Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bill O'Reilly calls for terrorist strike on San Francisco (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Bill O'Reilly calls for terrorist strike on San Francisco
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought this kind of thing was illegal under the Patriot Act:
quote:
"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

Link (emphasis added).
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Er, can he legally say something like that over the airwaves? That is a statement calling for the deaths of millions of Americans...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O'Reilly is over the top -- and still neck-deep -- as usual.

But really, to what degree is San Francisco tired of being part of the United States? Based on the decisions coming from the appeals court there, and their decision to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and their wish to separate from the US military...

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say they simply have a different view on what being part of the united states means then you do.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So do most of us. So much for all that "local control", eh?

Coit tower, by the way, is a monument dedicated to the firefighters who died fighting the blazes which routinely ravaged the city in the 19th century. Nice target Bill.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse - Local control doesn't extend to overriding the Constitution of the United States. Being part of the United States must at least include the Constitution, or do you differ in that view of what "being part of the united states" means too?
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am all for local government, but unless they want to secede, they need to abide by the Constitution.

--Firedrake

Edited to remove stupidity.

[ November 11, 2005, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Banning recruiters from high school and college campuses violates the constitution?

Banning weapons of virtually no military utility violates the constitution? I don't hear these screams about the banning of bayonets, which are roughly as usefull as handguns in modern warfare.

[ November 11, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Banning weapons of virtually no military utility violates the constitution?
Yes!

quote:
I don't hear these screams about the banning of bayonets, which are roughly as usefull as handguns in modern warfare.
Then you don't know much about warfare, modern or otherwise.

[ November 11, 2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really Warsaw?

What percentage of enemy deaths in WWII, or the Korean war, or Vietnam, were accomplished through the use of handguns by our troops?


Why didn't the British equip their standard infantry with handguns?

For that matter, do you have ANY statistics that support claims of the general military utility of handguns as an essential tool for the infantry?

When we abandoned the .45 as our standard side-arm, whether or not we were going to issue sidearms as standard gear to the infantry was a very hotly contested issue. It's fair enough to say you disagree, but more than a few combat veterans and respected tacticians do agree.

Paraphrasing my uncle, who spent 23 years in the service, served as a marine in Korea and a green beret in Vietnam, handguns are for tunnel rats and so that men don't feel naked if they lose their rifle or it jams.

Daggers (granted, not bayonets, but still banned in many states) are still used by special forces for more than show. Should the right to keep and bear allow me to carry one concealed? If so, why is their so little indulgence in indignation when onerous laws like the CA dirk and dagger statute are passed?


Now, what weapons, if any, do you feel private citizens should be prohibited from owning?

Are shoulder launched SAMs ok? If not, why not? If not, why is that infringement of what you seem to belive is an unlimited right to keep and bear arms acceptable?

We have NO unlimited rights under the constitution. The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to peacably assemble, even the right to a speedy trial, have their exceptions.


There is no valid "moral stance" on this issue. We're just quibling about details.

As far as home invasion, do you have any evidence that the same (if not greater) deterent effect would be achieved by the mass ownership of shotguns?


If you want to make an argument, then feel free to disprove my assertions. This kind of comment, however, is neither productive or informative.

________________________________________________
Then you don't know much about warfare, modern or otherwise.
_________________________________________________


I'm sorry you've displayed an innability to engage in polite discourse.

Do you have a snuff flick downloaded in which a soldier kills an Iraqi with a pistol which you feel completely trumps all other arguments?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are already laws which limit a citizen's right to certain types of weapons, on federal, state and local levels. And I'm sure this proposition will be challenged in the court system, giving due process to both the pro-gun lobby and the city itself. If it is found to be unconstitutional, then I'm sure the city of San Francisco will abide by that decision. Failing to do so would then put them in conflict with the Constitution, but not until that decision is made.

It's not like San Francisco is the first city to ban guns, either. IIRC, both Washington D.C. and NYC have similar laws. This is just another molehill turning into a mountain. As if its any surprise that SF is waaaay to the left of middle America.

The thing that really cracks me up the most are the people who say they want decisions to be made at the local level, unless of course, the decision made at that level is one they disagree with. It's sort of like calling the courts "activist courts". An "activist" court is a court whose decisions you disagree with.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe they dont want constitutional law being abridged at the local level?
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that its not constitutional law.
The law is semi-settled, at the SC level, and its in the direction of local control over weapons being constitutional.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haggis said:
quote:
The thing that really cracks me up the most are the people who say they want decisions to be made at the local level,
The Constitution says:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...and

quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Decisions that are not specified in the Constitution should be made at the local level. Since the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and the Constitution specifically says that the States will not create laws abridging the privileges of the citizens of the United States, this is a decision that should be made at the Federal level.

