Gun battle: Heller time; D.C. gun ban overturned
Scroll down for updates…10:13am…YES! The D.C. gun ban has been overturned…Scalia authors majority opinion…There is an individual right to bear arms…McCain weighs in…”Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today.”
All eyes are on the Supreme Court for the 2nd Amendment ruling in Heller v. D.C.
SCOTUSblog is covering it live. Tom Goldstein notes that there are three decisions coming down this morning, which will be released in order of the seniority of the author of the principal opinion: most junior to most senior.”
Barack Obama’s doing “inartful” flip-flops in anticipation of the decision:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”
Jim Geraghty: “All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
Update 10:13am. Rejoice. The D.C. gun ban has been overturned. Tom Goldstein: “Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.”
More from Goldstein, quoting the syllabus: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Update 10:37am. Reader D.G.:
Prediction: Unlike the 5-4 Boumediene vs. Bush decision [the Gitmo case], which the MSM hailed as “landmark” [and] “historic” because it rebuked Bush, this 5-4 decision will be spun as a decision by the “conservative” Supreme Court, which was “controversial,” “fractured” or “splintered.” Anything to cast doubt on the decision.
“Landmark-Historic:” Any decision the court makes that the media likes.
“Controversial-Splintered:” Any decision the liberal media hates.
Update: Allahpundit dissects the ruling. You can find the PDF of the opinion here. SCOTUSblog’s summary:
Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “This meaning,” it added, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England.
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”
Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.
And McCain weighs in…
U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
UPDATE: (See-Dubya) This goes much farther than the minimum. Not only is their an explicit right to own guns for self-defense (not just hunting or military exercises, and not just for the purposes of the militia) it explicitly mentions that this right extends to handguns.
Check out this rhapsody to the pistol on pp. 57-58. I want the bolded section chiseled in granite and ensconced someplace liberals will see it every day:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”
And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54):
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Out-freaking-standing. I think there’s enough juicy red meat in there to keep the NRA’s lawyers winning victories for centuries.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- District Of Columbia vs. Heller Opinion: Heller Affirmed | Stuck On Stupid
- A Tale Of 2 Constitutional Rights | A South Dakota Moderate
- The Bottom Line : Adam Lawson
- La Shawn Barber's Corner
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms UPDATE:“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
- Rhymes With Right
- Welcoming Our New Overlords » Pursuing Holiness
- The Other McCain: SCOTUS: VICTORY!
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Washington Gun Ban | OpenMarket.org
- Breaking: SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of 2nd Amendment » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
- Finally, Some Relief for Crime Riddled DC | The Hinge Of Fate
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Obama Flip-Flop Continues On Gun Bans
- Lump on a Blog » Blog Archive » Obama: Apparently He Was Against the Constitution Before He Was For It - or - Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court
- Pirates! Man Your Women! » Blog Archive » Finally A Good Decision
- The 2nd Amendment Is Affirmed « Out West
- Narrow Escape--Army of Dog
- Obama Flip-Flops on D.C. Gun Case, TODAY! | The Patriot Room
- Stop The ACLU
- Bitter, Gun Clingers REJOICE! «
- Supreme Court Humbly Permits You to Bear Arms | The Daily Conservative
- Supreme Court Confirms Individual Right to Bear Arms | shyspeak.net
- The Conservative Reader » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: Guns Still In Vogue
- THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- The Wide Awake Cafe » He Had to Respect the Gun
- THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS » Blog Archive » The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down
- Obama’s Slippery Stance on the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling : BigMouthFrog
- Michelle Malkin » DC mayor still unclear on the concept explained Heller
- Supreme Courts Uphold Right to Keep and Bear Arms | unlawful termination unlawful arrest unlawful discrimination unlawful eviction
- Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Hello, Chicago!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate BillWeekly Standard
» Lieberman to Obama in May: Homegrown Islamist Terrorist Determined to Strike in U.S.Hot Air
» Pfizer abandons Kelo site
By the way…why would I care what the WSJ says or who it endorses?
As a caller pointed out on Rush’s show, Dahlia Lithwick wrote THIS in Newsweek (this is flippin hilarious!):
What a weasel that Clarence Thomas is! How did he get away with doing black-face all these years? Amazing!
Suzanna Hupp
Take note today my fellow Americans, you will see which people in power want to lord over you and control you and tell how they are going to take care of your every ill. The list will be long and full of the usual evil characters. But keep taking note, because these evil socialists will stop at nothing to deprive you of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by stomping all over the Constitution and taking away the rights endowed to you by your Creator as noted in the Constitution of the United States of America.
I choose freedom, I have owned a handgun since I was legally able to buy one. I have had a CCP for over a year now. And in the 8 years I have owned that firearm legally and both carried it with me and had it in my home guess how many times that gun magically jumped up on its own and shot someone? That’s right, zero. How many times have I ever had to point it at someone while loaded in 8 years? 1 time, when I first moved to Phoenix and a man armed with a screwdriver in his right hand and a dufflebag in his left hand broke through the patio glass door while I was home. I pointed that .45 right at his head and yelled at him to drop the weapon. He did exactly that and ran back out the door he came in.
Never let an evil or corrupt politician or government tell you that owning a firearm for your own self-defense and in the defense of a third party is wrong. The founders got it right, and the Supreme Court (just barely which is scary enough) supported that right today.
Depends on the state. An Arizona CCW is good in Texas and some other states. We occasionally travel to California and go shooting there with no problems. Seems the problems come when one tries to enter victim zones like DC, NY, San Francisco or other moonbat strongholds.
This woman is a FOOL! She’s succeeded in running our Congress into the ground now she wants to defy the SC. So if the left likes the decisions it’s great but if not we will find a work around….WTF
Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.
“I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive,” Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. “I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”
On June 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm,
Long guns had to be unloaded, disassembled and locked. Totally useless for self defense.
A burglar, rapist whatever could cross virtuall any room in less that three seconds. A gun gun safe can take ten or more seconds to open, when NOT under stress and ten or more seconds to load it when not under stress. But the big point here is the ban was and is unconstitutional.The correct name for the ban was “Victim Disarmanent and Felon Protection Act”.
Our cheering is not misplaced but we do have work to do.
——–
Firearms Control Regulations Act, which required that firearms kept at home be rendered not operational by being “unloaded, disassembled, bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” It required that all privately owned firearms be registered, and prohibited possession of a handgun not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976, and re-registered by Feb. 5, 1977.
LMAO! YEP!
As expected, judging by comments elsewhere on the net, libs are going nuts. LOL!
Fair enough, Neanderthal. If you’re comfortable that you can access your handgun in that three seconds, then who am I to argue with you?
WHERE DID MY COMMENT GO?
And what if you are part of a “well regulated militia” (i.e. the California National Guard) and which to practice with your personal firearm so that when it comes time to qualify you are ready?
50 rounds is barely enough to zero and make one attempt. Certainly not enough to practice to expert.
Are they proposing to make exceptions for people whose job description includes using firearms?
I actually think they know what it means but they don’t care, they have a different agenda. But great news.
khan said:
Sorry the reasoned article from a conservative newspaper doesn’t hold as much weight with you as a context-less audio clip from Rush that you couldn’t locate.
McCain has said he will work to preserve your constitutional right to bear arms. The laws in his state are congruent with his words. His choices of Supreme court justices are congruent with his words as well.
Obama says your rights are open to interpretation and the laws in his state are congruent with his words. His criteria for choosing Supreme court justices are just stupid.
It’s not just an issue of quantity either. In California, and some other states, they are trying to outlaw lead bullets, as they may get into the California Condor’s food supply, as well as require ammo manufacturers to microstamp each round so that the spent casing can be tracked. It’s just more attempts at making the regulations so cumbersome that companies leave the business.
McCain has nothing to do with the laws in his state. He is a United States Senator, not an Arizona one.
He voted for Breyer and Ginsburg.
Remind me, what pro right-to-bear-arms legislation has McCain introduced during his twenty five years in Congress?
The God given right that our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution.
The right of self defense is a corollary right to the right to individually own and bear arms.
I have to agree with Pelosi on that.
JS- Because Cali is stupid. Each bullet that gets fired from a chamber has it’s own pattern unique to a gun. And they care so much about the Condor’s food supply, but not your personal safety.
I left a comment based on the regulation of ammo, but I guess it was too much for the moderator. In a nutshell, there’s no real way to regulate it without causing other problems.
