USA Politics: Tea Party vs. the Establishment and other issues

[Mad Monkey]

I get it. It's why I throw away fundraising letters without reading them; that kind of squirrelly rationalization for dishonesty is hard to stomach and I find that pols and PACs don't even try to restrain themselves any more. There are enough real issues in politics without having to have people fabricate or exaggerate ones and stuff them in my mailbox.

It didn't go that far though

I think it would be more akin to saying "Obama/the NSA want to spy on you" in response to a measure protecting/empowering the NSA. Or "Republicans want to starve the poor" in response to proposing modest cuts in entitlements.

That's not the same thing though. Merely accusing Obama or Republicans of those things would be a matter of opinion. Fabricating a quote along the lines of, "Paul Ryan: "I will do everything in my power to starve the poor" is something different. I realize it's accepted practice and not particularly controversial any more but I think it's fairly repellent and once I catch someone at that I can't really their ability to quote people again. (At least, not for some time!)

[Suttree]

Progressives often use that phrase mockingly, but then they advocate doing exactly that. To say that Obama supports gun control is not paranoid

1. That's not what the quote said.

2. Even so, in what alternate universe does gun control = a blanket [ban guns]?

3. It should be used mockingly, there is no other way to approach that type of fearmongering.

Looks to me like Paul's letter simply cut out the euphemisms and used plain language, it didn't change the meaning.

"In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds [to ban guns]."

“In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.”

Seriously mate I get that you love Paul but you are an absolute joke right now.

[1918me]

The truly scary thing is you know there are a ton of people that will be totally sold by this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/gun-rights-letter-signed-by-rand-paul-takes-obama-insanely-o

Some context from another article:

Obama's coming for your guns!

'Dem brackets, man; you've gotta watch out for 'em. We're only a few steps away from "Obama: I [spend my time kicking puppies, devouring orphan children, and oppressing patriots].

[awesome possum]

The GOP really missed out an opportunity with, "My name is Barack Obama and I [was born in Kenya, praise Allah]."

[Wise Fool]

Looks to me like Paul's letter simply cut out the euphemisms and used plain language, it didn't change the meaning. Obama's promise to do "everything I can with lawmakers, etc. to prevent another tragedy" was politician-speak for "gun control." Are you really gonna deny that? Obama did push a gun-control agenda after Newton; just because the agenda failed doesn't change the intent

Looks to me like Paul's letter just added its own right-wing euphemisms, just the way you are. "Politician-speak?" So we're just ignoring "mental health professionals... parents and educators" because hey, that's just verbal fat, and the real meat is gun control. And not just gun control, but a gun-control "agenda." (Everything's scarier when it's an agenda! Be afraid!) And not just gun control agenda, but "coming for your guns." (Run for the hills!)

It's OK. You prefer your own politician-speak which involves ignoring what is actually said and substituting your own words in order to perpetuate an atmosphere of, yes, paranoia. "Gun control" isn't the same as banning guns or "coming for" them, which I see you've later interpreted to mean coming for "some of" your guns - a grudging concession to [some of] reality, I guess.

Really, I don't care at this point. This kind of fear-based paranoid ultra-defensiveness bordering on religious fanaticism regarding guns has left me with zero sympathy for the cause of the Sacred Second Amendment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ramsey,

Looks to me like Paul's letter simply cut out the euphemisms and used plain language, it didn't change the meaning. Obama's promise to do "everything I can with lawmakers, etc. to prevent another tragedy" was politician-speak for "gun control." Are you really gonna deny that? Obama did push a gun-control agenda after Newton; just because the agenda failed doesn't change the intent

I've said this before in other context. Claiming "code language" seems like "code language" for putting words in people's mouths that they did not say. Obama did not make the statement put into brackets in that quote.

Any time I hear people claiming what someone "really" ment I'm skeptical.

WF,

Really, I don't care at this point. This kind of fear-based paranoid ultra-defensiveness bordering on religious fanaticism regarding guns has left me with zero sympathy for the cause of the Sacred Second Amendment.

The 2nd is not sacred. However, the liberty amendments do mean, at least, what they say. If firearms can be banned because of tragic events what other Constitutional provisions can be set aside due to similar circumstances? The 4th's right to be free from unreasonalbe searches and seizures, the 1st's freedom of speech and the press?

What if those provisions are being used to hide people who are acting to harm others should they be set aside due to tragic events?

