've even seen them over rural areas.

    Chemtrails have been found to contain several toxins, heavy metals (such as barium and cesium), as well as live strains of viruses. We breathe these in all the time, without being aware of it and, while it does make some people ill, the real threat comes when this blend of particulate matter in our bodies interacts with microwave radiation (as in microwave pain cannons, like those some police departments are now equipped with for riot and crowd control). It is said by some that if the turn the GWEN network on (which consists of some 300 or so towers that, collectively, blanket the country), the resulting microwave ground pulse created will trigger the toxins we've inhaled and, basically, we all die en masse. Courtesy of our loving government and their elite overlords.

    Ed: who came up with this "incorporation" crap? It's not necessary to "incorporate" a damned thing, as the Constitution is the law of the land. What is necessary is to REPEAL all laws that violate the Constitution. Yeah, I know; easier said than done, but, that's what we have to do if we're ever to take back our rights. Either that or a bloody civil war. Take your pick.

    John: Yep, they got tossed out after 9/11, alright. Along with habeus corpus and posse commitatus.

  • Gary||

    As ominous as chemtrails are, I think a much more frightening techo-assault we're enduring without even knowing about it is the DOD's Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS) technology. I've covered it among my several articles on the Proud Political Junkie's Gazette (scroll down):

    http://ppjg.wordpress.com/author/garyrea/

  • ||

    Holy shit, Gary. You're for real.

    as in microwave pain cannons, like those some police departments are now equipped with for riot and crowd control

    AWESOME.

  • ||

    Epi,

    Yah... Fo shizzle.

  • torpid||

    I don't understand how "reason"-able (in name only it seems) people can defend the Second Ammendment "rights" when they lead to little boys killing pregnant women. Isn't that kind of a dilemma for you guys, when the fetus you fetishize gets killed by a gun?

  • economist||

    torpid,
    1. Most of us don't think little kids should have guns.
    2. We don't "fetishize fetuses" here. You're confusing us with conservatives.
    3. Your fly is unzipped.

  • economist||

    "as in microwave pain cannons, like those some police departments are now equipped with for riot and crowd control"

    I need to get some of these. They could help me in my quest for WorldDomination.

    That's right, Naga Shadow, you now have competition for the position of evil warlord!

  • ecnomsit||

    Should be "World Domination". This is what I get for spoofing The LoneWhacker too much.

  • BDB||

    Christ, please, I hope this doesn't turn into an abortion thread.

  • economist||

    BDB,
    It wouldn't, if it weren't for torpid asswipe upthread.

  • ||

    Most of us don't think little kids should have guns.

    There's nothing wrong with kids having guns as long as they are properly supervised. My dad instructed me in the fundamental rules of shooting, handed me a .22 rifle and box of ammo, and said "have fun". There was no danger because I followed those rules.

    The kid in this story is clearly disturbed.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Epi,

    Yah, . . . fa sho!

  • economist||

    Epi,
    I was referring to unsupervised kids with guns. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  • Naga Sadow||

    economist,

    Evil warlord? Me? You say the sweetest things but I'm not gay. Sorry.

    Anyway, I'm only going down the warlord path come the apocalypse. Then I shall rule by the gun, sword, and flagrum!

  • torpid||

    You, "sir", have clearly no experience raising children. You can make all the rules you want -- no comic books in bed, eat all your vegetables before you eat dessert, don't run with scissors, don't drink out of the toilet, don't rub your wee wee on the dog -- and they'll find ways to break them. And the fear of punishment isn't enough to stop it because they think in their tiny little brains that they're going to get away with it. So don't lecture *me* on rearing children, mister.

  • torpid||

    It wouldn't, if it weren't for torpid asswipe upthread.

    VERY mature. Are you 11 years old as well? Cause you sure act it.

  • economist||

    torpid,
    You're right. I have no children. However: My parents had several guns in the house when I and my several siblings were children. Yet none of us shot anyone. Most of their friends, who also had children, had guns around the house. They didn't shoot anyone. And most of my friends have guns in their houses and have children, and so far none of them have been shot. Lock your guns up when you're not using them! It's really fairly simple.

    Naga,
    In the event of the apocalypse, I will start referring to myself as Arthur Eld, take 40 gillies, and become the father of a long line of gunslingers.

  • economist||

    torpid,
    When I was 11, I never said "asswipe". That would have gotten me in trouble with my parents.

    Now that I have a job and a house (okay, so it's actually a condo), I don't have to worry about that anymore.

  • economist||

    A quick edit to my earlier post. Most of my parents' friends had guns IN the house, not around it.