JennyBea said:
How will they regulate ammo? Very easily.
1) You may remember a year ago that OSHA attempted to rewrite the rules regarding ammo storage. The now-defunct rules would have required many gun shops to build on to their establishments in order to meet OSHA’s new storage requirements. Undoubtedly, some gun shops would have relinquished their ammo business in order to maintain compliance on the firearms side of their business.
See http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3164
2) Ultra high ammo taxes are another method. Make factory ammo unaffordable.
3) High taxes on reloading components; i.e. bullets, brass, primers, and powder.
4) Pass limits on possession as another poster noted above.
5) Make manufacturing non-profitable through burdenous requirements (i.e., Lot or serial numbers required on each bullet)
The list goes on and on. They antis are very creative when they want to eliminate something.
To further clarify the CA AB2062, as I understand it, only handgun ammo is affected for now.
Also, it forbids mail order ammo. (No more Cheaper Than Dirt orders for me if it passes.) And the seller would require a specialist who is background checked and certified by the state to sell handgun ammo. You could only deal with him, no one else. All ammo sales will have to be face to face.
cngerms has it right: they can defacto ban something without actually banning it if they want to. They are trying with endless lawsuits against gun stores right now on Obambi’s home turf. They will also likely continue legal assaults against gun and now ammo manufacturers. They don’t even have to win — they will just make it cost so much that no one will be able to carry on a defense.
…and be forewarned! It WILL be attempted under the guise that “it’s for the good of the __________” (children? condors? public safety? common good? environment?)
#200:
No, it’s an opinion piece and it holds no weight. I think for myself; I don’t need a newspaper – conservative or not – to make my decisions and think for me. As for the Rush clip, I couldn’t care less what you think about it. All that matters to me is that I heard McCain say it.
“The laws in his state are congruent with his words” is a specious argument. McCain had and has nothing to do with his state’s laws; he was never a member of his state’s legislature.
His choices of Supreme court justices come off as political expediency, since he was bragging of supporting Breyer and Ginsberg. McCain, if you haven’t noticed, talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Certain states do recognize another states gun permits. In some cases this also includes CCW.
Here in Arizona we have an “Open Carry” law. This is granted under the State Constitution and simply means that we have the right to carry a legally licensed gun on our person as long as it is openly visible.
See this link for info on cross-state recognition of permits in Arizona:
Open Carry
Although Wikipedia has its problems with accuracy at times, the following entry outlines the gun laws for all of the states individually quite nicely:
State by State Gun Laws
Here’s a website that doesn’t think too highly of McCain as one who is pro-gun rights.
Pelosi is a miserable tyrant dictator.
BTW … it is not that unusual to enter a store in areas of Arizona and see a sign that says:
“Please check all firearms at the service desk”
WTH? Does that mean you have to relinquish your .45 to some pimply-faced kid at the counter before you can shop? Please elaborate, DesertLover!
#214:
That means you can turn around, walk right out the door, and patronize some other business.
Oops … just noticed I missed posting the link in #210 regarding reciprocal permits in AZ … here it is:
Reciprocal Gun Permits
Obama WAS a state senator, flenser. He was real good at voting “present” as well.
“ted for Breyer and Ginsburg.”
Who at the time were considered moderates. Obama voted against Roberts and Alito
Here, more words:
Gee, not really a resounding endorsement of the second amendment? Handguns are banned in Chicago. Look at how well that has worked for them. When he speaks of the “tradition” one wonders if it is just the traditions of “bitter” small-town voters who “cling” to their faith, along with their guns and their “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” It isn’t tradition, it is law.
You people make me mad…at the libtards. Did CA AB2062 pass?
I doubt such a thing would pass in Oklahoma…
I fully expect DC to tighten its ammo restrictions tighter than a snare drum. Already, they are trying to keep semi-auto handguns illegal. You know full well DC residents will be lucky to possess ammo more lethal than ratshot or rocksalt. The fight has just begun, my friends. Eternal vigilance will be required.
Most stores I go to here in Phoenix have either:
1. No sign (which means both open carry and concealed carry is free game and completely legal)
2. A sign that says “private property, no firearms beyond this point” (and I know which ones I shop at [*cough* Costco *cough*] in advance have those signs and I just leave my firearm secured in my car until I am done shopping. Although I must admit that I feel a bit like a sheep only having my visible pocket knife [aka 3 inch box-cutter] hanging from my pocket and my other concealed knife on me while shopping there).
cngerms
Needless to say folks will usually leave their firearm in their vehicle rather than check it while in the store or upon seeing the signs return the gun to their vehicle …
but I am not kidding about the signs that are occasionally encountered … although I have also seen my share of people in stores with a gun on their hip …
I feel quite sure that I am not the only one here from AZ that has seen this …
You do know that he was talking about McCain, and not Obama, correct? He was directly addressing your silly notion that “The laws in [McCain's] state are congruent with his words,” implying he had something to do with those laws or that those laws are reflective of his values.
alaskangrizzly
thanks for the support on this … I figure many here thought I was BS’ing them …
JennyBea,
No it hasn’t, and it likely won’t in it’s present form. I think it has actually failed twice, but you know the libtards — they’ll keep at it until they get something passed.
Someone else mentioned Police, NG, etc I think? The word is that pro-gun groups will encourage ammo manufacturers to limit sales to CA law enforcement agencies if 2062 passes. Basically, they should have the same restrictions we peons do…..
Funny, earlier this week you said that Roberts and Alito were Bush’s middle finger and here they are making the correct decision, while four others – beloved by the left – are making the wrong decision.
I didn’t think you were BSing at all, DesertLover. I was trying to understand what the store was attempting to accomplish with a check-in process. If you check-in, are they wanting you to leave your gun with them while you shop or are they just wanting notification that you are armed and in their store? I’ve never seen a check-in here in VA before, so that was a new anti-gun absurdity for me. Thanks!
Rusty – feel free to defend yourself with a handgun. Please don’t ask for the right to vote…
How ‘bout a radio program?
So, in thinking for yourself have you decided that John McCain is the equivalent to Barack Obama in support of the second amendment?
So you would have everyone believe that McCain is going to get in and nominate Judge James Burge? Your next Justice. All I can go on is his word and his record. The up side about McCain’s opponent is that you can’t believe a word he says. That isn’t much to pin your hopes on preserving the second amendment though.
What’s even more predictable and very, very sad is that the liberal meat heads on the court don’t believe we have a right to protect ourselves.
They should be the put into the first phalanx when the hoards begin the assault. Then let them defend themselves with their stupid little gavels!
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QArms
I don’t think that an ammo control law will pass, though. If you read some of the discussion from the SCOTUS, Roberts said something to the effect of trigger locks- that while they seem great, if someone where climbing in his window, he’s have to put on his glasses to figure out how to unlock the trigger, then shoot. (Guess you tell the burglar to hang on a sec…)
Also, with the discussion that to make a gun inoperable would be considered unconstitutional, as you may as well not have a gun. If the ammo is too expensive, that may fall under the same arguement.
It’ll be interesting. I’ll look forward to calling my libtard “representatives”.
cngerms
no problem … I just know that it is sometimes hard for people from other parts of the country to believe and understand the levels of openness and freedom we have here in AZ …
Bill, Bill, Bill…what part of a clip of John McCain directly saying that he does things for political expediency do you not understand? Not Rush saying it, but JOHN MCCAIN saying it. You are dense.
I love how you continue to dodge and try to change the subject, continuing to try to make it about Obama.
The problem with his word and record is that they are in direct opposition to each other. I don’t believe anything John McCain says; he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Here’s a guy who looks down on partisanship, who has surrogates call illegal immigrant opponents bigots and racists, and who recently boasted of supporting Breyer and Ginsberg.
If you want to be a gullible sheep, go right ahead.
Therein lies the bugaboo, Jenny. The new OSHA proposals were not laws to be passed or rejected by legislators. They were just bureaucratic rules and edicts to be adopted by an agency of unelected employees. They make up new rules as they go along with NO legislative accountability and it’s all legal, so to speak.
Gee, he represents a state that has some of the most intelligent handgun policies in the Union and that doesn’t represent his values… Obama represents a state with some of the most draconian laws against handgun ownership and that somehow doesn’t reflect his values.
Even if it didn’t that does not invalidate McCains words and actions (in this case signing the amicus brief in favor of ending the ban) or certainly Obamas words actions which have been consistently anti gun owner.
Pardon this OT post …
Fox just revealed there was a bomb threat against the US Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela … hmmmm ???
This is insanely poor logic.
This is just step one.
If it’s now established that owning arms is an individual right (big DUH! on that one) then it naturally follows that the individual rights shall not be infringed.
Expensive licensing schemes by metropolitan beaurocracies are decidedly infringements, and can easily be abolished by applying the same standards as those which nullified poll taxes. The right to vote shall not be infringed, and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not to imply that there can not be any guiding legislation and registration for firearms, but the cost of such must be born by the state and not the individual.
cngerms- I totally get that, but just like this case, it took one person to say, “You’re wrong and I’m suing”, and the SCOTUS ruled accordingly. So you are right on one hand, but on the other, there will be a situation where the constitutional effects are challenged.
The problem I THINK is how many people get their rights violated before one person decides to stick up for them. In essense, the DC residents have had their rights violated for how many decades before someone decided to challenge the law?
Oh- and I just think it’s necessary to point out that many laws are passed in and out of legislature and often times without a vote and also without the awareness of the people of which the law affects.
#236:
But it is the individual who will fund it. Where do you think the state gets its money?
Almost Desert Lover (and don’t we all) but there is no gun licensing in Arizona, no registration either. There is a CCW license, a purely stop gap measure I hope. We are not up there with Vermont and Alaska YET, but many of us are working on it. My pistols are like my MasterCard–I don’t leave home without them.
#231 – Khan
Your problem here is your definition of “political expediency.”
You’re so used to liberals using “political expediency” to mean “whatever crap I can say depending on which way the wind is blowing that sounds good to keep me in power”
However, using political processes to advance the common causes in good faith of the best interests of your constituents can also easily be considered politically expedient.
It’s not my problem and it’s not my definition. I heard the question asked and I heard McCain’s answer.
Sounds like John McCain to me.
I never heard it and the dog ate your homework, so… I have no way of putting it in context or even knowing if it exists. Tossing that up against McCain’s words sort of sounds like a “fire doesn’t melt steel” argument. I posted relevant quotes that actually had something to do with the subject at hand.
Gee, you would think that we were going to have to chose between them for president of the USA or something.
Ok, so in your opinion McCain wants to repeal the second amendment and has acted to do so…
Because you heard that clip.
Right back at you kiddo- If you want to buy into a DNC effort to cleave off the right side of the republican party to help elect Obama that is your business. Just don’t think you are doing it for conservative principles (If you really do) and don’t think that in your case your argument even makes sense.
Beats the hell out of “Despite all of his claims to the contrary and his support for the overturning of the ban in the supreme court I am going to believe what I want to believe because I heard a clip that I can’t find on the internet.”
Should we paint a target on it and leave? Give ole Hugo something to worry about
Jeez, the Obamessiah is a PATHOLOGICAL flip flopper. He is both for and against:
1)Everything he ever supported
2)Everything he ever said
3)Everyone he ever associated with
When James Carville alluded to the fact that Obama has no balls (read character), Carville couldn’t have been more correct.
You’re absolutely right, Jenny. It took 32 years of murder and mayhem against a defenseless populace for this to get corrected.
I’m voting for McCain. There is no other choice.
As I said above, I couldn’t care less.
My ballot contains more than two candidates, so no, it isn’t a choice between the two.
Another McCainaanite resorting to strawman arguments. What is it with you guys and your logical fallacies?
Because of that and all of his flip flops and everything else he’s said that’s been printed. Maybe you don’t read the news and pay attention, but I do.
I’m not a Republican, so I couldn’t care less what happens to the party. Besides, the RINOS and McCain are the ones destroying their party. But here’s another McCainaanite who puts party over principle. You don’t vote for the candidate, you vote for (R).
No, it doesn’t. It is ridiculously poor logic. I’m surprised you aren’t a gullible Obama supporter since you seem to believe everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth. Unfortunately in your case, you don’t notice when McCain contradicts himself or echoes the principles and positions of his “opponents”. You certainly seem to be impressed with talk. If only you were impressed with action.
khan,
I am voting against Obama who is far more dangerous, and proves it daily.
#249:
I understand, but I see very little difference between the two. I’ve said it a number of times, but I’ll say it again: I don’t vote against someone; I vote for someone.
You’re right Aloha, but I’m not a partisan robot. I think my views here are consistent with my views on SCOTUS’ ability to restict and interpret capital punishment legislation across the country. I think this decision should have been unanimous, and I think the child-rape decision should have been unanimous. I can’t stand Roberts or Alito, but I have the intellectual honesty to agree with them on this decision. My analysis is the same concerning SCOTUS’ role in interpreting state or local laws.
The justices, Kennedy aside, are often just political hacks who are more worried about their respective liberal or conservative legacies as opposed to consistent application of the law.
Alito and Roberts are middle fingers to me for their views on capital punishment, 4th amendment rights, and general criminal procedure issues. I disagree with them most of the time, on most all issues, but I agree with them here. I think the reasoning of Stevens and the liberal wing in this case is stretched around and twisted up to conform to traditional “liberal” ideology, but lacking in reason and honesty.
So why post?
It contains 2 viable candidates. A vote against McCain is a vote for Obama.
So I guess you didn’t have a point.
No exaggerations there. Again, re. “flip flops”? Good grief, saying he will support offshore drilling isn’t a flipflop it is just common sense. Once again, wanna see flip flopps? Take a look at the guy you will be effectively supporting.
Thanks for sharing. The DNC is sending people out to post just your type of argument on “right wing” websites in an effort to divide and conquer.
I am putting my COUNTRY ahead. I am putting the UNITED STATES AHEAD. As such I am doing whatever I can to keep a dangerous, unqualified, contemptuous, inveterate liar, islamist appeaser and sovereignty surrendering walking disaster out of the oval office. I do believe McCain is a good man and a true patriot. I also believe the alternative would be a nightmare.
I give you props for admitting that much, won’t find that anywhere on Huffpo or Kos.
Not if you’re voting for McCain, you aren’t. And for you to claim that Obama is a “sovereignty surrendering walking disaster” while being so oblivious to the fact that it also applies to McCain, well…you’re helpless.
By the way, did anyone else notice that the Supreme Court struck down ANOTHER part of Mr. Super Constitution Protector’s campaign finance legislation, once again calling it unconstitutional in regards to the First Amendment?
So McCain wants to turn over our sovereignty over to the UN like Obama has pledged to do as in the Global Poverty Act or make the use of American armed forces subject to UN approval? Nonsense.
…I see very little difference between the two.
I’ve said it a number of times, but I’ll say it again: I don’t vote against someone; I vote for someone.”
Choice A
Choice B
No, McCain has open borders advocates as top advisors and liaisons. You have heard of McAmnesty, haven’t you?
And as I told you above, my ballot has other candidates on it. Please stop the intellectual dishonesty that there are only two candidates. Like the logical fallacies, it’s another tired tactic of you McCainaanites.
That isn’t entirely true, now is it. “Open borders” is never what he proposed. I opposed his immigration bill and thank God it was stopped. However that brings us back to the whole “Choice A, Choice B thing. Obama has advocated a truly open boarders stance while McCain has promised to work for enforcement first. That will give people time to insist on a more stringent immigration policy and stricter adherence to the rule of law. A stronger immigration policy has NO chance under an entirely democrat controlled government.
It will take work to see that accomplished, the other side doesn’t seem to be afraid to put in the hours to push open boarders on us.
This problem has been in the making since Reagan. Buzz words aren’t going to solve it.
Please stop the rationalization and outright fantasy that Bob Barr or Ralph Nader stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. They do not.
#258:
You crack me up, Bill. Really, you do. Yes, McCain does have open borders advocates as advisers and liaisons. That is entirely true. See Juan Hernandez, see McCain constantly hispandering to La Raza, etc.
Again with the intellectual dishonestly. This has nothing to do with Reagan. McCain’s name was on the bill, not Reagan’s. The only problem that exists is the refusal to enforce the law. Embracing open borders advocates and granting amnesty is not a solution to the problem. If you think that was the last we’ll hear of McCain’s bill, you’re fooling yourself.
I don’t believe I said either one of those two has a snowballs chance, but if more people would vote based on principle instead of based on (R), then maybe they would have a chance. No, what I said is that my ballot has more than just McCain’s and Obama’s names on it. I vote for the candidate who best reflects my values. It’s unfortunate that you are unable to do the same since you compromise your values.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Tell me you don’t really believe that. Tell me you didn’t type that with a straight face.
khan,
I’d rather battle McCain on amnesty, then have to watch Obama:
1) Gut the military
2) Appease our enemies
3) Crap on the Constitution
4) Raise my taxes
5) Make the US less secure
6) 1 trillion in new spending
7) Rationed socialized healthcare
Keep chanting it over and over, it isn’t true, he has promised an enforcement first policy which will give us time to exert influence on the process. Will that take work? Sure. Are you afraid of working?
One thing for sure is that with both the House and the Senate in Democrat hands there will be nothing to slow them down in pushing for REAL LIVE GENUINE 100% open borders or anything else that they want.
Regan signed the biggest amnesty bill in the history of the USA. There is nothing dishonest about that statement intellectual or otherwise.
He has promised to work on enforcement first. Obama has promised to push ahead with what WILL amount to open borders. McCain can be influenced, Obama can’t be stopped.
Well I am voting on principal thank you. I am voting for someone who is workable, loves the USA and will keep someone who will be disastrous for the country out.
That little (R) isn’t by any means the only reason, but it is on the list. That it doesn’t signify anything to you is telling.
I resent that. I am absolutely NOT compromising my values. I am choosing the candidate who will obviously do the best job and I am reserving the right to fight like hell if he goes astray. If helping to elect Obama is congruent with your values so be it. Just don’t do it under the pretence of conservatism.
John McCain:
Barack Hussein Obama:
It is clear from these statements that McCain believes that the Constitution states that Americans have a right to bear arms. It “was and is” what the Founding Fathers intended.
On the other hand, Obama does not even mention the Constitution. If we “come together” Marxist-style and reach an agreement, then that is the “key.” If you look at this statement, he is actually stating that there is no fundamental right.
Is anyone actually going to sit out this election and let Hussein get elected to appoint Supreme Court justices?
Well, it’s nice to see SCOTUS approving of what we’ve known all along.
Now, is it me, or did these justices just rule that the 2nd Amendment is Constitutional? Just wondering…
As an Obama supporter, I’m disappointed in his response here. Totally wishy-washy. The SCOTUS made the right call here.
Next on deck: Chicago.
He has stated would go with enforcement first. Do I believe it is all over? Big walls and no more sanctuary cities? No. But like I said, this will buy time to influence the process. Obama has essentially advocated for open borders. What you are saying is that you want to keep someone out for a policy that he has renounced to replace him with someone who wants to go further then anything he proposed. How is that in keeping with your supposed “values”?
The Democrats had wanted only illegal aliens and criminals to own guns – oh and of course their own security guards. For the rest of us, the Dems love the idea of us at the mercy of killers, freaks, rapists, and the other felons that their party wishes to have at their convention voting for BO.
Dem elites must be outraged. Now minorities can kill gang members, murderers, rapists, and robbers that make their lives hell, and enjoy a bit of security the Kennedy Klan and the hollywood types have had for decades and at the same time, the Dems will be losing some of their most dependable supporters!
This statement reflects one of the reasons I have such a problem with this person – it says absolutely nothing and in so doing, says everything about the man.
Bill, are you actually saying that it isn’t true that Juan Hernandez is an advisor and liaison to and for John McCain? Are you actually insisting that McCain ISN’T hispandering to La Raza? If so, you need to be splashed in the face with a cold cup of reality.
Like your trying to change the subject from McCain to Obama, you tried to change the subject from McCain to Reagan. Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with the McCain-Kennedy bill. Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with McCain having Juan Hernandez on staff or with his courting La Raza and his close-door Chicago meeting the other day. It is an intellectually dishonest thing to blame Ronald Reagan on John McCain.
It’s clear you support McCain. It’s also clear that you do not support enforcing existing laws and that you favor amnesty.
Lip service. He also said that he would sign McCain-Kennedy if it came across his desk. You really should pay attention to the news and do some reading. Remember when I said he speaks out of both sides of his mouth? This is one example.
You know, I take it back about you compromising your principles because it’s clear that you have no conservative principles. McCain is leading you around by the ring in your nose, and you are defending it while you deny his open borders connections. Resent it all you want.
Wow. Now there’s a reason to vote for someone. Forget his amnesty plan, John McCain loves the USA! You know what? So do I. That’s why I’m not voting for him. He does not respect our sovereignty.
Because it’s just lip service, Bill. It’s nothing but political expediency. He got slapped down, now he’s trying to say what he thinks people want to hear. The man hasn’t changed a bit. Again, you are easily impressed by words but you don’t pay any attention to actions. You just stick your fingers in your ears when it’s repeatedly pointed out that Juan Hernandez is a McCain adviser and liaison. You are gullible.
AK took the words out of my mouth, I was going to give you props too. I was just tweaking you a bit – I actually think in the long run you’ll be pleasantly surprised by both Roberts and Alito. In the meantime, relax and have another cup of coffee.
I’ve been disappointed in a lot about Mr. Obama. He’s just a wishy-washy flipflopper jackass politician. Whether it’s this issue or others, he and McCain both try to pander and have it both ways. Barack is just a jerk politician, but I’d rather have my jerk in office doing my bidding, and signing bills I care about, than their jerk doing the same for their side. I am increasingly disenchanted with politics and politicians. Mr. Obama, tell me again why you’re turning down public financing, becaue I haven’t had my dose of B.S. yet today.
It’s been a long day. I need an Alitoweiser on draft instead. Have a good one.
One disappointing thing is that the Court didn’t address levels of scrutiny for 2nd amendment cases- this was probably a compromise made in order to get Justice Kennedy to join the majority.
Here is the situation; there is no evading it, denying it or hiding from it. If Obama is elected President then he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court that we will have to live with for 30 years. We have to stop sabotaging McCain and get him elected. Everything else, including the border, is important but can be addressed through ongoing politics. The court trumps all that.
Wow, Khan has spent the entire day here on this blog slamming McCain while obliquely claiming he will vote for someone else. Anyone wanna take bets he is on the moveon.org payroll and getting paid per post for his anti mccain rants?
McCain is not the perfect conservative but holy cow people, Obama’s real self is emerging and getting scarier every day. If you can’t vote FOR McCain, you can at least get to the polls and vote AGAINST Obama, and not waste that vote on a non viable fringe candidate.
karenhasfreedom:
Khan must be a troll. No one spends the entire day doing that unless they are for Obama, or are unemployed.
Message to the NRA with respect to SanFrancisco’s, Chicago’s and New York’s gun laws:
SICK ‘EM!
Firstly, I don’t have a window in to his skull and you do not either. All I can go on is what they have promised to do. Obama has promised to basically let Mexico empty out in to the USA and anyone else who comes along from wherever else they want to come from. McCain has promised enforcement first. Either way, pro borders people are going to have to get off their rear ends and demand that the government put an end to this. I KNOW we will have an easier time persuading a McCain government of that fact.
You don’t know him from a hole in the wall. How can you declare that?
As I have stated, what we have to go on is words. Obama has promised open borders, McCain has promised enforcement. Seeing as you do not know either of them, seeing as McCain has shown himself willing to listen to this, on drilling and on other issue and seeing as Obama doesn’t HAVE a record I think the choice is clear.
Burn the witch!
Look, is he where I want him on immigration? No. That is where the whole “work” thing comes in, right, remember that? The other side sure has. The pro-enforcement side sits on the internet and whines while the other side (read the democrats, Marxists, anarchists, obanatards and Hispanic supremacists) has marches in the streets.
For the billionth time, we stand a better chance of controlling our borders with McCain then we do with Obama. With a democrat House and Senate we stand virtually no chance of stopping Obama signing an Amnesty bill. Enforcement first will enable people to finally get off their rear ends. (or not, but whose fault will that be?)
Actually no, I love my country. In terms of “gullible” you are spouting off the same arguments that a PR firm hired by the DNC to split the republicans before the election came up with. Whether or not that is through gullibility or something else I don’t know.
Jim, I tried to send you an email at townhall, but it came back undeliverable. What I wanted to tell you was this:
This post has to be the most thought provoking, concise commentary on today’s SCOTUS ruling that I have read today. I strongly encourage you to post it as widely as you can and offer you the email of the Phoenix area’s East Valley Tribune as a start. They require name, complete address and phone number for verification, but only print your name and city.
Please consider sending them a copy of your Michelle Malkin post.
Forum@evtrib.com
The other Jim