Demanding that amendments only be modified through the amendment process is essential to protect liberty interests the government feels are problematic in times of crisis.

On this board after Newtown a boarder was advocating setting aside the 4th amendment and allowing warrantless searches of people's homes to enforce a nationwide ban on firearms. When I raised the 4th amendment concerns his reaction was (paraphrasing because it has been some time): not everyone holds the Consitution "sacred" like you do Scot. Again, desiring the use of the specified amendment process is not holding the Consitution as "sacred". It is preventing the Government from setting aside expressly guaranteed political liberties at its own convienence.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think distaste for the Second Amendment comes from its perceived perversion by the gun lobby. The original motivations behind it (i.e. well-regulated militias) are as quaint and obsolete as the Third Amendment's rules about quartering soldiers, but the modern individualisation of the thing, together with the mythos about "rebelling against tyranny", has created a political minefield.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

I understand that. However, if a precident were set of ignoring express liberty protections due to a tragedy, that seems like a bad idea to me. That doesn't mean I, or others who view those liberty protections as important, view the 2nd or other liberty amendments as "sacred" as detractors like to claim. However, we do see amendments being set aside for the convienence of the agents of government as dangerous.

Believe it or not I do recall a 3rd amendment case coming up last year. Here it is:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/

[ants]

Believe it or not I do recall a 3rd amendment case coming up last year. Here it is:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/

Interesting case. Unfortunately I can't find any updates.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The NRA would do the 2nd amendment a favor by going on hiatus for a year or so. They actively harm their own cause when they hold events supposedly about supporting gun rights, but then invite such luminary has-beens as Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum to spout their brand of idiocy. If you want speakers about guns how about Jerry Miculek or something ffs.

[Seli]

RBPL,

I understand that. However, if a precident were set of ignoring express liberty protections due to a tragedy, that seems like a bad idea to me.

...

Of course. But the problem the US has is a fundamental conflict between the most fundamental liberty (the right to life) and a liberty protected by (the current interpretation of) an amendment to the constitution. Simply ignoring that conflict seems to be an even worse idea.

And keeping on reinforcing one of those liberties as a reaction to repeated tragedies seems to be a horrible idea indeed. But with the continued strengthening of the second amendment that seems to be happening.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

Then amend the Constitution to deal with the conflict. If the problem is as bad some make out that seems called for. Don't just ignore an existing liberty interest.

[Mad Monkey]

The NRA would do the 2nd amendment a favor by going on hiatus for a year or so. They actively harm their own cause when they hold events supposedly about supporting gun rights, but then invite such luminary has-beens as Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum to spout their brand of idiocy. If you want speakers about guns how about Jerry Miculek or something ffs.

They seem to be doing very well. Not only have they ensured that a gun ban is politically infeasible, they've made it so that talking about any kind of restriction on firearm ownership by anyone is construed as being the same as banning guns. I understand why they're doing this; there's no reason to back down when you're on a roll, and there is a justifiable fear that a mild restriction enacted today can be used to sneak in even stricter ones in the future.

But the problem the US has is a fundamental conflict between the most fundamental liberty (the right to life) and a liberty protected by (the current interpretation of) an amendment to the constitution

I think the conflict can be resolved without necessarily having to amend the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit all search and seizures, just unjustified ones. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from restricting speech in any way, it just sets a high bar for it -- we have false advertising laws, laws about inciting riots, etc.

You can make an argument that the Second Amendment does not prohibit the government from regulating gun ownership, only from banning it outright. Maybe background check requirements are allowed, including into state records that are not currently part of the system, and by private sellers who don't already have to do that. Maybe you can have a national firearms registry too.

I'm not saying that these milder regulations are good or that the NRA should support them; I'm saying that, while lumping them all together with a blanket gun ban and a mass confiscation is probably great for fundraising and good for lobbying, it's not really good for having a serious debate about gun violence. Also, while you may have to amend the Constitution to ban guns, you might not have to amend the Constitution to place lesser regulations on gun ownership or gun sales.

[Wise Fool]

Ramsey,

I've said this before in other context. Claiming "code language" seems like "code language" for putting words in people's mouths that they did not say. Obama did not make the statement put into brackets in that quote.

Any time I hear people claiming what someone "really" ment I'm skeptical.

WF,

The 2nd is not sacred. However, the liberty amendments do mean, at least, what they say. If firearms can be banned because of tragic events what other Constitutional provisions can be set aside due to similar circumstances? The 4th's right to be free from unreasonalbe searches and seizures, the 1st's freedom of speech and the press?