  • ||

    Lock your guns up when you're not using them! It's really fairly simple.

    Not even necessary. My grandparents had, for instance, a shotgun behind the door to the back porch. You did not touch it. It was for emergencies only. Guess what? You didn't touch it.

  • economist||

    "So don't lecture *me* on rearing children, mister."

    Well, I don't "rear" children, either. There seems to be something wrong with that.

    Double entendres are a bitch, aren't they?

  • economist||

    Episiarch,
    My parents never trusted our judgment enough to leave the guns unlocked. Probably worried that we would try to be modern day William Tells.

  • ||

    Probably worried that we would try to be modern day William Tells.

    We did that with shuriken. You can't believe what you could buy at the flea market in the 80s. Butterfly knives, shuriken, switchblades, you name it.

  • Naga Sadow||

    torpid,

    Quit having stupid babies. Go home and kill yourself. Right now!

    economist,

    I'm gonna stick closer to reality and simply call myself the Lord Protector. There will be order but not with gunslingers. I was thinking of having March Warden's keep their petty fiefs in check.

  • economist||

    Naga,
    Don't be so harsh to torpid. Self-castration would be sufficient.

  • ||

    don't drink out of the toilet, don't rub your wee wee on the dog -- and they'll find ways to break them.

    Maybe your kids are retarded. Ever think of that?

  • torpid\'s kid||

    "don't rub your wee wee on the dog"
    What's wrong with that?

  • economist||

    "We did that with shuriken."
    Sorry, but I'm seeing a "Good Times With Weapons" scenario here.

  • torpid||

    You're so mean! I'm gonna go tell my mommy and she'll tell your mommy and you'll be in superbig trouble!

  • torpid||

    Could someone change my diaper, first, though?

  • Naga Sadow||

    Good times with weapons? Dy-No-Mite!!!

  • BDB||

    "Episiarch | February 22, 2009, 1:15pm | #
    Lock your guns up when you're not using them! It's really fairly simple.

    Not even necessary. My grandparents had, for instance, a shotgun behind the door to the back porch. You did not touch it. It was for emergencies only. Guess what? You didn't touch it."

    Similar situation here when I was a child.

    Unless you really fail at being a parent or you have Beavis and Butthead for children, that's usually enough.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Episiarch,

    Since we are on the subject of kids with weapons and torpids ignorance.

    Remember my cheap, stupid roommates? One of them just bought a fucking shuriken! Not a set, not a package deal or anything, just decided out of the blue he wanted A, as in singular, shuriken. I'm never gonna understand them.

  • torpid||

    Whoever is impersonating me and sullying my good name, you've been reported. I hope they delete your account.

  • ||

    I think torpid is constipated.

  • Good Ol\' Lobsterhead Is Back||

    I think torpid may be a troll, guys.

  • torpid (Disclaimer, since real||

    I have no sense of humor whatsoever, and take myself way too seriously.

    Also, I'm not an adult and I don't have kids. I just like to post here and lecture other people about how to live because I know I'm so much smarter than they are.

  • economist||

    I coulnd't tell if torpid 1:36 was a spoof or not.

  • Torpid||

    I'm being harassed by reasonoids. Whenever I go to their threads and post my sage opinions and call them fetus fetishizers, they spoof me and spoil my good name.

  • Torpid||

    They also called me stupid.

  • Torpid||

    Stop spoofing me, a-holes!

  • Lefiti||

    Torpid,
    I deeply respect your great mind. I would like to engage in further dialogue with you. I think it's terrible that these libertards don't appreciate your great mind.

  • Lefiti||

    I hate my life! AARRRGHH!

  • Torpid||

    I'm not going to post here anymore. You stupid fetus fetishizing gun nut libertard psychos who can't raise children will have to live without my valuable insights.

  • Lefiti||

    No, Torpid, please, DON'T LEAVE!!!! NOOOOOOO!
    I'll never love again!

  • Lefiti||

    @ torpid,

    CHORUS:

    I don't want to wait
    For our lives to be over
    I want to know right now
    What will it be
    I don't want to wait
    For our lives to be over
    Will it be yes or will it be
    Sorry

  • Naga Sadow as Lefiti||

    I'm back from the dead, assholes! Look on my lefty comments, ye libertards, and despair!

  • torpid||

    torpid [ed: impersonator]| February 22, 2009, 1:30pm | #
    Could someone change my diaper, first, though?

    Episiarch | February 22, 2009, 1:37pm | #
    I think torpid is constipated.