What I (and several others) have been saying is this: if a power is not specified in the Federal Constitution, that power should be reserved for the States (via the 10th Amendment). However, if a power or right is specified in the Constitution, the definition and extension of that power or right should be made at the Federal level.

With decisions like Roe v. Wade and 2nd Amendment rights, the substance of the individual right is contested. If abortion access is an individual right (which is not indicated by the Roe decision), then such a thing belongs at the Federal level. If abortion is not an individual right, then people retain the right to privacy at the Federal level, but the decision on abortion restrictions should be made at the State level.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Banning recruiters from high school and college campuses violates the constitution?

See the Supremacy clause, and the Army clause in Article One.

Federal law constitutes the supreme law of the land. When the feds have the constitutional power to pass a law, then any state law that contradicts that federal law violates the Supremacy clause.

Here, the Army clause of Article One gives Congress permission to pass laws requiring schools to accept military recruiters. If Congress has passed such a law, then it is constitutional, and local countervention of such a law would constitute a violation of the Supremacy clause.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that an unconstitutional law gives O'Reilley excuse to call for San Francisco to struck by terrorists. Even though it sounds like a ridiculous hyperbole, I don't find it funny at all.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Banning weapons of virtually no military utility violates the constitution? I don't hear these screams about the banning of bayonets, which are roughly as usefull as handguns in modern warfare.

So when the military issues sidearms, that's for amusement?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. I do not think that anyone is defending O'Reilley's remarks.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Really Warsaw?

What percentage of enemy deaths in WWII, or the Korean war, or Vietnam, were accomplished through the use of handguns by our troops?

Gee, that data is so totally available.
And even though the percentage of casualties caused by pistols is low, that doesn't make them only as useful as bayonets. That's like saying sniper rifles are useless because napalm produced so many more NVA casualties. It's for specialized purposes and for security, and it can come in real handy for insurgencies (easy to conceal).

What I do know, as far as regular military use, is that several different kinds of pistols were produced during the war just on the German side alone (like the P08 Parabellum, which we called the Luger). More than 1 million Walther (and Mauser-Werke and Spree-Werke etc.) P-38s were manufactured during WW2. Just one example.
I emphasized the Germans.

The Japanese produced a few pistols that they mostly didn't care to use -- the officers preferred to carry swords for romantic reasons, even inside of aircraft and tanks.

quote:
Why didn't the British equip their standard infantry with handguns?
So they didn't equip their standard infantry with pistols. Pretty much everyone else got them -- tank crews, pilots, officers, MPs, dispatch crews. And none of these would be just as well off with bayonets as with pistols.

quote:
For that matter, do you have ANY statistics that support claims of the general military utility of handguns as an essential tool for the infantry?
Who said anything about regular infantry? We're talking about able-bodied men, in different kinds of warfare.

quote:
Paraphrasing my uncle, who spent 23 years in the service, served as a marine in Korea and a green beret in Vietnam, handguns are for tunnel rats and so that men don't feel naked if they lose their rifle or it jams.
Huh. That's strange. I've consistently heard that pistols are favorites of special forces -- they certainly were for the British during WW2, to use your own inquiry.

quote:
Daggers (granted, not bayonets, but still banned in many states) are still used by special forces for more than show. Should the right to keep and bear allow me to carry one concealed? If so, why is their so little indulgence in indignation when onerous laws like the CA dirk and dagger statute are passed?
If I'd even heard about it, I'd have been indignant myself.

quote:
Now, what weapons, if any, do you feel private citizens should be prohibited from owning?
Those that pose a clear and present threat to society itself, such as WMDs.

Weapons that do not threaten society in general but can truly serve only a military purpose (tanks, shoulder-mounted rockets) should be registered, and the able-bodied men responsible for their use should be directly responsible to their respective States (National Guard) and to the Commander-in-Chief, and should receive a uniform or badge that they must wear when operating such equipment. The punishment for turning these weapons on Americans and/or using them without express permission of their superiors would, of course, merit extreme punishment.

quote:
We have NO unlimited rights under the constitution. The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to peacably assemble, even the right to a speedy trial, have their exceptions.
Granted, they are all negative rights, and if a person infringes upon the negative rights of others, that person is a criminal. I believe these are the only legitimate exceptions.
So, if your speech poses a clear and present danger to others, you have overstepped your bounds.

