Consider Thy Pot Stirred

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

So Nola, (who I'm not linking because I'm laaaazy and because I see some irony in referencing her post about this particular site and then not linking to her. ha. ha ha.) wrote about an issue that had 20-some-odd people tar-and-feathering each other in her comment section and I thought, man, I'd like to have me some controversy, so I've decided to talk politics.

I am a registered democrat and I fall pretty far to the left side. This does not mean that I am incapable of hearing a conservative point of view, but my alliances do lie with the liberals. I am a certified Bush-disliker (hater seemed too strong of a word) and could talk your ear off for hours on all the reasons that he makes me want to pluck my eyeballs out and move them to Canada until January, but I won't because it can get messy. Both the Bush stuff and the eyeballs.

My personal vote went to Obama. I have a lot of reasons, which I will enumerate some of, but all of them are aided greatly by the fact that Hillary bugs the shit out of me. There, I said it. She makes me a little embarrassed to be a woman sometimes. Really? Crying at a coffeeshop because nobody likes you? Lord help us. Yes, that's who I want to run my country. And yes, she does have a slight advantage in terms of senatorial experience over Obama, but I'm sorry, being the first lady is not the same as being the president. By that logic, I guess I'm pretty much a doctor. I mean, if I was interviewing for medical school I'd sure be able to make a good case for myself.

But that's just a visceral reaction, the issues are the core of my choice. Mostly. That and because I'd really rather stare at Obama for 4-8 years rather than Hillary. I'm sorry, he's just better looking.

I like Obama's healthcare plan better. I think that neither plan is foolproof because no matter what you do, you will not insure every single person if it's not free. I'm sorry to be pessimistic (a rarity around here, I realize), but you're not and healthcare won't ever be free, so there's got to be some middle ground. Making healthcare mandatory for adults is not going to make those people who don't want or can't afford health insurance run out and get it. And I think you'll wear yourself out trying to punish those people. But, mandatory insurance for kids and nationalized healthcare available at more affordable rates to adults makes sense to me.

I disagree with both candidates on a couple of the hot button issues. I think that both of them are really missing the mark with their stance on gay marriage. Both of them are toeing that line between being a democrat and not alienating those in the middle of the political spectrum and while I understand it, I don't like it. What I'm about to say may make me less popular, but I'll say it anyway. I think that marriage between same sex couples should be allowed. No where in my constitution (which by the way, I have taught to high school seniors so I am fairly familiar with) does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman. And moreover, no matter how much some people want it to be, this is NOT a Christian country and it never ought to be and therefore church-based ideals cannot dictate the laws. So when you run to your bible (of which I also own several, I might add) to tell me that God said that man and man weren't meant to lay together, I'm just going to remind you that Jesus didn't write the Constitution.

I don't know how many of you have read the decision from the 1954 case Brown v. The Board of Education regarding a black child being sent to another school, but the jist is that separate accommodations are inherently unequal. Yes, the language on the ruling is rather specific so I'm not trying to make a case for gay marriage under Brown, I'm just saying that these "civil unions" that seem to be the great compromise, feel an awful lot like separate gay schoolhouses to me. Yes, we'll let you be married, but we won't call it marriage because it doesn't fill our religiously defined description. I'm just not sure how that fits under the creed that all men are guaranteed some certain inalienable rights. In my humble opinion either everyone should be able to get married or everyone should have a civil union, but making a moral distinction between the two is taking this country down a road it does not belong on and I feel like the founding fathers would be appalled at the goings on.

Both candidates' positions on Roe v. Wade work for me, and I realize that paints me into a very lefty corner and I hope that all of you are educated enough to understand the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion because few things chap my ass like being told I'm pro-abortion. Education is also a wash, though I love Hillary's idea to try to recruit "outstanding" teachers and principals. Really? Damn, I've totally been looking for the shitty ones all these years.

The war is a topic I will tread lightly around because this one seems to hold a lot of emotion for everyone. I do have family in the military and I do understand that our troops are in grave danger. I support them 100%, I oppose the reason they are there equally as much.

I haven't found much on their specific stances on stem-cell research, but both candidates are for it, so I'm good with that. And I understand that this concept is appalling to a lot of you, but can I ask, if these embryos are real lives, wouldn't you rather they be used for good than being literally thrown away? It seems to me that if some good can come from their demise that perhaps that's a better thing to do.