    If you're going to defame me you need to get your stories straight first, rotfl. And if you think I care about the opinions of you and your ilks, you don't know me too well.

  • ||

    Did you murder the brown snake, torpid?

  • torpid impersonator||

    Didn't stop you from expressing yours here now did it?

  • Gary||

    "Holy shit, Gary. You're for real."

    As real as they get, Episiarch.

  • torpid||

    It was shaped more like a toad, not that it's any of your beeswax.

  • Naga Sadow||

    A fucking toad? LOL!

  • Gary||

    Jeez! I step away for a while and the thread has turned to absolute intellectual shit! WTF is up with this Torpid character?

  • Naga Sadow||

    Gary,

    Well the summation would be that Torpid's kids are to stupid to learn not to play with any guns hanging around his house so we should retire the second amendment. For teh childrenz, of course.

  • torpid||

    More like, I pointed out a flaw in the conservative "gun rights" argument and all the sudden I'm getting spoofed, having my children insulted, and my bowel habits speculated upon.

    I don't get these people either, Gary.

  • Gary||

    All the more reason children should be exposed to guns at an early age. The more acclimated they are to them, the less the chance of them misusing them when they grow up. I guess I'm an exception, in that regard. My mother made Dad sell his shotgun when I was born, and I never knew he had ever owned a gun until I read his record of the sale of that gun, while going through his personal effects after his death. But, I turned out okay and, despite never having been around guns my whole life, I, nevertheless learned a healthy respect for them. I bought my first gun - a Mossberg 500 Cruiser (police model tactical shotgun), last summer.

  • Gary||

    "I don't get these people either, Gary."

    Actually, it's you I don't get, Torpid.

  • Naga Sadow||

    I didn't view it as a flaw. Shit happens. Sucks but I'm not gonna rain on anyone's rights over a personal tragedy.

  • ||

    All the more reason children should be exposed to guns at an early age. The more acclimated they are to them, the less the chance of them misusing them when they grow up.

    I'm sympathetic to your general position, but this particular assertion may not be true. Perhaps it could be studied rigorously, but it sounds like you're saying it just because you think it supports your case.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Gary,

    This reminds me. Sorry for getting you confused with the "other" gary from last year's battle royale. My apologies.

  • ||

    Gary, you're insane, but you're all right. I don't mind conspiracy theorists too much, but let me tell you, Mossberg is a ZOG company and you really don't want one of those. If you try to shoot a Jew with one, they jam. Get a Saiga or a Benelli. You know, good American guns.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Epi!!! Goddamn you! You've played right into UnderZog's hands! You're gonna have to deal with the Hebrew Hammer now, my friend. Good luck.

  • Gary||

    "I'm sympathetic to your general position, but this particular assertion may not be true. Perhaps it could be studied rigorously, but it sounds like you're saying it just because you think it supports your case."

    Not at all. I don't have to; it's a fact. I've personally known people who grew up with guns around the house and none of them are crazed killers and none wound up shooting their little sister. If properly trained and supervised by parents who know what they're doing, kids who grow up with guns don't have the same fascination with death and killing that kids who grow up with video games as their only experience of firearms. These kids who have grown up with first-person shooter games in which the object is to shoot anything that moves have been desensitized to human suffering and death. No wonder they are the ones being recruited by our military right now. Kids who grow up with guns learn that they are deadly weapons, not toys. They learn that you don't point a weapon at someone unless you intend to kill them. In short, they learn proper gun safety. Of course, there are always exceptions, either way, but, generally, this is true.

    No problem, Naga. I guess I'd have been more offended if I'd been here to see that thread, but, I wasn't, so, no biggie.

    How am I insane, Episiarch? I'm not making any of this stuff up. Two years ago, I would have said the same thing about anyone who talks about such matters. If someone else hadn't awakened me to what's happening, I would probably still be watching Fox News and believing everything they say.

    I'm not aware that Mossberg is a Zionist-owned company. Are you basing that on their company name? If so, you might care to know the name is Swedish, not Jewish. By the way, Saiga is a Russian maker and Benelli is Italian.

    But, since you mentioned it, the New World Order is an Anglo-American-Zionist creature, not exclusively Zionist. The Brits set up the state of Israel with the Palestine Mandate after WWI.

  • ||

    Torpid | February 22, 2009, 1:46pm | #

    Stop spoofing me, a-holes!


    Perhaps if you posted with a valid email, we might respect your opinions.

    Whoever is impersonating me and sullying my good name, you've been reported. I hope they delete your account.