What if those provisions are being used to hide people who are acting to harm others should they be set aside due to tragic events?

Demanding that amendments only be modified through the amendment process is essential to protect liberty interests the government feels are problematic in times of crisis.

On this board after Newtown a boarder was advocating setting aside the 4th amendment and allowing warrantless searches of people's homes to enforce a nationwide ban on firearms. When I raised the 4th amendment concerns his reaction was (paraphrasing because it has been some time): not everyone holds the Consitution "sacred" like you do Scot. Again, desiring the use of the specified amendment process is not holding the Consitution as "sacred". It is preventing the Government from setting aside expressly guaranteed political liberties at its own convienence.

But it's not preventing or doing anything. It's just a kind of way to look at things.

In this case, as sacred, God-given, inalienable, universal rights that must be defended at all costs no matter against whom or when or where or, of course, what the reality of the situation is. The fact is a lot of people look on the second amendment as The Answer To Big Government Or Tyranny, and any attempt at gun regulation or gun control as "ban" and in contradiction to that and, basically, as heresy, blasphemy, and the most wicked of evils. And then they gather in Nevada, say, and protect some dipshit rancher who didn't want to obey the law and bleat triumphantly about what a glorious victory For The Second Amendment they've made.

It's all this I have a problem with. I could go on about how there never was an amendment process in order to make owning - say - chemical or biological weapons illegal. But but, they are "arms," and that right to own them SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, no? That's what the Sacred Words are. So what do people shrieking about Obama's "agenda" say about their right to own nuclear arms?

Nothing.

Because like all fundamentalist, zealous, narrowly-focused extremist positions, there's this delicious soft inner core of hypocrisy. And it's just one more reason not to take them seriously, and to mock them.

As for your slippery slope argument, you're suggesting that if a right to bear arms can be infringed, then some other rights could be too. But that's not how it works. Other rights can be, and have been, and are, and will be, and it has nothing to do with the second. 2Aers act like theirs is the holy grail and the golden gates, the secret key which other rights depend on, but it's not the gate or the wall or the key, it's just one of many, and frankly, not a very important one compared to others. But it's important to a special interest (the NRA, really) which has huge financial and political ties with the GOP and GOP-controlled media, and so it's the only one they go on too much about, with such energy and time and fervor and money.

[DanteGabriel]

Alaska Republican continues the party's embrace of Rugged Manly Man Lawlessness:

“One of the things I’ve suggested, too, is that if I was governor today, I’d probably invade ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge],” Sullivan said. “What are they going to do, shoot you? Well, they might. But martyrdom goes a long way sometimes.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dan-sullivan-anwr-invade-martyrdom

You might say he's just some isolated yahoo, but I am not convinced of that. I think this slouching towards rebellion is increasingly a feature, not a bug, of the right wing and the Republican Party.

[Inigima]

If I were them it would be looking like a pretty fucking smart strategy, since the federal government seems disinclined to fucking do anything about it.

[DanteGabriel]

If I were them it would be looking like a pretty fucking smart strategy, since the federal government seems disinclined to fucking do anything about it.

You have a point. This could almost have gone in the Civil War Again thread because the mythologizing and whitewashing of the South's rebellion has mainstreamed this anti-American bullshit.

But I am pretty sure Bundy will get his comeuppance one way or the other.

[TrackerNeil]

You have a point. This could almost have gone in the Civil War Again thread because the mythologizing and whitewashing of the South's rebellion has mainstreamed this anti-American bullshit.

But I am pretty sure Bundy will get his comeuppance one way or the other.

It's a difficult situation. Wingnuts cannot be permitted to defy federal law with impunity, but I am sure the BLM doesn't want to start a shooting match over grazing rights. I'm not sure how one proceeds.

[Yagathai]

The thing about martyrs is that if you make enough of them, the problem solves itself.

[DanteGabriel]

It's a difficult situation. Wingnuts cannot be permitted to defy federal law with impunity, but I am sure the BLM doesn't want to start a shooting match over grazing rights. I'm not sure how one proceeds.

Cut off his water, electricity, and road access, and see how much of a down-home self-sufficient frontiersman he actually is?

But, in other news, a federal judge has struck down Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban. A judge that was nominated by George W. Bush and endorsed by Rick Santorum.