Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-11/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Obama announces his choices for key second-term positions. Vice President Biden meets with gun control advocates and the NRA. And new mortgage rules target risky lending. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent for Bloomberg News.
Major Garrett
CBS News chief White House correspondent.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel addressed a caller's remarks that the conversation about gun ownership in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings is one-sided and controlled by people without knowledge of the Second Amendment. The Fix blogger Chris Cillizza responded, "I think the idea that everyone in this country thinks guns should be restricted is not true. We know that." He added that comprehensive gun reform that would drastically restrict or change gun rights almost certainly wouldn't pass Congress.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Clifford wrote: "On November 5,2009 Major Malik Nadal Hasan,opened fire at Ft. Hood,killing and injuring many of his fellow soldiers...."
It should be noted this crime was committed with handguns in a posted no weapons allowed area of a military base. The commonality of no weapons allowed zones and mass murder should at least conjure up some sensible analysis from the left, sadly not.
As for the other comments in your post, hallucinogenics come to mind.
1st Amendment vs 2nd Amendment...
Every time one of these NeoNutzi`s commit an act of gun terrorism,I would like to say, ....OH F BOMB. .But I cannot.We cannot say F BOMB... ....But no restricting how many can be killed. SOMETHING VERY PERVERSE HERE !!!
Dear Kris,
Since you went to a lot of trouble to copy and paste the verbage of the 2nd Amendment into your post, please point out the line in it that specifically (or even generically) says the purpose of the Amendment is what that "nervous caller" interpreted - namely "to oppose a tyrannical government".
Also note that the Amendment does specifically mention "a well regulated Militia".
You might be surprised to know that militias are actually organizations of the 50 states.........i.e. "the government".
Lets do follow the Amendment and ensure ALL guns are part of a well regulated militia........and, while we're at it, make sure they follow the technology our forefathers had in mind: single shot muskets. EVERYbody can have a musket of their very own and lock it up at our well regulated militia site. Mine is currently screwed to my fireplace mantle and the minnie balls and powder are locked up at a distant secure location.....per local militia regulations.
How about yours??
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines "regulated" as following established rules and laws.......not fully functioning. And militias are state entities, not casual gatherings.
As long as we have individuals interpreting the Constitution and parsing individual words rather than consitutional lawyers and Court members, we will have the current chaotic arguments about its meaning and application. Would right wingers allow such lax interpretation regarding executive orders? The Prez could "constitutionally" set the US credit limit as high as he pleases. He could declare military law in specific violent cities and have the National Guard confiscate weapons ad lib. NOBODY is going for that, especially the Administration and Congress.
Fear of a "tyrannical government" is oh so gauche, overrated, exaggerated, and literally unwarranted.......unless you mean local and state officials who act with impunity.
I enjoy your show and normally find that you provide a balanced presentation on most issues. However, today I think you missed it with your response to one of your callers.
A gentleman called in challenging whether you were presenting a fair and balanced pictures of gun owners. He made a comment about the Second Amendment not being about hunting, but about defense from tyranny. Your response was something to the effect of "The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about defense from tyranny."
I have to disagree with you. This is the text of the Second Amendment:
AMENDMENT II
"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."
This amendment is about the security of a free state, whether the threat to that freedom is internal or external. To me, that sounds like defense against tyranny.
Intentional obtuseness or misrepresentation is not a valid tactic in promoting an argument. It only provides fodder for the other side to disregard your argument as coming from an non-credible source.
Thank you for allowing me to voice my concern.
Honest?Abe wrote: "please point out the line in it that specifically (or even generically) says the purpose of the Amendment is what that "nervous caller" interpreted - namely "to oppose a tyrannical government"."
>>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State<<<
GEOFFREY10:46:49"I don't understand why you can't at least have one panelist on there that, at least, you know, had the resemblance of the understanding of the Second Amendment, how it's not for sporting or hunting, but it's just a way of protecting the people from an oppressed government."
REHM10:47:25"Now, there is nothing in that Second Amendment about protecting one from the government."
Geoffrey's point was well taken, under the circumstances well made. I can certainly relate to on air nervousness.
Diane's response was typically far left liberal, a total denial of the intent of the second amendment.
Honest?Abe wrote: "Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines"
Is that a joke?
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
The trouble arguing with liberals is, they are never honest about what they really want. If they were, their political status would be comparable to the rats that infest the crime ridden city of sewage, Washington D.C.
Kris,
Thanks so much for quite literally proving my various points. Your obviously intentional obfuscations show the unwillingness of righties and gun crazies to discuss solutions to any problem. You have chosen to abuse the language and intent of the Constitution for your own narrow and misanthropic purposes.
It is outright ridiculous to assume or imagine that the blessed forefathers intended to protect themselves, quite literally, from themselves. Talk about being obtuse! !
The members of the Supreme Court have not chosen to declare the government they actively participate in as being in any way "tyrannical" or wothy of serious fear.
Any sane individual, possessing reasonable faculties, would not serve in an organization in whose founding principles are contrary to their own tenets. i.e. justices would not call themselves such if they did not actually believe they were meting out anything but justice.
Please let us know when you plan to obtain a hand held laser or suitcase A-bomb as your next goofy "right".....so the rest of us can get the heck out of Dodge.
What Diane Rehm and others who argue against the right to bear arms as a last defense against government tyranny FAIL to grasp is that the Bill of Rights itself was a list of restrictions on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. NOT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, NOT ANY OTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. OUR OWN. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed by OUR GOVERNMENT. It's not that difficult to understand. The Bill of Rights is there to protect against the tyranny of our own government, should the people in power be so afraid of the political ideas floating about in the population at large that they feel the need to restrict the population's freedom. To say it has anything to do with redcoats is just dumb, because then WHY IS IT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH IS A LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON OUR OWN GOVERNMENT?