    Account? you must be really dense or a very good spoofer.

  • Gary||

    Er...WWII, I mean.

  • tarran||

    Torpid,

    I've got news for you: people have been pointing out that flaw for centuries. It has been thoroughly refuted for centuries too.

    You argument has also been used to justify slavery (murders committed by free blacks), censorship (catcher in the rye baby), drug laws (watch reefer madness), school desegregation (black children being dumber will be older than the white girls they sitin a classroom with and will seduce them (I shit you not I saw a segregation supporter make this argument on a talk show)), female gentital mutilation (wanton un-mutilated girl has sex with boyfriend/is seduced and raped bringing dishonor to their families), etc ad nauseam.

    And incidentally, the argument you are making is a conservative one. Remember the enlightenment, where that whole conservative liberal split got started? Guess which of the two groups opposed peasants being permitted arms?

  • ||

    I'm not aware that Mossberg is a Zionist-owned company. Are you basing that on their company name? If so, you might care to know the name is Swedish, not Jewish. By the way, Saiga is a Russian maker and Benelli is Italian.

    And I am a sarcastic asshole. It's always disappointing to me when people don't get my jokes. Please, some of you, tell me you got it?

  • ||

    I only lurk this here blog and I got it Episiarch.
    Actually thought it was quite funny.

    BTW, Is joe really gone?

  • Kolohe||

    But, since you mentioned it, the New World Order is an Anglo-American-Zionist creature, not exclusively Zionist.

    There are large contributions from French and Italian organizations don't forget. And the Chrysanthemum Throne is subcontracted for all Asian Pacific operations.

  • Gary||

    "And I am a sarcastic asshole."

    Well, they say admitting it is the first step toward solving the problem.

    "It's always disappointing to me when people don't get my jokes. Please, some of you, tell me you got it?"

    Oh. Hahaha. So, I take it the implication is that I'm some sort of "right-wing" militia Neo-Nazi type? If so, you have no idea who you're addressing, for one thing, as well as no understanding at all of what is going on in the world. Try exploring the links on my website and learn something instead of making the same left-liberal assumptions you've been making for decades about so-called "conspiracy theorists." There is absolutely nothing theoretical about it. I'm not making this stuff up.


    Who is Torpid talking to?

  • Gary||

    "There are large contributions from French and Italian organizations don't forget. And the Chrysanthemum Throne is subcontracted for all Asian Pacific operations."

    Yes, but it's predominately Anglo-American-Zionist. The thing is, the elite like to use the Russia doll model; i.e., organizations within organizations within organizations, just to keep us all confused and pointing our fingers in all directions at once. They are always playing different groups off of each other.

  • torpid||

    My trouble with Episiarch is not the things he says that I don't understand, but the ones I do.

  • ||

    My trouble with Episiarch is not the things he says that I don't understand, but the ones I do.

    That's all I could ever ask for.

    take it the implication is that I'm some sort of "right-wing" militia Neo-Nazi type? I

    Exactly. You have us perfectly.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    BTW, Is joe really gone?

    Insha'Allah.

    Deo volente.

    Whatever Deity you choose, yea, let it be so.

    Gary, you need to get to bed. You wouldn't want to miss one minute of George Noory, would you?

  • Gary||

    "Exactly. You have us perfectly."

    Okay. Well, that pretty much confirms what I suspected about you so-called "libertarians," then; i.e., that you don't have a clue about anything outside the false left-right paradigm and still cling to the same old pre-9/11 mindset.

    Again, explore the links on my website. Learn. I'm neither "right-wing" nor "left-wing." Both are false constructs designed to divide us all. As for the "Neo-Nazi" moniker, don't be absurd. Compared with your pro-statist, gun-grabbing attitude about the Second Amendment, it is you, not I, who are the Nazi. As for militias, they seemed to work fairly well for our ancestors a couple of centuries ago, as I recall. They're long overdue for a resurgence. If you were stupid enough to buy into the Clinton Justice Department's demonizing of the patriot movement during the nineties, no wonder you think that way. You're a tool of the Anglo-American Establishment and don't even realize it.

  • Gary||

    "Gary, you need to get to bed. You wouldn't want to miss one minute of George Noory, would you?"

    George is okay, but a bit too mainstream for my tastes. I prefer Alex Jones and Alan Watt. So, where do you get your information from, aside from Reason, which betrayed its original ideals nearly thirty years ago? I suppose you think what you hear on Fox News or CNN is the truth? Wake up!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I suppose you think what you hear on Fox News or CNN is the truth?