And finally, I have to say that I could not care less about who writes whose speeches. Was it a stupid of Obama to use a speechwriter's speech verbatim? Yes. Was it really tacky of Hillary to use John Edwards' ideas verbatim? Yes. Do I think that Hillary's "misspoken" exaggeration of her experience abroad was politically motivated? You bet your ass.

Honestly, at the end of the day, I don't think I'm any more right than you are, but I do feel like I've done my homework on the issues and I know where I stand and which candidate most closely approximates my ideals. And even if you're voting for Hillary or for McCain, more than anything, I really just hope you vote. I cannot bend my mind around the low voter turn out. I really can't. You're given the chance to choose your government, the very thing that we are fighting for for other countries and yet more people are interested in American Idol than in their own government.

And that, not homosexuality, abortion or stem-cell research, should be the biggest issue being discussed. Voting is a privilege, but in my opinion, it's also an obligation. You may not bitch about your country if you do not take a vested interest in it. So go vote, even if it's only to cancel out my left-winged crazy ass vote.

Now go, discuss.


Anonymous said...

Well, dammit, I have NOT ONE THING I disagree with you on. Well, except I am registered Republican. Hehehe.

YatPundit said...

I was an Edwards person, and am still mightily disappointed he dropped out. There are going to be a lot of Obama people with buyer's remorse when they finally realize just how much like Clinton he really is.

sorry i can't stir the pot more :-)

Overflowing Brain said...

I'm sorry, we can't be friends anymore.

(Wanna do something soonish?)

Overflowing Brain said...

I also liked Edwards, but I felt like with his personal/family issues, no way was he going to be able to devote his heart to governing our country.

My dad is still heartbroken that he dropped out. He was woe-is-meing just the other day.

Anonymous said...

You can probably take an educated guess and know my views are completely opposite to yours on just about everything. Well, except for disliking Hilary. :)

What bothers me more than anything is not to have people who disagree with my point of view but who can't seem to allow me the right to my own views, who look down on me and say, "Damn, you must be an idiot to think that." I'm sure you've dealt with that, as well.

I have met very few people who truly seem to respect the opinions of others even if they differ from theirs.

My gut tells me you may be one of the rare ones, though. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading my blog, eh? Or is it that even idiots can be funny? Bahahahaha!!

Flea said...

I was really hoping to cancel out SOMEONE'S crazy ass liberal vote, being the conservative-becoming-more-moderate-every-year that I am, but I'm having a difficult time getting up the gumption to vote this year. I'll vote, don't get me wrong. I just don't like ANY of the presidential choices.

I won't do any pot stirring on the issues. I stand opposite of much of your stance, and yes, I've educated myself on the issues. I realize that my "bent" on them is just opinion. I've changed my stance on quite a few things about which I was staunch on in my younger days.

I'll go sit quietly in the corner now.

Anonymous said...

I thought Edwards would have it and predicted wins for him. Nada. Hillary is annoying, she may put some good people in the cabinet, but I'm not going to watch 4 more years of attacks on her, which they will do. The Bosnia thing clinched it. She can go fly a kite. Call me an Obama man now.

YatPundit said...

when Edwards dropped out, i was sad because he was the only one who really gave a damn about New Orleans. The other two are pretty much the same person when you look at their positions on the issues. i would have taken Edwards' passion any day, along with all the flaws he may have concerning family. *sigh*

Overflowing Brain said...

Flea- I tried to reword that paragraph earlier and I hope you didn't misunderstand me when I said I had educated myself on the issues. It's not that I think that those who disagree with me have not educated themselves, it just that I disagree with their assessments.

No need for corners, though a dunce hat would be lovely.

kim-d said...

Oh my gosh, Katie, hang onto your hat cause I'm NOT here to stir the pot--HA! What I like most is hearing/reading what everybody else has to say because, for the first time in my 33 voting years, I am at a complete loss. I WILL vote because I completely agree that it is our obligation but, man, it would behoove SOMEBODY to give me a candidate that doesn't make me want to regurgitate. I think they all suck. They're 6 of one, half-dozen of the other and you can't believe a damn word they say. And this I know for sure. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, several times a day, every day. There is a funny thing about aging, at least for me. The older I get, the more gray areas there are, the less things are set in stone, and the less important some people/things are because they just aren't what they seem. I pay a little bit of attention to what these yay-hoo politicians say, but not much. I have a problem with lying, by anybody, so...for right now at least, I guess I'm not very educated on any of these people. BUT...ya just gotta vote, even if it's yet another "lesser of the evils" situation. Sad. I sorta, in a way liked Edwards. Sigh. Now, to me, he was the one I could look at for four years. Yeah, I said it. HAHAHAHAHA!

