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 …).
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/
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, he’s been evaluated at a psych hospital, is out on bail, and isn’t allowed back in the state capital building.
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?
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?
Here is a review of the gun, confirming it has no safety:
From Ruger’s customer service department:
I’m pretty sure that translates to “no”. But why use one word when 189* will do?
*Yes, I counted.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
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.
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.
Did you not get the memo? IOKIYAR!
Besides. It’s a *pink *handgun. What kind of pussy would be scared of that?
No, it’s not. There’s a whole body of law (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.
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.
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.