    I know the looney-toon crock of shit you're peddling ain't it, chief. Please to resuming cowering for black helicopters, Gary.

    Please, mommy, I want to hear the fairy tale about the ZOG and its role in 9/11! It's like a Choose-Your-Own-Facts Fantasy!

  • economist||

    "having my children insulted"

    You're right. We shouldn't insult your children. You probably just suck as a parent.

  • economist||

    "Compared with your pro-statist, gun-grabbing attitude about the Second Amendment, it is you, not I, who are the Nazi"

    WTF? The libertarian posters here are almost unanimously in favor of second amendment rights.

  • ecnomsit||

    The following is a pre-emptive response to torpid's likely response to my 7:12 post.

    You can't have it both ways. If you think that having guns in the house inevitably leads to kids shooting people then you either A. suck as a parent such that your kids don't understand that guns need to be handled with caution or are little psychos who don't care or B. had children who were always idiots/psychos.

  • torpid logic||

    Kids can kill themselves by drinking drain cleaner

    therefore

    Drain cleaner must be banned for the sake of the children!

  • ||

    But I thought it was the state's job to teach our children right from wrong. How can parents be expected to know what the right 'truth' is?

  • Gary||

    "I know the looney-toon crock of shit you're peddling ain't it, chief. Please to resuming cowering for black helicopters, Gary."

    And what, exactly, IS your view, then? That we were attacked by 19 Arabs with box cutters, under the direction of some guy in a cave in Afghanistan? Bin Laden was a CIA asset who worked under the pseudonym of Tim Osman. Zbigniew Brzezinski (who co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973) brags, his book, "The Grand Chessboard" or having created Al Qaeda, which is the name of a CIA operation, not a group of fundamentalist Muslims. Furthermore, most of the so-called "hijackers" are still alive. All of these facts are verifiable.

    As for black helicopters, they not only exist, but belong to FEMA. I've seen one, myself, less than fifty yards ahead of my car, hovering nose down over the traffic as I drove home from work one evening in January 2008. It was seen by at least twenty other motorists. I was able to later identify it as a FEMA chopper from photos taken of FEMA helicopters in use during a martial law training exercise held in New Mexico in 2007. Do a Google image search for "black helicopters," then tell me that what comes up is a fantasy, "chief." Thousands of people have seen these in action all over the country. Our own government has admitted they exist.

    You still didn't answer my question: where DO you get your information about the world? Hmm?

    Yes, Israel certainly did play a role in 9/11. There was a group of Israeli men arrested and detained on the day of 9/11 after they were seen filming the WTC attack and dancing around laughing and "high-fiving" each other. When asked why they were there, they said they were there to document the event. Now, how did they KNOW what was going to happen? Hmmm?


    Economist: "WTF? The libertarian posters here are almost unanimously in favor of second amendment rights."

    Not from what I've read here. I've read:

    1. Someone saying that there is something wrong with children being raised around guns.

    2. Someone saying that the Heller decision somehow gave us the right to have to guns, when, in fact, the Supreme Court had no legal authority to "rule" on the meaning of the Second Amendment, in the first place and then stated that it "allows" the right of an individual to have guns "within reasonable limitations," even the Second Amendment clearly states that it is not to be infringed - and has been repeatedly infringed thousands of times over a period of 75 years. Never mind the fact that the Second Amendment didn't grant any rights - it acknowledges and protects an existing natural right to self-defense.

    Doesn't sound the commentary of people who know, understand and support the Second Amendment to me.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    it's too easy to poke the categorically retarded.

    sorry, Gary, I don't argue with nutjobs, Truthers or any combination thereof. Have fun living in your own world of internal conspiracy logic and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

  • torpid||

    If 11 year old boys were killing their stepmothers by pouring drain cleaner onto the back of their heads while they were sleeping, that "logic" would be appropriate.

    Even then I would think plumbers should be allowed to carry drain cleaner, so stop strawmanning me.

  • ||

    BTW, Is joe really gone?

    Can someone confirm this?

    Did he officially say good bye?

  • Ol\' Lobsterhead Is Back||

    joe is not gone.

    He will hunt you down the world of your dreams, where your liberties cannot protect you.

  • tarran||

    torpid, one... one child killed his step-mother with a gun recently.

    Millions of children (and yes, it's millions) did not, despite having the opportunity to do so.

    If someone decides to commit a murder, the lack of a firearm won't generally stop them. Oh sure, there are probably some fence sitters who might kill someone with a gun who wouldn't bother if their only option was a kitchen knife or a garrote made out of a stocking.