Debbie said...

Obama. I do not like Hillary for so many reasons. I'm changing to Independent from Republican. I would really like a mixture of both parties to be elected. I can't have that. I want someone to do something about illegal immigration which you didn't mention. I'm retired USAF and do not want McCain. Enough war already. We need help here. I have been more interested in this election than any other. Obama has maintained and he really does give me hope...maybe false..but hope. I don't trust a word out of Hillary's mouth and I'm sick of Bill. Sorry, no to gay marriage. Pro-abortion and definitely support stem cell research in honor of the Reeves especially. Damn Hillary is visiting today at my old junior high school where I didn't make cheerleader LOL like in 1969???

Anonymous said...

ROCK ON !!!!!!

Flea said...

Katie, I understand. I understand that there are lemmings and idiots in both parties. That the majority of registered voters don't pay much attention or care much about issues till they face a crisis. I was only saying that I'm one of the ones who reads and listens. Or I used to. Vehemently. Voraciously. I'm worn out and worn down. I'll vote, but only because I feel I need to.

Well THAT was very depressing. I still listen and read - honest. It just doesn't consume me like it once did, which is a very good thing.

Daisy, Just Daisy said...

Don't you know that being pro-choice means you advocate taking out toddlers with ice picks on random Sunday afternoons in the park?

I actually met someone who thought along those lines, and it made me throw up just a little in my mouth.

Kate said...

Heh- definitely in your camp on the "moral" political issues. I try to be careful with Brown v Board of Education though as I'm massively pro affirmative action...

Anonymous said...

Alright, you asked for it:

Most people out there agree that the government couldn't successfully run a car through a car wash, why then would I want them to run medicine? I'm in the military, I get government health care, let me tell you, it's one of the very few things I dislike about the military.

Anyone that says "let's take money from successful people/businesses" is anti-American in my book. I thought we lived in a capitalist society, and that we were proud of it. Taking money from the rich to feed the poor only imbues the poor with an entitlement mentality. Oh, and it increases the cost of whatever the companies sell too.

The border with Mexico is probably where the terrorists will enter the country with their next weapon(s) of choice. Don't know if it'll be a small nuke, or something just as nasty on another front, but it's appalling to me that some would open it more, and grant immunity to the tens of thousands of illegals that live here. Something like 25% of our violent criminals in prison are illegals. There are over 15,000 illegals participating in gang activity in southern California alone. The amount of money spent every year GIVING medical care, education et al to illegals is staggering to this economy. Oh, and they are called ILLEGAL for a reason. Let's shut it down.

If I go to Vegas and gamble away my savings, that's my right. It's also my responsibility to deal with the mess I made. Most of us were smart enough to recognize ARMS and interest only loans as the worst idea since New Coke, I don't owe it to the dumb ones to bail them out. It's too bad, I'm sorry for your loss, now get to work, because you've dug a deep hole for yourself.

As I mentioned I'm a member of the military, have been for eleven years now. The government paid for my college degree, and is paying for my masters. I have however earned all that. I think everyone ought to earn what they get. I have a question for all you out there that are democrats (mostly). You say you support the troops, but you vote dem...did you know that the vast majority of the troops vote republican? Do you know why that is? One of the many reasons is that dems are bad for our country's defenses, they want to pay our troops less, and they want to cut funding for retirees. Doesn't sound like they support the troops to me.

Oh, I'm a pretty educated guy. I've started up a reactor, been in administrative and operational control of the most technologically advanced submarine to ever grace the oceans with its presence, I've flown multiple different aircraft and own several different pilot's licenses and ratings. For the life of me, every time I hear someone say that pro-choice isn't pro-abortion I's only different in spelling.

There are those that would say "how can you be pro-life, and pro-death penalty?" That's easy for me. It's about conscious decisions. The unborn child has not made any, the murderer on death row...well, he (she) made at least one or two bad ones. I've decided that I don't want to be called pro-death penalty any more, I want to be called pro-justice. I won't get into what I think pro-abortion folks should be called.

Guns should never, EVER be taken from law abiding citizens. The laws should be enforced to the fullest extent though.