quote:
There is no valid "moral stance" on this issue. We're just quibling about details.
Who said anything about morals? You're talking to an self-proclaimed amoralist.

quote:
As far as home invasion, do you have any evidence that the same (if not greater) deterent effect would be achieved by the mass ownership of shotguns?
You're asking me if I can provide evidence of an alternate reality?
Well, I can only say that shotguns, while packing much more of a punch at short range, are much harder to hide, store, deploy, and fire in very short ranges -- not to mention fire at quite such a quick rate. You never wonder if the man of the house has a loaded shotgun under the pillow.

quote:
If you want to make an argument, then feel free to disprove my assertions. This kind of comment, however, is neither productive or informative.

Then you don't know much about warfare, modern or otherwise.

Okay, granted. But you must see the difference between bayonets and pistols in the hands of, say, military police.
quote:
I'm sorry you've displayed an innability to engage in polite discourse.
HA! Do you actually think you're scoring points? I say you've displayed ignorance about a very specific subject, and all of a sudden I'm unable to engage in polite discourse? Really reaching for the refs to call a foul there.

quote:
Do you have a snuff flick downloaded in which a soldier kills an Iraqi with a pistol which you feel completely trumps all other arguments?
Wow, you really went all the way with that "polite discourse" thing.

No, I don't gather such films. But I have simple arguments about military utility -- like the fact that MPs and tank crews and pilots still carry pistols, not bayonets, despite the dramatically higher cost of pistols.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
--Yet another cross-posted post.--

Liberator Pistol

The French resistance used a liberator pistol.

quote:
After production, the Army turned the Liberators over to the OSS. A crude and clumsy weapon, the Liberator was never intended for front line service. It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. The resistance fighters were to recover the weapons, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill him and retrieve his weapon.
While the Liberator was not deployed in strength in France, the point remains the same. Just because you start with a pistol does not mean you need to end with a pistol.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haggis -
quote:
An "activist" court is a court whose decisions you disagree with.
That's a very popular saying, but I disagree.

I know a number of judges who also want to overturn Roe v Wade, but for reasons that I don't believe pertain to the actual Constitutionality of the decision. I don't want judges who legislate from the bench -- I want a judge who interprets the Constitution very strictly (and I don't see why I should have to apologize for that). That leaves us to change the Constitution along lines that are broadly popular (enough to amend it) to bring it up to date, rather than relying on judges to "reinterpret" the thing. There's a reason we can amend the Constitution.
-=-=-=-=-
Ev -
quote:
The law is semi-settled, at the SC level, and its in the direction of local control over weapons being constitutional.
I hardly think that the circuit decisions based on United States v Miller can be taken as a repudiation of the individual rights camp. That's been challenged many times, and the scholarly material today is mostly agreeing with individual-rights interpretation. The Ninth Circuit is the real staunch holdout against individual rights.
-=-=-=-
Pete -
quote:
Not that an unconstitutional law gives O'Reilley excuse to call for San Francisco to struck by terrorists. Even though it sounds like a ridiculous hyperbole, I don't find it funny at all.
Again, totally agreed.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
An "activist" court is a court whose decisions you disagree with.
The right wing response to this typical left wing statement is that the judge who agrees with you is only "interpreting" the costitution, whereas the judge who disagrees with you is a dangerous "extremist".
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are shoulder launched SAMs ok? If not, why not? If not, why is that infringement of what you seem to belive is an unlimited right to keep and bear arms acceptable?
That is a good point.

quote:
Those that pose a clear and present threat to society itself, such as WMDs.

Weapons that do not threaten society in general but can truly serve only a military purpose (tanks, shoulder-mounted rockets) should be registered, and the able-bodied men responsible for their use should be directly responsible to their respective States (National Guard) and to the Commander-in-Chief, and should receive a uniform or badge that they must wear when operating such equipment. The punishment for turning these weapons on Americans and/or using them without express permission of their superiors would, of course, merit extreme punishment.

It's a fair suggestion Warsaw, but what exactly are you basing this on? It seems to me your proposed restriction on military grade weapons is, in principle, not much different than what is being done in San Franciso. The only difference is that you have set the bar somewhat higher than they have. It seems to me that the text of the second amendment, taken literally, would guarantee the right to bear arms, period. There is no exception for rocket launchers, bayonettes, or hydrogen bombs.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr -
quote:
It's a fair suggestion Warsaw, but what exactly are you basing this on?
My own standards of what weapons, in and of themselves, pose a clear and present danger to the society -- a constitutional threat. If someone insisted on owning such a weapon, it would not be proscribed. The owner would simply have to cease being a private citizen.