    However, the notion that millions of people should be disarmed simply so that a few murders are made fractionally more difficult is laughable. Furthermore, are you planning on disarming the police too? Because last I checked, police tended to have children, and bring weapons home too.

    Go peddle your right-wing conservative views that only the government should have guns while the poor should be kept disarmed somewhere else.

  • torpid||

    "you either A. suck as a parent such that your kids don't understand that guns need to be handled with caution or are little psychos who don't care or B. had children who were always idiots/psychos."

    That doesn't seem a very compassionate attitude. A social philosophy that assumes as a given that everyone is as perfect as the comfortable, leisured class that mostly frequents a blog such as this one, isn't ready for prime time so to speak. It's like basing your fire escape plan on the principle that there won't ever be a fire.

  • stuartl||

    Did he officially say good bye?

    Yes, his last comment is here, here on the appropriately named "See Monkey, Go Berserk" thread.

    Earlier on the same thread he wrote:

    You people have been doing the same thing, with the implausible interpretations of Obama's every action on detention and torture, since he won the election. Probably before. This week is no different.

    Rough translation -- I can dish it out, but I can't take it.

  • torpid logic||

    "If 11 year old boys were killing their stepmothers by pouring drain cleaner onto the back of their heads while they were sleeping, that 'logic' would be appropriate."

    Actually, I'm basing it on your assumption that if it's dangerous for children (to themselves or others) to have something, it should not be possessed by private citizens, period.

  • ||

    Thanks for the link, Stuartl.

    I have a theory that Joe is still present on this board in the guise of one or more of the various trolls.

  • economist||

    torpid,
    So you've changed your argument from, "I'm a parent and you're not, so I can tell you how to live" to "You're being really, really mean."

  • economist||

    "I have a theory that Joe is still present on this board in the guise of one or more of the various trolls."
    As torpid, perhaps?

  • economist||

    Then again, torpid existed prior to joe's departure, and joe (so far as I know) was never given to the use of sock puppets.

  • economist||

    And how am I being "uncompassionate"?

    My parents (and most of their friends) aforementioned in the thread were definitely not the "leisured class", and yet, by some strange miracle, neither my siblings nor I ever shot anyone. Amazing!

  • Torpid||

    Stop pwning me so hard, economist.

  • economist||

    "if you think I care about the opinions of you and your ilks, you don't know me too well."

    Interestingly enough, no one here cares about your opinion of them, either. Funny how that happens.

  • Lefiti||

    Torpid, my dearest, you're back!

  • Lefiti||

    But I can't allow myself to get attached. I won't let myself be hurt again if you leave in a huff.

  • stuartl||

    I have a theory that Joe is still present on this board in the guise of one or more of the various trolls.

    I dreamed I saw Joe Boyle last night,
    alive as you and me.
    Says I "But Joe, you're ten years dead"
    "I never died" said he,
    "I never died" said he.

    "The Copper Bosses killed you Joe,
    they shot you Joe" says I.
    "Takes more than guns to kill a man"
    Says Joe "I didn't die"
    Says Joe "I didn't die"

    "In Salt Lake City, Joe," says I,
    Him standing by my bed,
    "They framed you on a murder charge,"
    Says Joe, "But I ain't dead,"
    Says Joe, "But I ain't dead."

    And standing there as big as life
    and smiling with his eyes.
    Says Joe "What they can never kill
    went on to organize,
    went on to organize"

    From San Diego up to Maine,
    in every mine and mill,
    Where working men defend their rights,
    it's there you find Joe Boyle,
    it's there you find Joe Boyle!

  • Torpid||

    I declare war on the libertards on this thread. I will pay a million dollars for the head of Teh Economist!

  • tarran||

    It has been my experience that a lot of American "liberals" are driven by envy. They want the wealthy life of leisure they assume the rich must enjoy.

    When they encounter someone who does not suffer from that envy - at least to the point of wanting to take that which they covet - they assume that that person must be a member of the "haves".

    It is, of course, irritating. I have met rich libertarians. I have met poor libertarians. I have met middle-class libertarians. Libertarianism, which is basically a political philosophy that argues for minimizing the amount of violence in a society by limiting it to purely defensive ends, is attractive to people from all sorts of backgrounds.

  • ||

    Torpid seems to be as argumentative as joe.

  • ||

    Only about 2% as smart.

  • ||

    I have a theory that Joe is still present on this board in the guise of one or more of the various trolls.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. And nature is one vindictive bitch, so you can count on the vacuum getting its just deserts sooner or later.