The war in Iraq was just. The government may not have used the best reason for going in, but we needed to go in. I don't like comparing the Iraq war with Viet Nam, but there are a few similarities. The strongest is that the public understanding of how we're doing over there is being dramatically altered by a media that hates us conservatives even more than Jeremiah Wright hates white people. We were months (maybe less) from winning the war in Viet Nam. The VC had almost nothing left. But public opinion was so stilted by the media, that we were "forced" to withdraw, and have been hounded by that opinion ever since. Since when do reporters know more about fighting a war than the generals? BTW, the treatment of General Petraeus by certain liberal members of congress was appalling, and offensive to me as a military man.

I think that attending anything for 20 years is proof that you fully agree with what's going on there. Sure, there could be some dogmatic differences, but for the most part, you agree. If you didn't agree with something major, you'd either try to change it, or leave. Trust me, as a man of strong faith if I was ever at a church where anything approaching the words of the Reverend Wright were spoken, I'd be out the door before the echo died out. I feel that by continuing to attend that church Barrack Obama has proven himself to be as racist as the pastor, and no one that would put up with speech like that for even one second, let alone 20 years should NEVER be president of this great nation.

Alright, I'll leave it at that.

Claire said...

Ditto everything Big Daddy said.

Blessings to all.

Overflowing Brain said...

Big Daddy

My turn, I'll try to be brief, but I can't not say anything. I want to preface it with the fact that though I disagree with you, I still think that you and your wife rock pretty hard and I hope that you can see past our political differences and still be cool with me.

As the almost-spouse of someone in medicine, I can tell you that the medical system needs help. As someone with a serious health condition who pays through the nose each month for health insurance (almost 1/3 of my measly salary), I can tell you that the system needs help. If I thought there was a good way to fix it besides socializing it, I'd be there. But frankly, given the option to leave it alone and socialize it, I'm with the latter. It doesn't mean that I think it's the greatest decision ever and I know a lot of democrats who fall into that same category.

Capitalism is great, but what do we do for those who are poor? I hold a bachelor's degree, a teaching credential and about 1/2 of a master's degree and (before insurance) I make less than 30,000 dollars a year, working my ass off. I don't want you to take money from the rich to pay for me, but it hardly seems right that people can live off of money that their grandfather made 100 years ago in the oil business, while I am giving my blood, sweat and tears and coming home with crumbs. Waitresses make more money than I do, there is a flaw in capitalism. And I don't think that giving money to those in need makes them feel entitled, to me, that's just a way to make yourself feel better about not giving money to the poor.

I don't disagree with you on the safety at the borders. I've never advocated opening them up for a free-for-all, not by any means. However, you need to take a look at your statistics. Yes, I would believe that 25% of violent criminals are illegal aliens, and I know that what I'm about to say is going to make you bang your head against a wall, but consider for a moment the life they live and see if you can understand why they might resort to violent crimes. I'm not condoning it, I believe in punishing it very seriously, however, I don't think it's as simple as, you're from Mexico, therefore you must be violent. I was born and raised in Southern California, I know all about gangs, but believe me, it's not nearly as simple as you think it is. Rather than shutting it down, why don't we find a way to make it work? It's obviously broken, let's fix it.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that a lot of the money stuff flies right over my head. I could spout off an opinion, but I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to leave it alone.

I support our troops and I really am bothered by the insinuation that I do not. I pay taxes that pay for military spending, I say prayers each night for the men and women overseas fighting on behalf of this country. I do not and never will support our presence in Iraq. I don't think that we should not pay our military or withhold weapons from them as a result, but I do think that we should find a way to get out. I don't think that you can automatically equate democrat with not supporting the military. If that's the case then I should probably say that every republican is a homophobe. It's just not fair to make those kinds of generalizations (which is why I don't actually believe that, by the way).

Okay, I know we've already discussed this some, but the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice to me is a very VERY big one. I do not, for one moment, support having an abortion. If I could personally go out and convince every pregnant woman to carry the pregnancy to term and offer the child up for adoption, I would do it in a heartbeat. But as a woman, I cannot say what another woman can and cannot do with her own body and our government sure as hell doesn't have that right. So there's the distinction. I find abortion morally reprehensible, but I find idea of the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body just as big of a problem. Speaking as a victim of sexual assault, if I had become pregnant and someone told me that I would have to carry that child to term and see the remnants of the violence I experienced, I can promise you that I would have killed myself. And that's terrible and it's personal, but it's true. It's not as simple as being pro- or anti-abortion.