Thank you jpthompson, well said!
Here is an interactive website I have stumbled upon, H?A would certainly benifit from thouroughly exploring it, as would all "liberals", sadly the truth is they just don't care.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
The Declaration of Independence
and
The Constitution of the United States
No documents have had a greater influence on the citizens of our country that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence marked the birth of our republic and set forth our “unalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Later, the Constitution outlined our style of government and defined the rights that are protected from intrusion by government.
These documents have been a beacon to all men and women who value freedom. They are just as meaningful now as when they were written. As the American statesman Henry Clay said, “The Constitution of the United States was not made merely for the generation that then existed but for posterity – unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.”
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written with the intent that they could be easily read and understood by ordinary citizens. The difficulty comes with the changes in the English language that have occurred since they were written, making both documents more difficult to decipher. Freedom Defined addresses this problem by providing instant access to the definitions of words and phrases used in these documents. The definitions are based on dictionaries used during the early years of the United States, the records of the Constitutional Convention, and the writings of the Founding Fathers.
http://www.nccs.net/freedom_defined/index.htm
I am confident an assualt weapons ban WILL be passed. The right to bear arms is NOT infinite. Society prohibits civilian owership of tanks, RPG launchers and C-4 explosives for good reason. Military assault weapons fall in the same category. Public safety trumps any right to personal protection.
"Military assault weapons"
These are already banned!
"Public safety trumps any right to personal protection."
It does not!
The Second Amendment states “[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.” In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia stated, “[t]here are many reasons why the militia was thought to be ‘necessary to the security of a free state . . . [for example] when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” He went on to say that “history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia . . . was not by banning [it] but simply by taking away the people’s arms . . . .” Even the dissent in that case, which wanted to limit the scope of Second Amendment, states that the framers were concerned that a standing federal army would be too great of threat to the sovereignty of the states if state militias could be eliminated.
The Second Amendment clearly was adopted, at least in part, to protect the people from an oppressive government. Ms. Rehm’s statement to the contrary is simply wrong. I did not listen to the entire interview so I do not know if Geoffrey’s point (that this observation was missing from the debate) was valid, but Ms. Rehm should not have been so dismissive of his concerns.
mchaun wrote: "You ought to read it, you DSOB, you might learn something!!!"
Obviously Kris did read it, that is why he is 100% correct!
I think your anger reveals your frustration of being on the losing side of the argument.
Part 1:
Ron L. : let me help you out with the way the minions of the left work on this board... According to McHaun, Clifford, Pancake Rankin and "HonestAbe"...
- if you disagree with Sandra Fluke's positions concering contraception then you are anti-all females in general no matter the point being discussed, so just admit it and move on :-)
- if you disagree with the POTUS on any position then you are obviously an Archie Bunker bigot and an out and out RACIST...
- if you bring up the words "founding fathers" or "constitution" then you must understand that these are real hot buttons for those of our "liberal" (tongue in cheek here) minded friends and they willingly will take you to task on any of their well rehearsed "progressive" talking points intended to show that you (because you happen to support the constitution) should be relegated to the dust bins of history along with all the rest of your like minded associates who "cling to their guns and their religion"...
So.... you can do as our POTUS instructed us to do... go to the back of the bus and let the "enlightened progressive minded elite" drive us thru the gates of hell, or.... you can choose to piss them all off by voicing your opinion openly while encouraging honest, debate on any given subject you choose.
Part 2: As for me... I kinda like the following statement....
" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Their whole intent and battle plan is to say or make whatever outlandish claim or misrepresentation of the truth they can, in hopes that sensible people will twist in the wind debating the minutia of their stupid statement. That allows them to occupy the nation's minds and hearts with tilting at windmills while they accomplish their ill conceived intentions and profit politically and collaterally (but not morally). so...speak your mind and "damn the torpedoes"... a dose of reality and truth makes them flinch because they know that their lies will eventually catch up to them. Even they themselves don't believe what they are saying.
On Friday, Jan. 11, 2012, in discussing recent meetings/discussions by V.P. Biden RE: potential measures INTENDING to reduce gun violence in schools, in response to a listener's question (" I don't understand why you can't at least have one panelist on there that, at least, you know, had the resemblance of the understanding of the Second Amendment, how it's not for sporting or hunting, but it's just a way of protecting the people from an oppressed government. "), Ms. Rehm responded "Now, there is nothing in that Second Amendment about protecting one from the government."
Perhaps, Ms. Rehm should understand, beyond the SIMPLE WORDS of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the historical background of the 2nd Amendment and the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. For example, see the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment
HA wrote:
"Thanks so much for quite literally proving my various points. Your obviously intentional obfuscations show the unwillingness of righties and gun crazies to discuss solutions to any problem., blah, blah, blah"
Thank you for that entire paragraph of pure rhetoric.
By the way, the "righties and gun crazies" have proposed any number of solutions to the problem of gun violence - they just happen to not be the one you want, which is confiscation of firearms.
HA, you seem to have strong opinions about the "intent" of the Second Amendment. Given that, the following questions should be easy for you. First, what does the word "infringed" mean. And why did the framers include it in Amendment Two.
Second, it is quite clear that the Bill of Rights was a response to the fear of the framers (and the states) that the citizenry might be trading one form of tyranny under Britain for another. As "archives.gov" puts it, "During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered".
My question to you is, if that was the intent of the Bill of Rights, why is the Second Amendment unique in simply describing how the militia (which could potentially be used against its own citizens) was to be staffed rather than protecting the citizenry against potential tyranny as the other nine do?