  • torpid||

    "So you've changed your argument from, "I'm a parent and you're not, so I can tell you how to live" to "You're being really, really mean.""

    They're not mutually exclusive. But in reality you're misrepresenting the first claim; I was just saying that because a few simple rules kept a bright kid like you (and those around you) safe despite having constant access to lethal weapons....it doesn't mean you can expect the same from the general population.

    The meanness of this site's inhabitants should be apparent to any unbiased reader of this thread. Free minds, my ass; dissenters are only free to be told their children are retarded, they are incontinent, their stools are shaped like various ectothermic life forms. Not to mention the guy who presumptuously told me to immediately go home and kill myself (I was already home, so I cannot fulfill his command).

  • tarran||

    Sigh,

    Torpid, I'll explain things to you, recognizing that I am probably wasting my breath:

    1)Here is how you entered the conversation:

    I don't understand how "reason"-able (in name only it seems) people can defend the Second Ammendment "rights" when they lead to little boys killing pregnant women. Isn't that kind of a dilemma for you guys, when the fetus you fetishize gets killed by a gun?



    Note the gratuitous and innacurate insult? That basically painted you as an asshole right off the bat. Secondly, what you are making is what is known as a utilitarian argument. Now, utilitarian arguments can be fine things, if done well.

    Unfortunately, you did not do it well. You did it so poorly that I can't even call it a half-assed utilitarian argument. It wa a eighth-assed argument really.

    This marked you as a stupid asshole. We tolerate assholes. We tolerate the stupid, if they are polite. But the combination of the two is annoying to the point that nobody wants to deal with a stupid asshole.

    2) Let's talk utilitarianism for a moment. Now some libertarians are utilitarians - especially since happily when all things are equal, freer societies overwhelmingly are more prosperous and pleasant for every member than their non-free cousins.

    However, many libertarians are not utilitarians but rather moralists. If, for example, you were to be able to make a convincing case that we would all be better off if we raped some girl to death as a sacrifice to the gods, we moralists would refuse since it was a violation of that girl's rights to rape and murder her. Simmilarly, we believe that until he pointed that gun and killed his step-mom, that boy had a right to own and operate a gun, so long as he did not violate the rights of any other human. He, of course, used that tool to murder his step-mom. But, the fact that he behaved criminally does not negate the rights of others to use the same tool in a morally legitimate manner.

    3) Additionally, a utilitarian argument must consider what Frederick Bastiat would call "that which is seen and unseen". That means you must consider how many people would die because you didn't permit people to have rifles and handguns for self-defense that would have lived had they been harmed - I am not merely talking about defense against human attackers. I am also talking about wild animals. Rememeber, a good percentage of the population lives out in the country, where the nearest police officer is ten, fifteen minutes away. You must consider how many families will go hungry because they count on hunting to supplement that which they can afford to buy at the grocery store.

    Of course, your argument did none of this. You looked at one thing, and tried to come up with some blanket policy that might have prevented it (although, I suspect that boy would have used a kitchen knife on his step-mom had he lacked a rifle). Your approach is precisely the same approach used by George Bush in developing U.S. anti-terrorist policies, come up with some blanket half-assed rule that wouldn't have worked very well, and hang the consequences.

    4) Guys like you are a dime a dozen. Every few weeks, some guy or girl splashes down with poorly considered arguments that he thinks will skool the libertariunz on the logikal fallasies of their religun. Initially we mock them, and most go away. Some stick around and engage in actual debate. We usually pwn them and they go away. Occasionally, one will stick around, either through sheer bloody mindedness (like M1EK, Jersey McJones, Dan T, Edward/Lefiti) or because they enjoy a good debate and have some intelligent points to make (joe and MNG).

    The point is you guys are like replacements reporting to the 1st army in the Hurtgen forest in World War II. Most people here know that you are probably going to be gone in a week, and aren't worth the trouble of debating. If you survive, and actually make legitimate nuanced points, you will find that you have pretty enjoyable debates. Certainly, I think MNG enjoys himself, even when he lost that bet and had to call himself Crow Eating Dumbass for a month, which he did with an aplomb that earned him respect. You could be in the same boat if you wanted. Stop being an asshole, educate yourself about libertarianism, and people will be far less likely to decide you are too stupid to be worth bothering with,.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Is torpid the guy who was shocked there were no libertarian vegans? Damn all the pot I smoked once upon a time!

  • ||

    Not to mention the guy who presumptuously told me to immediately go home and kill myself (I was already home, so I cannot fulfill his command).