I don't think that the death penalty is pro-justice. It's been proven to be ineffective at deterring crime and is MORE expensive than paying for a prisoner to live the rest of their life in prison. To me, it just doesn't make sense, all moral issues ignored.

Guns were only intended to be used by those in the military and those who were at danger of having a military invasion in their living room. I have a degree in history and literally wrote my thesis on this, so don't get me started. Guns do kill people and people with guns kill people. Tell me if the massacre at Virginia Tech could've happened if the killer was armed only with a knife, because I think we both know it wouldn't have.

I'm not in the military and thus am not privy to the information you have about Iraq and I think our backgrounds will make it impossible to see eye-to-eye on this, and that's fine with me. I don't want to try and explain myself knowing that it'll only probably make things ugly.

I attended a small church in Southern California where our priest once referred to an Asian as a "Jap" which in my opinion is a pretty terrible thing to say. He apologized for his remark and when I am home I still attend that same church. Does that make me racist? Does that make me unfit to be a leader? To me, a candidate's religious life shouldn't ever be at the forefront of discussion because our country is not meant to be one tied together with religion.

And in the end, we don't and probably won't ever agree, and that's a-okay with me. You've opened my eyes to things that I hadn't thought of and I hope I've opened yours. And if nothing else, I hope you'll vote and try to make a difference, even if it's by negating one liberal at a time.

Anonymous said...

I agree that we'll continue to disagree, but I feel I must respond to a few things:

I totally agree that those in the education community are underpaid, and that NCLB is a total disaster. It came from the attitude of "let's make it better" but it is obviously the wrong fix. We need to try something else, and pay our teachers way more than we do. That being said, I have a serious problem when schools teach evolution, or global warming as fact. I've heard people say "you can't argue with science" well, talk to the scientists that are arguing with those supposed "sciences."

If I have a water leak in my car, I don't try to make the water fit in better, I don't try to make it comfortable, I try to stop the leak. It would be bad for my car to do otherwise. Yes, I know that likening people to an unwanted leak is a little out there, but it's what I've got right now.

Oh, and there's a big difference between private sector dems, and capital hill dems. The guys, girls and Nancy Pelosi on the hill that are dems don't seem like they'll be happy until I make less than you do...once again, I think it's a shame what you make.

I'm terribly sorry for the pain you have suffered at the hands of another, and I agree that the government doesn't have the right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their body. But we're talking about someone else's body here. I'm pretty sure the baby isn't being asked what it wants. Please understand that while I abhor abortion, that in no way means I have a problem with you. I think you are a wonderful person, and I hope we can still be friends after the dust settles.

The constitution 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." I deem that a militia, were it ever called for, would be made of ever Tom, Dick and Harry (and probably a few Sallies too) that owned a gun. I think that the biggest problem with the "guns are evil, and only evil people have them" argument is that if we illegalized them, it would be true, only evil people would have guns, and the rest of us would have no way to defend ourselves.

I agree that the word Jap isn't nice. I think that it was definitely in poor taste what Don Imus said. I don't however think that either was hate speech, and I don't think that either of the people in question are racist. There is no way to interpret the words of Rev. Wright other than extreme hate speech and racism. The very fact that your pastor apologized as soon after the fact as he could is what sets him apart from Rev. Wright, well that and Wright's a racist. Alright, I'll leave you alone now, I might even just cut and paste these comments for tomorrow's post...

Be safe.

Amy said...

Wow! I wish BD posted this on his site. It is awesome!

I respect your opinions to disagree. I wish you the best.

Overflowing Brain said...

Hey BD,

Well put and I really appreciate the civility of the conversation. I think that we'll always disagree, but that's the spice of life.

If it makes you feel better, I sincerely hope that no one working full times makes less money than I do, completely regardless of their job. And that's an issue that to me is completely non-political, it's just good sense.

Yes, you have the 2nd amendment there, but the thing is, we HAVE a militia, you're a member! Which is why we don't need to have guns. We have our national guard, we have military members scattered all over the country. Why on earth do I need a weapon? Is that not your job? Now that we have a collected and functional militia, my owning a gun is superfluous. This country is all about giving up some personal freedoms for the good of the whole. I give up my right to bear weapons such that perhaps a life will be spared from an accident or a truly evil person doing a truly evil action.

To be perfectly honest with you, I do not like Obama's pastor. I will be the first to admit that I haven't read enough about it (frankly it makes me sick), but unless Obama is spouting the same racist rhetoric or plans on appointing this man to his cabinet (which he does not, on either account), I don't really have a big issue with it. I think that we're only seeing a really small piece of the picture of this whole fiasco and I'm trying to reserve judgement until it's all sorted out. Bottom line is that even Obama has declared that he doesn't agree with the things that have been said, and to me, that's what's important.

I'm off for now. Have a lovely Saturday evening and feel free to cut and paste whatever comments you want (well, mine and yours anyway, you'd have to get permission from the other posters to take theirs). I'll read it for sure and try not to get too soap boxy on you.

Amy said...


I realize this is your blog and such, and I am not trying to be fresh. I just have to ask you this question. Do you really believe that if someone breaks into my house, and is going to harm me or my family, I still don't have the right to shoot them? It just so happens that my husband is a police officer, however he works nights, don't you think I have the right to defend myself by being a lawful gun owner?


Anonymous said...

I appreciate the conversation going on here. Glad you can both express and be respectful. Rarely happens between liberals and conservatives in the public sector.

I'd like to weigh in on the right to bear arms. Since you mentioned Virginia Tech...the gunman obviously was disobeying rules. You might notice that these massacres tend to happen on school campuses and at churches, the two places where citizens are not allowed weapons. Far LESS damage would be done by gun-carrying (or knife-wielding) psychos if people were at the ready. Someone would have bagged Virginia Tech boy before he killed so many people. We cannot expect the military to "cover our backs" in every possible public place where there might be a lurking psycho.

Overflowing Brain said...

Minnesota Mom-

You make a great point about Virginia Tech that I certainly did overlook. In my mind, if he was wielding a knife, no one would need to be wielding a gun because it wouldn't have required that kind of force to take him down.

In my opinion, having legalized weapons is always going to allow for people to abuse the rules. As long as we have gun shows and internet gun sales, we're going to have people using weapons that they have no business using.

Why on earth should any citizen need a machine gun? A rifle (except for hunting purposes)? I don't love hand guns, but I can understand people wanting them for security, it's the huge semi-automatic guns that continue to be legal that are absurd to me.

Anyone can argue wanting to feel safe, but I will never feel safe as long as semi-automatic weapons are legal and as long as you can go buy weapons at gun fairs and over the internet. If we're going to have to have guns around, then we need some serious regulations in place because way too many people are slipping through the cracks of the severely under-enforced rules we have now.

Anonymous said...

Katie, I am just getting caught up with your comments. You DID want a controversy! All I wanted to add is that you are DEAD ON about the Second Amendment. Being an attorney, I was required to study the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights in law school. So few Americans have actually READ either yet are *experts* on what it says and what the founding fathers meant. Ha! Oh, I also read the Confederacy Papers to garner some of the founding fathers' intention.

At this stage, I really won't discuss gun control with folks who can't even relay to me what the gist of the Second Amendment is. It IS NOT, "Americans have the right to bear arms."

And like you, because I have studied the documents, the language, the writings of what of founding fathers had to say about this right, the right to bear arms is a very touchy topic for me.

But what I am leaving a comment for is to inform you (if you are not aware) that there is currently a case at the U.S. Supreme Court that deals with a Washington, D.C. gun law. Watch that case. The questions asked of the Justices in hearing this case, pundits suggest, is that the Court is about to expand on this right--to make it a PERSONAL RIGHT of Americans. And I can feel the founding fathers getting itchy in their graves to turn over YET AGAIN.

But what do we expect when W. had so many appointments of Justices in his tenure in office?

And just for the record, one of my best friends owns a gun shop. And we talk heatedly but healthily about this issue from time to time. Just because I don't believe the way the laws are being interpreted now are what was ever intended, I recognize that these ARE the laws now and I respect that I live in a world with these laws. I'd like to work to see these laws changed, but I don't make enemies of those who disagree. But maybe that's because they have the guns ;)


Overflowing Brain said...


Trust me I have my eyes, ears, etc all over that case. Especially since Scalia and his clone, I mean Clarence Thomas, both claim to be strict Constructionists.

I'm really interested to see how they respond to this case given that they proclaim to be champions of the intentions of the forefathers.

I think my inner-skeptic is showing through a little...

Anonymous said...

Alright, I told myself I would leave well enough alone, but I have to say two things. First, I admit, I don't have a JD, or any other kind of doctorate, but the English in the 2nd amendment isn't that hard to understand, and it's pretty obvious what they were wanting. The two justices the GWB nominated replaced two other conservatives (I thought) so that is a wash, and isn't it presumptive for anyone to assume that they understand the constitution better the the Supreme Court?

Oh, and not just anyone can own a machine gun, and you can't just order guns off the internet ebay style. It takes a rather expensive license to legally own a machine gun, with lots and lots of red tape to deal with as well. Oh, and if you buy a gun from an internet source, it has to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer, not to a person.

Overflowing Brain said...

Big Daddy-

I don't have a JD either, but if you study the history of the constitution and you read the language as it is written, rather than trying to interpret it into 21st century applications, it IS plain to see that the 2nd amendment was NOT created so that everyone could have a large machine gun in their backyard. I defy you to find a constitutional scholar who would disagree with me here. No where does it say that all men have the right to own a gun in case someone breaks into their home or because they enjoy shooting aluminum cans in their backyard.

I realize that I do not know everything there is to know about gun purchasing, but I know that it seems to be quite easy to get passed all the "security" measures in place. How else can you explain that two of the last school shootings have involved internet gun purchases?

My comment about Scalia and Thomas had nothing to do with George W.'s nominations to the court at all (both of them have been in the court LONG before W took office). Both Scalia and Thomas consider themselves constructionists, meaning that they believe in interpreting the constitution strictly- as in, with the intentions of the forefathers in mind. But this is an issue that will really put that in the spotlight because, as I've tried to say, the 2nd amendment today is not what it was created to be.

All I'm saying is that I would be incredibly surprised if they actually upheld the true language and intention of the constitution.

I won't get into my feelings on Clarence Thomas, but for the most part, yes, I do think that supreme court justices know better than I do about the constitution, but that doesn't mean that I agree with every decision they make. I didn't elect them, they don't represent me and as such, I do not have to agree with them.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Big Daddy, I agree. It's perfectly clear from the language of the 2nd Amendment that the founding fathers absolutely wanted members of well-regulated militia organizations' right to bear arms not be infringed.

What unit of your state's militia are you a member of?

Anonymous said...

How about this: the second half of the amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says "the right OF THE PEOPLE." Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Oh, and I'm not a member of the militia. You should know that there was a big difference in the revolutionary war between militia members and "regulars." Oh, and I do protect my wife and my house, when I'm home. I do it with my guns.

Overflowing Brain said...


(that wasn't me, fyi)

I agree that there was a big difference between regulars and militia in the revolutionary war, however, as you mentioned, every tom, dick and harry were expected to take arms and protect the country. Now they are not, and hence the language change. Since we're not going to be picking up and fighting a war at any moment, under the intention of the 2nd amendment, people should not bear arms.

And I would argue that my Fiance protects my safety and he has never and likely never will own a gun. Does that make him less of a protector? Does it mean that we're not safe?

Anonymous said...

Just a few comments.... to further stir I guess...

Thank goodness we have a democracy where we get to have differing opinions and vote to select our representatives. Whatever our issues as a country, at least we got that right.

Like others, I am also not excited about my options for president, but cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate the doesn't support a woman's right to choose. Like Katie, I'm not pro-abortion, however, I would prefer to see abortion not a political position at all. Whatever a woman chooses in that position should be between herself, her god and her doctor. I don't think government has the right to legislate morality. It didn't work for prohibition, it doesn't work for gun control, it doesn't work in the war on drugs, gay marriage, prostitution or anything I'm familiar with in terms of various freedoms we enjoy.
In terms of those freedoms, especially guns... I don't think we can successfully take them out of circulation. I can't really make an argument about whether the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms or doesn't but if we suppose it does, then we need to assume there are prices associated with that right; The price being that not everyone will purchase them legally, use them sanely or keep them out of the hands of criminals and children. While I support a reasonalble background check, I'm aware that there are loopholes available as well as first timers out there like the VT shooter and no gun control effort is going to guarantee my safety.
As far as Obama's reverend.... I don't know. I tend to think BD is right as it's unlikely Obama attended regularly and disagreed strongly with what was being said.
But I don't trust Hilary and McCain is an unpredictable hothead so I'm not sure where that leaves me come Novemeber except voting my conscience.