I would simply have Congress press any owner of such a weapon into the employment and service -- and thus organization and discipline -- of the Militia. Such an owner would be subject to several clauses of Article I, Section 8 -- and the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Presto change-o, he goes from a constitutional threat to an asset, where the Constitution does its job of using power loaned to it by the People to protect the People from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

A weapon that cannot practicably be used for private defense against another private party is to be considered a military weapon. The patent purpose of said weapons is for battle with state assets. Any person insisting on the right to bear and keep that particular kind of arms would be under the perpetual discipline and employ of Congress and the Commander-in-Chief, or he would be a clear and present danger, an enemy of the state.

This is not explicitly covered anywhere in the Constitution. It's just about the basic purpose of the State.
What is covered by the Constitution is that that person shall not have his right to keep and bear arms infringed upon.

That answer you satisfactorily, jasonr?

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, with all the draconian measures we are taking these days, can't he get arrested for encouraging a terrorist attack? Seriously, can't he get pulled in tomorrow for this statement? If not, why not?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm waiting for the day a guest on O'reilly purposefully goads him into a fist fight and pummels the shyt out of him.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm waiting for him to get blown up by al-Qaida. Hear that, al-Qaida? Every other talk-show host is off limits to you, except O'Reilly. You want to blow up Fox studios? Go ahead. We're not going to do a thing about it.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, pickled.

WP - you sound just like Wesley Clark. He likes to say "If you like to fire assault rifles, come join the US Army. We got 'em".

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That answer you satisfactorily, jasonr?
Warsaw, your plan amounts to a ban on certain weapons. Saying that people can still own them, if only they join the army, or some non-existent militia, is just bizarre. It's like saying that the San Francisco ban on hand guns isn't a real ban, because you can always join the police department if you want to have a gun.

I realize you're coming up with these cockamamie rationalizations as a way of avoiding the central issue, which is that the second amendment is completely impractical. It was written a long time ago, in circumstances that are nothing like today, and bottom line, if peace and order is to prevail, it pretty much has to be violated. In San Francisco, they've set the bat at hand guns. You have set it at bazookas and whatnot.

[ November 12, 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To put what Jason is saying in another way, every other individual right codified by the constitution is subject to certain restrictions, at the local, state, and federal level. Certain forms of speech are restricted, you can't practice your religion in certain ways, there are exceptions to the probably cause clause, searches and seizures clause, we're currently in the midst of establishing new precedent on when we can hold people without an indictment, etc.

So, logically, the second amendment, if it is an individual right, is subject to regulation at the state local and federal level.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm certainly not defending the statement, but exactly what law do people think he broke here?
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sancselfieme:
Um, with all the draconian measures we are taking these days, can't he get arrested for encouraging a terrorist attack? Seriously, can't he get pulled in tomorrow for this statement? If not, why not?

You need an actual law, Sanc. You can't just say, well, we have some laws that are "draconian," therefore we can do anything that's "draconian." [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the actual quote (from the link in the article in the first post). I've corrected the punctuation by moving a single quotation mark to the end of the paragraph:

quote:
You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
He's talking hypothetically about what he would say if he were president. There's almost no chance this is a crime, and an even smaller chance that any conviction would be overturned on free speech grounds.

By the way, the paragraph separation and use of punctuation in the "transcript" is highly deceptive. It's clear the part Media Matters bolded was supposed to be part of the quotaion of what the hypothetical president was saying.

Reason enough to never consider O'Reilly for any public office, including dog catcher. Reason enough to boycott the show if someone feels up to it. Not reason enough for criminal sanctions.

Edit: I also added the bolding.

[ November 12, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually kind of glad that SF has passed this law. I've seen the 2nd Amendment argument crop up for years and it always boils down to that caveat in the wording about 'maintaining a militia'. I hope the SCOTUS clarifies the intent there and we can all get on with things.

Of course, given the Court's general hesitancy in sounding too clear on any given issue, and also given the number of possible wrangles they could find to rule on the specific SF law without mentioning the elephant in the room, I'm not holding my breath.

If the law is upheld, however, I'll be relocating my criminal enterprise forthwith. I just hope I don't get swamped in the rush.

[ November 12, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Digger ]

Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky -
quote:
WP - you sound just like Wesley Clark. He likes to say "If you like to fire assault rifles, come join the US Army. We got 'em".
Hm. Okay.

jasonr -
quote:
Warsaw, your plan amounts to a ban on certain weapons. Saying that people can still own them, if only they join the army, or some non-existent militia, is just bizarre. It's like saying that the San Francisco ban on hand guns isn't a real ban, because you can always join the police department if you want to have a gun.
Not at all.

Firstly: a handgun is not a weapon that can only be practicably used to attack state assets or threaten society generally. It's a different class of weapon.
If someone wants to use it, therefore, they can either be planning to use it against our state and society, or against someone else's.

quote:
I realize you're coming up with these cockamamie rationalizations as a way of avoiding the central issue, which is that the second amendment is completely impractical. It was written a long time ago, in circumstances that are nothing like today, and bottom line, if peace and order is to prevail, it pretty much has to be violated.
The Second Amendment would be a bit impractical if it were not for Article I, Section 8.
And you can start violating the Second Amendment when you amend it out of the Constitution, no earlier. This is non-negotiable.

There are no cockamamie rationalzations here, and I'm knee-deep in the central issue. The Second Amendment is an individual right. It must not be violated by the government simply because of convenience, or else what's our Constitution there for anyway? To make us feel good about what we used to actually believe in?

No. The Constitution is our contract to create a State. The Bill of Rights was created to make damn sure that the Government did not overstep bounds we set up as the supreme law of the land. These Amendments and protections can be removed, if the measures are very broadly popular, but no earlier.

quote:
In San Francisco, they've set the bat at hand guns. You have set it at bazookas and whatnot.
Again, not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same sport (to paraphrase Pulp Fiction).
-=-=-=-=-
Everard -
quote:
To put what Jason is saying in another way, every other individual right codified by the constitution is subject to certain restrictions, at the local, state, and federal level. Certain forms of speech are restricted, you can't practice your religion in certain ways, there are exceptions to the probably cause clause, searches and seizures clause, we're currently in the midst of establishing new precedent on when we can hold people without an indictment, etc.

So, logically, the second amendment, if it is an individual right, is subject to regulation at the state local and federal level.

Only if someone waives their rights by directly threatening other persons or actually harming them. All these rights are negative rights, remember.

It's not subject to regulation. No right is. The freedom of speech and of the press is not "regulated," it is to be utterly respected until someone does harm (or poses a clear and present danger) and waives their rights.
Mere ownership of handguns does not pose a clear and present danger to society, and does not in and of itself do harm.
Ownership of a nuclear weapon is a societal-scale weapon.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've seen the 2nd Amendment argument crop up for years and it always boils down to that caveat in the wording about 'maintaining a militia'. I hope the SCOTUS clarifies the intent there and we can all get on with things.
Well, to bring that DoJ memo back up:
quote:
"A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State"

A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."

This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.

Keep reading.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way I see the "militia" language is that the 2nd amendment, LIKE THE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, was originally intended to apply to FEDERAL laws, not to state law.

(Those of you who disagree with me on the first amendment, please read the darned thing before responding, beginning with "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ...")

The 14th amendment has been interpreted to mean that certain constitutional rights that used to just apply against the federal government, now also apply to the states. The Supreme Court has created what we might call the Fundamentalist system. Court members hold hands and ask the ghosts of Past, Present, and Future if a particular constitutional is "fundamental." Rights that are "fundamental" get enforced on the states. Rights not found fundamental are not enforced on the states. As the court shifts, courts sometimes repeat the seance. The tendency is to find rights "fundamental" if doing so increases the power of the federal courts, increases the specific role of judges, increases the size of federal and state government, promote secularism over religion, or promote the power of the feds over the state, in that order. [Razz]

[ November 12, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium,
LMAO. Sorry I had a visual of Bush setting his podium up and being mobbed and ****ed up the ass by a hoard of homosexual ssm advocates. [Big Grin]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

The way I see the "militia" language is that the 2nd amendment, LIKE THE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, was originally intended to apply to FEDERAL laws, not to state law.

(Those of you who disagree with me on the first amendment, please read the darned thing before responding, beginning with "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ...")

Hogwash and boulderdash. The first amendment begins by referencing a specific body (Congress). The other amendments don't list a specific body, and so apply to all levels of government ("....the right of the people....shall not be infringed").

The fact that the 1st Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law" and the other amendments are worded in such a way to be universally applicable suggests to me what I think to be the obvious: that the 1st Amendment applies exclusively to Congress (and federal law) where the other amendments apply to all levels of government.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine -

Either way, the 14th Amendment cleared most of that debate up.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1