    You and Gary should get together - he displays the same odd religiously literal reading of posts and odd inability to understand sarcasm.

  • ||

    Lock your guns up when you're not using them! It's really fairly simple.

    As long as you understand that a primary function of a self-defense weapon is to be immediately available, so that it is in use when it is resting comfortably close to hand, I would agree.

    A minor refinement, tarran:

    Remember, a good percentage of absent a happy accident,the entire population lives out in the country, where the nearest police officer is ten, fifteen minutes away.

  • ||

    You still didn't answer my question: where DO you get your information about the world? Hmm?



    Gary, This is where most of us get our information. Fuck, I amuse me.

  • ||

    Damn, one too many HTTPs in that link.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/


    Let me try that again:

    Moron News

  • Jake Witmer||

    In the interest of time, allow me to point you to the works of John Ross, if you are uninitiated to the gun rights and freedom debate. "How Drug Laws Hurt Gun Owners" from the anthology "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters, and "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Both published by Accurate Press.

    Also, for the history of racist gun control laws in the USA, see this page:
    http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845

    Plain and simple: Gun control is about rendering groups of people defenseless against the collective force of the majority. If one group is rendered defenseless, they can either be stolen from, or enslaved, thus providing an excuse to steal tax money from the majority to pay for the enslavement.

    This is the historical cause of both gun and drug prohibition in the USA.

    Since gun prohibition is a direct attack on property rights, we have to conclude that
    1) The Constitution is a failed limit on government power
    2) Government power is now unlimited
    3) The enforcement or nonenforcement of any law is simply based on political pressure
    4) As such, both major parties deny the concept of individual rights, and view rights as a favor of privilege that they can then bestow on their supporters (as well as fail to bestow on anyone, if they lose elections)
    5) Since neither side is in control 100% of the time, this results in the steady and incremental loss of individual rights, over time.

    6) The strategy is for the general public to
    6-a) reject the major parties,
    6-b) reject the state, and
    6-c) reject state control (through noncompliance,
    6-d) and retaliatory action/force).

    The best example of 6-d that I've recently seen is http://www.kopbusters.com Barry Cooper's efforts can be imitated and duplicated. I also encourage http://www.fija.org pamphleteering outside of courthouses when juries are entering. (Typically, the takes place once per week, and helps to decrease penalties for victimless crimes, such as gun or drug possession.)

    Word.

  • Torpid||

    You're all being really, really mean! You're being so mean that my emotions are permanently scarred. WAAAAAAH!

  • Torpid||

    One day I will get revenge on The Economist, tarran, Gary, and Naga Shadow for being really, really mean to me.

    Prepare for me to actually mail you all letters telling you how angry I am at you. And I'll tell all your friends how mean you were to me! Remember, if you f*** with bull, you will get the horns!

  • wayne||

    Where the hell did Joe go? I miss you Joe. All if forgiven.

    You are probably laying low because Obama has demonstrated his incompetence and fascist tendencies, and you were a big O booster.

    Don't let that colossal blunder make you cower. Come back and defend your Democratic brethren in your patented glib, snarky manner. It was great fun debating you, and great fun reading your debates with others.

  • ||

    Here's the problem in Chicago and Illinois: Daley thinks that by outlawing guns in Chicago, there will be no guns for the criminals in Chicago. But even the Chicago Police Department's own literature says that gun control in Chicago only limits, but DOES NOT eliminate, criminals having guns. http://tinyurl.com/bhfdqa. A recent Ill. Sup. Ct. decision, Lacey v. Palatine, underscores the need for citizens to be able to protect themselves. The police will not protect you, acc. to Ill. statute 745 ILCS 10/4-102: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals."

    Unfortunately, our Mayor thinks he is making the City safer by restricting guns in the city, but what he fails to realize is that it is ONLY the law-abiding citizens who will try to follow the law and not carry guns -- the criminals DO NOT CARE! Daley is continuing to commit millions, perhaps billions of our taxpayer dollars in fighting the lawsuit against the City of Chicago to overturn our gun ban filed after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller that clearly stated that citizens have the "right to keep and bear arms." A recent NBC5 news report quoted Jody Weis himself stating that the police need certain types of guns to "level the playing field." If the Superintendent of Police himself realizes that the police have inadequate defense, what about the women in Chicago's Bucktown neighborhood being stalked and raped by a knife-wielding man?

    I have no doubt that Daley and the Chicago lawyers know their ban doesn't stand a chance if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is almost a carbon copy of the one that was overturned in D.C.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement