# Stupid Republican idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897 "2009-03-26T18:48:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 160
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3181 "2011-07-12T00:02:37Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > That reporter was one – _hey y’all, watch this_ – away from the pearly gates. He was so lucky she didn’t hand him a beer first (or announce he was about to retire, or wear a red shirt, or …). ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3182 "2011-07-12T01:47:46Z")
OK, I’m much more disturbed by this guy: [http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/21/168529/maine-gop-lawmaker-threatens-to-shoot-photographer-in-dunkin-donuts-parking-lot/](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/21/168529/maine-gop-lawmaker-threatens-to-shoot-photographer-in-dunkin-donuts-parking-lot/) Did we mention him in the thread before? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3183 "2011-07-12T01:55:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > OK, I’m much more disturbed by this guy: > [http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/21/168529/maine-gop-lawmaker-threatens-to-shoot-photographer-in-dunkin-donuts-parking-lot/](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/21/168529/maine-gop-lawmaker-threatens-to-shoot-photographer-in-dunkin-donuts-parking-lot/) > > Did we mention him in the thread before? I’m not sure, but I haven’t seen it before. That guy looks seriously batshit. According to [more recent stories](http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/20/politics/lawmaker-accused-of-drawing-gun-on-man-released-on-bail/), he’s been evaluated at a psych hospital, is out on bail, and isn’t allowed back in the state capital building. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3184 "2011-07-12T02:14:16Z")
Other than HuffPost, who says this gun has no safety? That’s got my skeptical gland activatin’. I dont doubt you _could_ make a gun with no safety, but why in Og’s name would you want to? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3185 "2011-07-12T02:26:37Z")
I just skimmed through the manual for the pistol, a PDF file Ruger provides on-line, no mention of a safety. On another note, show of hands: who, besides me, didn’t know before today that Michele Bachmann spent 3 years as an att’y for the IRS? Or was I the only one? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3186 "2011-07-12T02:30:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Other than HuffPost, who says this gun has no safety? That’s got my skeptical gland activatin’. I dont doubt you _could_ make a gun with no safety, but why in Og’s name would you want to? Here is a [review of the gun](http://www.majorpandemic.com/2010/06/ruger-lcp-380-review.html), confirming it has no safety: > [@](#): > > The Ruger LCP is pretty trim on features. No safety, no empty magazine slide hold open, and no laser or bayonet lug, or picatinny rail mounts. It’s just a simple no-nonsense pistol that can be pulled snag free and deliver 7 rounds (6+1) with seven clicks of the double action trigger. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3187 "2011-07-12T02:56:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Other than HuffPost, who says this gun has no safety? That’s got my skeptical gland activatin’. I dont doubt you _could_ make a gun with no safety, but why in Og’s name would you want to? From [Ruger’s customer service department](http://www.ruger.com/service/FAQs.html#Q113): > [@](#): > > Does the LCP have a safety? > > The design of the Ruger LCP incorporates a variety of safety features. The LCP is a double-action only pistol, which requires a long pull of the trigger to cock the hammer and then release the hammer to fire the pistol. The hammer is inside the slide and protected from a blow. The half cock notch on the internal hammer protects the LCP from jarring off. When the LCP is about to fire, the hammer comes even with the rear end of the slide, signaling the user that slight additional pressure on the trigger will fire the pistol. This pistol also features a manual slide hold open that locks the slide to the rear and allows the user to positively examine the chamber for safety, clearing and cleaning. The loaded chamber indicator view port allows the cartridge in the chamber to be seen when the slide is closed. The magazine itself comes from the factory with a bright orange warning that the pistol is capable of firing with the magazine removed. All Ruger firearms come with external locks, which positively prevent firing when correctly applied and used for safe storage. I’m pretty sure that translates to “no”. But why use one word when 189\* will do? \*Yes, I counted. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3188 "2011-07-12T09:03:57Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Seems to me she’s breaking [gun safety](http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp) rules 1 & 3. Perhaps she should take a refresher course. Well, you can’t expect her to remember so many rules, especially when they’re all so long and complicated. Kudos to the local people-wot-know-things-about-guns for calling her out for her reckless behavior. It may not have been criminal but it was criminally stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3189 "2011-07-12T12:34:19Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Seems to me she’s breaking [gun safety](http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp) rules 1 & 3. Perhaps she should take a refresher course. Can’t be. I have heard many times (even on this very board I assure you!) that such courses make firearms 100% safe. Did the gun go off? Did anyone get shot? No, of course not. There, and ipso ex post factor reducto expeliarmis, what she did was perfectly safe. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3190 "2011-07-12T13:15:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Here is a [review of the gun](http://www.majorpandemic.com/2010/06/ruger-lcp-380-review.html), confirming it has no safety: And she is carrying the fucking thing around in a purse? No way that thing could go off accidentally, no sir! Damm thing looks like either a toy or a vibrator. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3191 "2011-07-12T14:21:21Z")
Interesting that some years back they made laws to stop making toy guns look too real. Now we need a new set of laws to make sure real guns don’t look like toys. Except the NRA will never let them pass. ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3192 "2011-07-12T19:42:14Z")
The Newt says there is no Supreme Court in the Constitution, and Congress can just limit the court’s jurisdiction to keeping it from hearing any cases Congress doesn’t like. I wish I was making this shit up. [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/) ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3193 "2011-07-12T20:31:48Z")
> [@howye](#): > > The Newt says there is no Supreme Court in the Constitution, and Congress can just limit the court’s jurisdiction to keeping it from hearing any cases Congress doesn’t like. > > I wish I was making this shit up. > > [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/) I find Newt extraordinarily repugnant, but the article’s author needs to put down the froth and listen to what Newt was actually saying, not read a headline and write up a storm. Yes, gotcha ya, the words “supreme court” do show up in the Constitution. But Newt was referring to the power of the SCOTUS that all stems from Marbury. The concept of Judicial Review, while fundamental to our understanding of the nation, is, technically, not in the Constitution. The rational argument against judicial review, the behind-the-veil argument runs somewhat uninterestingly: a legislator is inherently no less an arbiter of Constitutionality than a sitting judge. Either the legislator or the judge is making the actual decision–the legislator in voting for a bill, the judge in deciding a case. However, an individual legislator’s power/influence is much smaller (one of 500+) and the legislator is directly (in theory) beholden to the electorate–there is no real prospect of a dyspeptic populace removing a Supreme Court justice. Clearly, undoing con-law back to the days of Marbury and having a do-over is absurd red meat for an unthinking base. It’s also fodder for OUTRAGE! by authors who don’t take the time to understand how the Court functions and the underlying political theory or history. Bonus: My favorite question to ask about this is whether or not a tea-bagger thinks Utah could impose a state religion or if New York could legally ban _all_ guns. The moment someone pops up with the First or Second Amendment, I’d like them to find how they apply to the states. Same basic issue. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3194 "2011-07-12T20:32:19Z")
> [@howye](#): > > The Newt says there is no Supreme Court in the Constitution, and Congress can just limit the court’s jurisdiction to keeping it from hearing any cases Congress doesn’t like. > > I wish I was making this shit up. > > [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/12/266219/gingrich-supreme-court/) Unfortunately, he’s somewhat right on this one. The judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such lesser courts as Congress sees fit to establish, and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to such exceptions as Congress sees fit to make. The original jurisdiction of the Supremes is spelled out, and may not be added to or subtracted from (without a Constitutional amendment). Needless to say, asny attempt to gut the Court’s authority in this way would have major political repercussions, And he is spinning the Constitutional language to suit his ends. But as a matter of strict Constitutional law, he’s correct. Of course, the Constitution is what we make of it too. For example, there is ample precedent (thanks to him, in part) for making adultery grounds for impeachment. Perhaps someone should ask him about that. And of course, wiithout the First Amendment protections, what’s to prevent Congress from making the voicing of all the examples of Stupid Republican Ideas noted in this thread felonious offenses against the national fabric? Gingrich, Bachmann, Palin, & all certainly couldn’t depend on a precedent they’ve already participated in gutting, right? ---
**Author:** ![howye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9adbd/32.png) [@howye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/howye)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3195 "2011-07-12T20:53:20Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I find Newt extraordinarily repugnant, but the article’s author needs to put down the froth and listen to what Newt was actually saying, not read a headline and write up a storm. > > Yes, gotcha ya, the words “supreme court” do show up in the Constitution. But Newt was referring to the power of the SCOTUS that all stems from Marbury. The concept of Judicial Review, while fundamental to our understanding of the nation, is, technically, not in the Constitution. > > The rational argument against judicial review, the behind-the-veil argument runs somewhat uninterestingly: a legislator is inherently no less an arbiter of Constitutionality than a sitting judge. Either the legislator or the judge is making the actual decision–the legislator in voting for a bill, the judge in deciding a case. However, an individual legislator’s power/influence is much smaller (one of 500+) and the legislator is directly (in theory) beholden to the electorate–there is no real prospect of a dyspeptic populace removing a Supreme Court justice. > > Clearly, undoing con-law back to the days of Marbury and having a do-over is absurd red meat for an unthinking base. It’s also fodder for OUTRAGE! by authors who don’t take the time to understand how the Court functions and the underlying political theory or history. > > Bonus: My favorite question to ask about this is whether or not a tea-bagger thinks Utah could impose a state religion or if New York could legally ban _all_ guns. The moment someone pops up with the First or Second Amendment, I’d like them to find how they apply to the states. Same basic issue. Well, no that is not what Newt said. Newt used the Federalist papers as his historical basis. The Federalist papers may be many things, but the laws enacted by Congress they are not. Newt in the quote, I can not watch the video currently, did not mention Marbury. At any rate, to argue that the judicial branch does not or should not have the authority to review the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress is a laughable interpretation of the document. As for your bonus - the 14th amendment has incorporated both the First and Second amendments against the states. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3196 "2011-07-12T21:00:59Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Bonus: My favorite question to ask about this is whether or not a tea-bagger thinks Utah could impose a state religion or if New York could legally ban _all_ guns. The moment someone pops up with the First or Second Amendment, I’d like them to find how they apply to the states. Same basic issue. The two amendments are worded differently. The first begins, “Congress shall make no law…” The second’s meat reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s reasonable to interpret one only applying to federal law, and the other applying to any potential law at any government level. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3197 "2011-07-12T21:21:44Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Pointing a loaded gun (with no safety, I don’t care how far back you have to pull the trigger) at someone, for who gives a shit what fluffy happy reason .. I don’t understand how that could possibly be legal. Did you not get the memo? IOKIYAR! Besides. It’s a \*pink \*handgun. What kind of pussy would be scared of that? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3198 "2011-07-12T21:34:58Z")
> [@bup](#): > > The two amendments are worded differently. > > The first begins, “Congress shall make no law…” > > The second’s meat reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” > > It’s reasonable to interpret one only applying to federal law, and the other applying to any potential law at any government level. No, it’s not. There’s a whole body of law ([incorporation doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine)) and analysis of applying the FEDERAL constitution to STATE actions. You _can_ make reasonable arguments as to which Amendments/aspects of the Constitution should be incorporated against the states, but that was not the original point. You can only do so _after_ you decide to do some extra-Constitutional hand waving and not-as-strict-as-a-schoolmarm interpretation. Note, I think the so-called textualists and originalists (we have some on the board, too) are wrong in any interpretation that doesn’t involve a time machine or a fantasy worldview. But the foundational rationality is more complicated than the comic book version. ---
**Author:** ![galveston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/41988e/32.png) [@galveston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galveston)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3199 "2011-07-12T21:57:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You might note, if you wanted to view the universe through a framework of facts and logic, that the Republicans have put forward tiny extensions over and over again to try to milk the issue. > > You might also note, if you were inclined to face reality, that voting against the debt ceiling when there are enough votes to pass, is a symbolic gesture. It may not be profound, but it is the kind of thing politicians do. Voting against it when there isn’t enough votes to pass, threatening great harm on the nation. > > The right in this country are incoherent, ignorant dipshits. And I trust they are happy to have you swinging for them. Your last statement is tyical dismissive ignorant lib arrogance. Us folks on the right are not nearly as ignorant and stupid as your think. We can see that the country is heading in the wrong direction ever since '06, when the Dems took over both houses. The unemployment rate has gone up, with real unemployment well over the published 9.2%, our borders are still porous (yes GW failed there too), and Obame is a complete incompetent on foreign affairs. You would think he could have chosen some good advisers, but apparently, cronies (a la Chicago) are more to his liking. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897/3200 "2011-07-12T22:03:44Z")
> [@galveston](#): > > Your last statement is tyical dismissive ignorant lib arrogance. Us folks on the right are not nearly as ignorant and stupid as your think. We can see that the country is heading in the wrong direction ever since '06, when the Dems took over both houses. Democrats have never had control of the Senate since 2006. That would require 60 Democrats, which hasn’t happened. Republicans have obstructed every Democratic plan to reduce the deficit and create jobs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=159) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-republican-idea-of-the-day/490897.md?page=161)