CNN Breaking News

A shooting at Northern Illinois University has left at least two people wounded, reports say. Gunman reportedly is dead.

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Reminds me of Virginia Tech. With any luck NBC News will show the guy's tapes so we can "see into the mind of the killer." Wonder if any NBC executives have an ounce of guilt now. Probably not.

[David K.]

Remember everyone, the terrorists are the ones we should really be afraid of! Nothing wrong at all with the incredible availability of guns. So while the GOP is continuing to bog us down in Iraq while our young men and women get killed, they are keeping us really safe from gun violence at home by clinging to the anachronistic second amendment, and the gun lobby is exerting its power to keep dangerous weapons available and easily obtainable. Talk about your messed up priorities.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Lack of access to affordable healthcare (in this case mental healthcare) + Easy access to affordable assault weapons = NIU, Virginia Tech, Omaha Mall, etc, etc, etc.

[Brian Foster]

clinging to the anachronistic second amendment

You know, if more respect had been paid to the Second Amendment since the Founding, then perhaps you wouldn't feel so frightened every time the government comes anywhere remotely near the boundaries of the Fourth.

Or, to put it another way:

Such brazen picking and choosing of which parts of the Constitution to revere and which to ignore says a lot more about the picker and chooser than it does about the priorities of the government or a political party.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I don't have a problem with the Second Amendment. However, I don't believe a nutcase's Second Amendment right should supersede my right not to be gunned down in a classroom.

[Joe Mama]

I don't have a problem with the Second Amendment. However, I don't believe a nutcase's Second Amendment right should supersede my right not to be gunned down in a classroom.

I feel exactly the same way about the Fourth Amendment and whether it supersede's my right not to be blown up in a terrorist attack.

[Joe Mama]

So while the GOP is continuing to bog us down in Iraq while our young men and women get killed, they are keeping us really safe from gun violence at home by clinging to the anachronistic second amendment, and the gun lobby is exerting its power to keep dangerous weapons available and easily obtainable. Talk about your messed up priorities.

Yes, and while the House Democrat leadership is keeping us safe by not even bothering to take up the FISA reform bill that passed the Senate, they can find the time to vote and approve contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for failing to cooperate with the bullsh*t "investigation" into whether the Bush's political appointment of U.S. Attorneys was "politically motivated." There are you messed up priorities.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Joe Mama-

The difference being that the scenario I gave involves the rights of individuals while your concerns center around the rights of the government to supersede the rights of individuals. Having heard stories from relatives who grew up in Police States, I would rather not allow our government to become one.

A&A,

An interesting difference, I'll admit. However, having actually visited Police States, I know that the U.S. is anywhere close to becoming one, as the very kerfuffle over torture, privacy, etc. illustrates. And being familiar with U.S. history, I know that we are further away from being a Police State now than at any previous time in the last century.

[Joe Mama]

...the U.S. is nowhere close...

[Joe Mama]

...the gun lobby is exerting its power to keep dangerous weapons available and easily obtainable.

Lobbyists cut both ways, David. You could just as easily say that the trial lobby -- no less influential among Democrats as the gun lobby is among Republicans -- is exerting its power to keep lucrative litigation against telecom cos. open as well.

[Joe Mama]

Actually, I can't agree with this statement:

The difference being that the scenario I gave involves the rights of individuals while your concerns center around the rights of the government to supersede the rights of individuals.

The 4th Amendment does not enumerate any "rights of the government". It enumerates the rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. The question is under what circumstances is a search or seizure unreasonable.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Joe Mama-

We are nowhere close to being a Police State because throughout history when elements of our government have exceeded their limits in an effort to gain more power our Democratic institutions have kicked in to rebuff it. From the Alien and Sedition Act to the House Un-American Activities Committee our institutions have stepped up to enforce a measure of reason when it was required. That is why I have no problem with Democrats in Congress trying to effectively deal with this illegal wiretap nonsense.

[Joe Mama]

Surely you meant small-d "democratic institutions", A&A, otherwise your statement is objectionable for more than simply assuming a conclusion.

[Brian Foster]

The difference being that the scenario I gave involves the rights of individuals while your concerns center around the rights of the government to supersede the rights of individuals.

Joe Mama has already pointed up one way this statement is wrong. I offer another.

There is no difference between the scenarios. In A&A's 2d Amendment scenario, he asserts an individual right to be free from being gunned down in a classroom, which in his view justifies the exertion of government power to restrict the individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Amendment in order to curtail the liberty of certain individuals ("nutcases," in his colorful decription) to enjoy those rights.

In Joe's 4th amendment sceanrio, he asserts an individual right to be free from being blown up in a terrorist attack, which in his view justifies the exertion of government power to restrict the individual rights guaranteed by the 4th amendment in order to curtail the liberty of certain individuals ("terrorists," in his colorful description) to enjoy those rights.

In both scenarios, the proponent seeks greater government power to infringe upon someone else's constitutional right in order to protect against infringment of some other asserted but unenumerated right.

The relevant question for analysis is which constitutional right admits of greater flexibility in application and restriction -- the one that states the right in question "shall not be infringed," or the one that establishes the boundary of the right to be freedom only from "unreasonable" searches and seizures?

[David K.]

The assertion that the second ammendment is whats keeping us from a police state is absurd.

And yes I think there are parts of the constitution to revere and parts to remove. Its not holy by virtue of being in the constitution, but by what it stands for. So yes, I agree with AA that the fourth ammedment which defends me against an actually invasion of privacy that threatens my freedom, versus the second ammendment which protects the right to own deadly weapons which provide no appreciable defense against the modern military might of our nation or other nations are different beasts all together.

But more importantly, unlike you, I recognize that instead of blatantly violating the constitution because you disagree with it, that you should AMMEND it first if you want to make laws that would go against it.

That is the big difference.

I want to remove somethign that I feel is preventing us from being more secure in a legal and recognized fashion.

You want to ignore the law and want the government to ignore the law, violating our freedoms, ironically in the name of defending freedom, to put in place measures which are of questionable value towards that end anyway.

[Brian Foster]

David,

Who the hell are you talking to? You are certainly not responding to any argument actually made here.

In particular, no one that I have noticed has made any claim along the lines of "the second ammendment is whats keeping us from a police state."

Nor have I seen anyone advocate "blatantly violating the constitution because [they] disagree with it."

Well, other than you, that is. For I don't know how else to take your criticism of the GOP as "clinging to the anachronistic second amendment," other than as an assertion that we should no longer "cling" to it, i.e. we should "blatantly violat[e]" it because it is so "anachronistic" and "protects the right to own deadly weapons."

But I am glad to hear that you recognize that you can't simply ignore the 2d amendment, and will instead have to pass a 28th amendment to repeal the 2d.

Good luck with that -- and in the meantime, I will thank you in advance for not contradicting yourself by supporting additional legislative measures that infringe on the right to bear arms, until such time as your 28th amendment has been ratified.

As for your silly claim that anyone here wants "to ignore the law and want[s] the government to ignore the law, violating our freedoms," it once again misses the point entirely and further demonstrates what a foolishly quixotic enterprise it is for you to undertake any discussion at all about the law. The very essence of the debate over the Fourth Amendment is what makes a search or seizure "reasonable" v. "unreasonable," a standard that necessarily changes according to the facts and circumstances.

That is to say, a flexibility in the face of the unknown was precisely, textually, and literally incorporated in the very words of the amendment. It therefore is not "ignoring the law" or "violating our freedoms" to argue that under the circumstances presented, the types of searches and seizures being advocated for are not "unreasonable."

In other words, as countless others have told you countless times before, the Constitution says what it says -- not what you want it to say. If you'd like to argue that it does in fact say what you want it to say, go right ahead. But your repeated insistence on a view of the world and of the law that conforms to nothing other than your own ephemereal and subjective ejaculations of righteousness is a wholly inadequate substitute for reasonable thought.

[Andrew]

Point of order: It's my job to point out that David's being an idiot. Occasionally I delegate that responsibility to Joe Mama, but what's with Brian Foster and CD tracking on my territory here?

[David K.]

Brian, there is a law in place which requires the obtaining of a warrant in order to wiretap. If you then proceed to wiretap without a warrant it is no longer a debate about reasonable vs. unreasonable, but of legal vs. illegal. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional. If you change the law and the constitution, thats one thing, but this administration blatantly ignored that and hid behind vague arguments of protecting us from terrorist threats despite any lack of a credible argument that such techniques would provide intelligence that could nto otherwise be obtained legally.

[David K.]

Point of order: It's my job to point out that David's being an idiot. Occasionally I delegate that responsibility to Joe Mama

Being called an idiot by Joe Mama is like being called a racist by David Duke.

[Joe Mama]

LOL

I forfeit the rest of my time to the Chair.

[Joe Mama]

Of course, calling David out for being an idiot may very well be a 4-person job.

[Derek]

Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional.

Uh, just to interject, David K., you're spouting drivel, not constitutional or statutory law. The constitution only requires that searches be "reasonable," not "with a warrant." Therefore, a warrantless wiretap may or may not be constitutional; it depends on whether it is "reasonable."

As for statutory law, there's a dispute about whether the AUMF alters the restrictions in FISA or not, and whether the President would have authority as Commander-in-Chief that could not be cabined in by statute, and I think that's what most of the debate has been about. It's not a cut-and-dry issue, particularly if one places the constitutional issue on it. At present, Congress has not passed a statute saying, "Warrantless wiretaps are illegal," which would leave the President solely his constitutional authority, which would then lead to a dispute about how extensive that authority is in a time of military conflict.

[Joe Mama]

You're farting in the wind, Derek. Many on this blog have tried to educate David and his misinformed ilk that wiretapping without a warrant is not per se illegal. No one has as yet succeeded.

[Angrier and Angrier]

New bumper sticker...

"My Honor Student shot your Kid at NIU"

[David K.]

Yeah except that pesky law which, you know, requires a warrant for wiretapping and has therefore established what is and is not reasonable. But other than that sure...

[Brendan]

David, Derek is actually right. I've said this before (about this exact issue, I think), and I know it sounds elitist and snobby, but there's a reason law school is hard, takes three years, you have to be kind smart to get through it, etc., and it's because legal issues are usually not as simple as laypeople -- including journalists -- think they are.

Especially at the level of constitutional debates like this one, any widely-discussed issue is almost always going to be nuanced, complex, and subject to a variety of intellectually sound and defensible interpretations. Eventually, the Supreme Court adopts one of those interpretations, and that becomes "the law" -- unless and until the Supreme Court sees fit to change its mind. In this case, that hasn't happened yet, and thus the debate rages on. You're trying to deny that there's even a debate. That's foolish and just flatly incorrect.

Just because you read an article somewhere that tells you that this issue has been definitively resolved, doesn't mean it actually has. It hasn't. Period. There is no legal or constitutional scholar worth his salt who thinks this debate has been definitively resolved. Of course there are a wide variety of opinions about how it should be resolved, including ones that agree with your conclusion. But that only proves the point: it's a live issue, very much open to debate and disagreement. If you deny that fact, you are simply wrong.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Is it "reasonable" to presume that everyone on a telephone is the subject of a criminal investigation?

[Angrier and Angrier]

"The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must obtain a warrant before domestic wiretapping can be engaged in."

[Brendan]

P.S. David, an analogy for you. You know how you -- as a person with considerable expert knowledge of computer programming -- feel when I say something like "why can't Apple include X or Y feature in the iPhone, it would be so SIMPLE, they could EASILY do it"?

Yeah, well, that's how we lawyer types feel when laypeople who lack understanding of the law's complexity treat nuanced legal issues like they're COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and subject to no legitimate disagreement or debate. ("Yeah except that pesky law which, you know, requires a warrant for wiretapping and has therefore established what is and is not reasonable. But other than that sure...")

[Angrier and Angrier]

Per the post above, by tapping into the phone networks the Bush Administration knowingly tapped domestic and international calls without the proper warrants.

[Brendan]

Yes, Angrier. Now, tell us, what is the definition of "domestic wire-tapping"? Also, please tell us, how, if at all, do the rules change in a national-security (as opposed to illegal-gambling) contexts?

There is no Supreme Court case that definitively resolves this issue. If there were, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

I understand and appreciate your position. However, we are dealing with a situation where a doctor has removed a patient's arm instead of his leg. You are telling me because I didn't go to medical school that I wouldn't understand the difference.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

There may be no Supreme Court decision that definitively resolves this issue (because nothing of this scale has happened before). However, there are enough decisions out there to compel the Administration to try to get amnesty for the phone companies who participated. I'm no lawyer. But I know where there is smoke there is fire.

[Brendan]

No, we're not. That analogy would be correct if this were an obvious, cut-and-dried case.

IT. IS. NOT.

There are such cases in the law, of course. For example, if President Bush were to declare tomorrow that all Democrats will henceforth be prohibited from speaking about their political views, THAT would be the sort of case where any layperson could understand just as well as any lawyer that the constitution is being violated. It would be a simple, straightforward issue, like cutting off the wrong limb.

This is more like asking a non-doctor to understand whether it's better to make an incision two millimeters to the left or three millimeters to the right. You really do need to know what you're talking about to make that call.

[Brendan]

By the way, just to be clear, my point isn't that non-lawyers, as such, are incapable of understanding legal issues, nor that only people with law degrees can have legitimate, intellectually valuable opinions on disputed constitutional issues. I mentioned law school simply to underscore the point that the law is hard, not to suggest that all non-lawyer opinions about the law are worthless. If you're got a sufficiently analytical mind and a willingness to do the legwork, you can research these questions, read the cases, etc., and form an informed opinion about this stuff, regardless of whether you've got a J.D. on your wall.

Alternatively, even without doing the research, you can form a normative opinion about what you think the law should be -- but that's not the same thing as an opinion about what the law is.

All I'm saying is that people who lack an appreciation for the complexity of the law, and who therefore think these sorts of issues are simple and straightforward because they read an article in the New York Times that explains that the law "is" this or that, are deluding themselves. But certainly non-lawyers can have valid opinions. They just need to either a) do the research and the analytical thinking, and/or b) recognize the limits of their knowledge.

[Brendan]

Just to elaborate on my point that "what the law is" and "what the law should be" are two different things:

Arguing "what the law should be" is essentially what y'all are doing here, David, Angrier, etc. You believe, deep in your soul, with every fiber of your being, warrantless wiretapping should be illegal and unconstitutional in all cases (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe, it just doesn't happen to be the law). So, you find cherry-picked facts and quotes that seem to suit your preconceived belief, and you proceed to ignore all the counterarguments and nuances, convince yourself it's a simple issue, and post comments that suggest no debate is necessary, no dissent is possible, the issue is resolved, the end.

The thing is, though, saying it and believing it doesn't actually make it true.

[Brendan]

P.S. I know the above-described pattern of argumentation very well, because despite being legally trained, I fall victim to it in my own commentary about things I feel passionately about ALL THE TIME.

[Brendan]

I just noticed that this discussion of warrantless wiretapping is on the Northern Illinois shooting thread. WTF? :)

(I haven't actually been following this thread, so I have no idea how we got here...)

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

I'm not saying that deep in my heart, soul, etc, it should be illegal. I'm saying constitutional lawyers who have been writing about this are saying that. That is much different than me feeling one way or the other about the subject.

[Brendan]

there are enough decisions out there to compel the Administration to try to get amnesty for the phone companies who participated

This is a transparently bogus argument, and you shouldn't need legal training to realize why.

(Hint: even LOSING a lawsuit can be really, really expensive.)

Giving the phone companies immunity may be right or it may be wrong, but it is NOT an implicit admission that the Fourth Amendment was in fact violated.

[Angrier and Angrier]

It actually started out as a Second Amendment discussion and Joe Mama threw in warrantless wiretapping (sneaky bastard).

[Brendan Loy]

constitutional lawyers who have been writing about this are saying that.

Yes, some of them are. And others are saying the exact opposite. Hence, my saying that there's no consensus, this is not a settled issue, it's still very much up for debate, it's entirely unclear how the Supreme Court would rule, etc.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Regardless. I believe warrant-less wiretapping is unwarranted (literally and figuratively).

[David K.]

Brendan, I can respect complexity arguments, but FISA is a straightforward law that says if you want to wiretap communication between two parties in the U.S. you have to get a warrant. I've read the actual law, its not confusing, its not hard to understand, it explicitly states just that. The law requires a warrant under the exact circumstances in which warrants where not obtained.

[David K.]

P.S. as far as your analogy goes, if someone does say its EASY they should EASILY be able to do it, i would (and do) counter them by explaining why its not easy, not by saying "your wrong its hard and you are an idiot and an asshole". Perhaps you are right and I'm missing something here that muddies the discussion, but i'm certainly not going to pay attention to Andrew or Joe Mama when they try and make that argument laced with personal attacks. Their behavior has given their positions no credibility, so unless they back it up with solidly sourced information from people other than themselves, why should I take what they say as any type of authoritative point?

[Derek]

David K., as indicated, there are at least two significant issues--whether the AUMF, among other things, alters the requirements of FISA; and whether the President's constitutional powers in this situation place him outside of FISA's constraints.

And it's amazing that it's so easy for you! Law professors at Ivy League schools spend thousands of pages in law review debating the nuances of constitutional theory, executive power, and statutory interpretation; hundreds of hours of debate and lecture time, and thousands more in classroom discussion; and you, David K., are able to tell them all, "its not confusing, its not hard to understand, it explicitly states just that." Well! I think that the ABA, the DOJ, Michael Paulsen, Orin Kerr, Laurence Tribe, Martin Lederman, Ronald Dworkin, Harold Koh, and the many other legal minds who've grappled with this issue that you, David K., have read it, and your conclusion that "its [sic] not hard to understand" should be the final word!

[Wobbly H]

Bravo, Derek

[David K.]

Derek, again as I said, if i'm wrong and its not so hard to understand, someone is more than welcome to try and point out why, so far no one has done so other than to say something along the lines of "we need it to stop the terrorists from killing us all".

You seem like a reasonable person who is capable of discussing things without personal attacks and if so I'd gladly listen, and you may convince me that its more complex than what it appears. I don't mind being wrong and learning new things, I'm just not going to listen to the likes of Joe Mama and Andrew who can't participate in a discussion without ad hominem attacks.

[Joe Mama]

Ahh, "what the law is" versus "what the law should be", positivism versus natural law, Hart versus Dworkin . . . I love it!

[Wobbly H]

Davie,
I think if you read Derek's first sentence, you'll see that he is framing the issues re: why FISA might not govern.

[Joe Mama]

I'm just not going to listen to the likes of Joe Mama and Andrew who can't participate in a discussion without ad hominem attacks.

Actually, David, we just can't participate in a discussion without ad hominem attacks coming from you, and this thread is a perfect example. The only ad hominem attacks I made against you on this thread were

calling David out for being an idiot may very well be a 4-person job.

and perhaps

Many on this blog have tried to educate David and his misinformed ilk that wiretapping without a warrant is not per se illegal. No one has as yet succeeded.

although calling the latter an ad hominem is a stretch. The former of course came after you came at me with

Being called an idiot by Joe Mama is like being called a racist by David Duke.

which is effectively calling me an idiot.

I can't speak for others, David, but if you don't want any ad hominem attacks from me, all you need do is not make any to begin with.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, i am not basing my evaluation of you on this thread alone, but a larger pattern where you are incapable of engaging in discussion with people who oppose you without more often than not insulting them and their intelligence.

Did I call you an idiot? Yes I did, and yes thats an attack, however I don't base my arguments on those type of comments, nor are they my first response to you or anyone else. I certainly will engage in that behavior in kind from time to time, but unlike you or Andrew or Alasdair, its not my default choice.

Try it for awhile, try not insulting me and others like AA who disagree with you, maybe instead of convincing no one who doesn't allready agree with you that you are right, you might find the rest of us are more willing to consider your arguments and position.

[Brendan Loy]

David, assuming, for the sake of argument, that you're correct about FISA, that still doesn't address the constitutional argument. No matter how clear a statute might be, it doesn't take precedence over constitutional prerogatives.

[David K.]

Brendan, if the constitution specifies protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and congress enacts a law which defines certain situations where a warrant is required, and the supreme court has upheld that such a situation is indeed a fourth ammendment protected situation of search and seizure, that violating that law would be an instance of an unreasonable situation.

I will grant you that if FISA were to be revised such that it no longer requires a warrant for domestic wiretapping then it reopens the debate on what is and is not reasonable search and seizure, but as it stands the law has been upheld as the standard for which domestic wiretapping is regarded as reasonable or not. Violating the law means you are engaging in unreasonable search and seizure.

But even if you still don't agree, the mere fact that the President broke the law would seem to be a constitutional violation as well, as it would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.

[Brendan Loy]

*sigh*

You're entirely missing the point. The question is whether FISA, as applied to the war on terrorism, and surveillance involving Al Qaeda terrorists, unduly restricts the president's inherent power under the constitution to defend the nation, etc. I'm not proposing an answer to that question -- I'm just saying it's a question that has been resolved, and cannot be resolved by saying "...but the statute says!!!"

And while you're completely ignoring the war powers/executive power argument, I guarantee you the Supreme Court wouldn't. (Not saying how they'd rule, just that they'd take that argument very seriously, even if you don't.)

[Wobbly H]

Actually, FISA is relevant to the constitutional argument, just not in the way that Davie stated. Davie argued that the FISA statute sets the bar for reasonableness of a 'search.' Of course, in our country of judicial supremacy, Congress is not the body who gets to determine the reasonableness of a search, so Davie is patently wrong.

Aside from the Fourth Amendment issue is the question of whether the President has the authority to take this action. Here, FISA is surely relevant, especially if the President does not have the sole authority, independent of Congress, to order this program. Then, it becomes relevant exactly what Congress has authorized or restricted.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Your statement "the mere fact that the President broke the law would seem to be a constitutional violation as well" is drastically wrong on at least two levels.

First of all, it appears to suggest that anytime the president breaks the law, he's violating the constitution. That's obviously false, even as applied to valid laws. For instance, if the president jaywalks or speeds, he "broke the law," but he isn't violating the constitution. There's disobeying statutory law, and then there's disobeying the constitution; they aren't the same thing. Now, if the president discriminates on the basis of race or violates someone's free speech, then he's violating the constitution. Same thing if he tries to do a line-item veto or if he approves treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate. But if he shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die, he's not violating the constitution; he's just breaking the law.

Secondly, and more to the point, if Congress were to pass a law (presumably over the president's veto) that says "the president shall not pardon anyone," that would be an obvious and blatant impingement on the president's constitutional authority -- but according to you, if the president were to then violate that "law" and pardon someone, "the mere fact that [he] broke the law" would mean he's violating the constitution. Never mind that, in reality, it would be Congress that's violating the constitution by passing an unconstitutional law. Your absolutist logic would put the president on the hook for "violating" even the most blatantly unconstitutional of laws.

Now, if there is anything unconstitutional about FISA, it's obviously not nearly as blatant or obvious as my hypothetical example. Nevertheless, it's the same general concept. Some scholars believe that FISA, as applied to the war on terror, is a violation of the president's inherent executive authority, albeit a less obvious one than my "no pardons" law. You don't have to agree with that argument; I'm not sure I do. But you can't just ignore it, which is what you're presently doing. Nor can you accurately say that "the mere fact that the President broke the law" settles the issue, because it's easy to come up with scenarios, as in my pardon example, where the President could "break the law" and still be on the right side of the constitution.

Bottom line: the constitutionality of FISA vis a vis the president's war powers must be considered before any of the rest of this stuff even becomes relevant.

Also... your second paragraph appears to be arguing that FISA -- a federal statute -- has somehow created a controlling definition of the constitutional term "unreasonable search and seizure." That, too, is obviously wrong.

(You said, "I will grant you that if FISA were to be revised such that it no longer requires a warrant for domestic wiretapping then it reopens the debate on what is and is not reasonable search and seizure.")

Think about that for a second, David. If Congress revises a statute, then we can reconsider what the constitution means? Huh?

I wonder, do you think that Congress can also define other constitutional terms by statute? Could Congress also pass a law changing the definition of free speech, or freedom of religion? Could Congress -- to get back to an earlier topic of this thread -- pass a law declaring, once and for all, what the right to bear arms really entails? I thought it took a constitutional amendment to change the meaning of the constitution, but apparently we can do it by federal statute now!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Does David K have nothing better to do with his day?

[Brendan Loy]

P.P.S.

I thought it took a constitutional amendment to change the meaning of the constitution

...or at least an activist judge :)

[Andrew]

I'm just not going to listen to the likes of Joe Mama and Andrew who can't participate in a discussion without ad hominem attacks.

It's not that we can't refrain from using ad hominem attacks, it's just that when it comes to arguing with you, what's the point?

[Andrew]

To support my previous comment, look at how many words Brian Foster, Derek, Joe Mama, and Brendan have expended in this thread just trying to get you to see that, even though they might be sympathetic to your positions, your arguments in favor of them suck ass. As for me, I can only bang my head against the wall so many times before I resort to the much simpler and effective, "You're an idiot." And even then, it's not like I use super-obnoxious, gutterball attacks like, "You're not worth the dried pre-cum on the inside of your boyhood priest's underwear," I just say, "You're an idiot."

In conclusion, carrying on a debate with you entails significantly diminishing returns, and thus it's not worth the effort to be 100% civil.

[David K.]

It's not that we can't refrain from using ad hominem attacks, it's just that when it comes to arguing with you, what's the point?

Given that you have never tried, I stand by what i've said. And the idea that all you ever say is "you're an idiot" is laughable at best, given some of the other things you have said about me.

[David K.]

It's not that we can't refrain from using ad hominem attacks, it's just that when it comes to arguing with you, what's the point?

Given that you have never tried, I stand by what i've said. And the idea that all you ever say is "you're an idiot" is laughable at best, given some of the other things you have said about me.

[David K.]

As was pointed out, this thread was originally about the shooting, and i'd like to bring back to the point that guns are too widely and easily available in this country and its time we stopped letting the gun lobby bully us into taking a serious look at repealing the second amendment and putting into place laws that will make owning a gun a responsibility that requires training and licensing rather than an abused right.

Oh and in case anyone tries to bring it up, i am not avoiding the topic of FISA and the fourth ammendment, i'm following up with Brendan offline.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Things David K could have done with the time he spent on this thread:

1. Planted a tree

2. Played catch with an under-privileged youth

3. Taught a dog to sit

4. Found a girlfriend online

5. Run four miles

6. Watched "A Civil Action" on DVD

7. Taken a pottery class

8. Learned how to make a Long Island Ice Tea

9. Found a lost treasure at a flea market

10. Worked on his Klingon dialect

All of which, except for maybe number 10, seem to be a better use of his time.

[David K.]

Max, you post as much if not MORE than I do on here, why don't you pay attention to your OWN life first? Mine is fine thank you very much.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Heh. I knew you would be back.

[Wobbly H]

Davie Boy,

I'm not quite sure why you are taking your attack on the wiretapping program offline, considering Brenners was the fifth or so person to disagree with your approach, but so be it.

However, it appears that your knowledge of the Second Ammendment (sic) is similarly limited. Did you know that there is still no definitive answer as to whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun? Washington, D.C., has had a 35-year ban on handguns. Some states have very strict, may-issue laws. To blame the Second Amendment for what you perceive as a lack of gun control laws is simply not correct, at this point.

Take a look at this article to further educate yourself on the Amendment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html

[Andrew]

David, cars and the lousy drivers who drive them kill far more people every year than guns do. Plus, very few would argue that owning and driving a car is a constitutional right. So why don't you agitate against banning cars? We could all ride bikes to work, and if we want to travel to see friends in another state, we could take the train, no?

[David K.]

Andrew, cars are already regulated and used in far greater frequency without causing death than guns do. Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing, we can remove guns from society and increase safety and improve peoples lives, not true for cars.

So lets apply your logic to the war on terror, more people are still killed by guns than terrorists, so why do you support the war on terror, but not gun control? Sorry but either you admit that your side is wrong about the war on terror or you admit that its reasonable to oppose one issue while not voicing your opinion on another.

[Andrew]

...But I do support gun control. And we already have some level of gun control. What you are arguing is that the Second Amendment should be repealed and guns should be banned. That's far more draconian.

To say that guns are designed for the sole purpose of racing is like saying cars are designed for the sole purpose of racing, or that computers are designed for the sole purpose of calculating. Guns are used for hunting and for marksmanship sports, not just for killing people.

So, we've established that both cars and guns have some utilitarian and recreational value. Tell me again, why ban guns but not cars, when cars kill thousands more every year than do guns? If the bottom line is saving lines, the choice is obvious, and we'll just have to re-orient our economy and traffic patterns around a less bloody, alternative mode of transportation.

So lets apply your logic to the war on terror, more people are still killed by guns than terrorists, so why do you support the war on terror, but not gun control?

Terrorists are not protected by the Constitution. Terrorism is just another form of murder, which has been outlawed in every legal jurisdiction ever invented. Terrorists are people, not inanimate objects. Really, what a stupid comparison.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

While I agree that the Second Amendment should be protected, I have to disagree with this idea that the sole purpose of guns (many guns, anyway) is not to kill people.

Guns, like Glocks, AK-47s, Uzis, etc, are designed with the sole purpose of killing people (often in combat or law enforcement situations). Not for target practice. Not for hunting and not really for self-defense, either. Nobody in the civilian world needs a gun that can kill 50 people in a matter of minutes for hunting, target practice or self-defense.

To use your car comparison, what we have in this society - in addition to our regular cars - are a bunch of unregulated Formula 1 racers and NASCAR cars driving down our Interstates at 200 MPH at rush hour, slamming into innocent people.

I would hope you would agree that some common sense is needed here.

[Brian Foster]

Actually, what we have is "a bunch" of Formula 1 and NASCAR cars whose drivers observe the laws and customs of the road, right along with the drivers of the regular cars. And we have a miniscule proportion of drivers -- of both kinds of vehicle -- who ignore those rules, laws, and customs, and cause mayhem on the highways.

While it's true that the drivers of the NASCAR cars are capable of creating somewhat greater mayhem than the drivers of the Hyundais and Kias, mayhem results from the misuse of both, and is substantial regardless.

So the focus ought to be on the causer of mayhem -- and not on the particular car he drives.

[Brian Foster]

Clarification: "both kinds of vehicle" refers to Formula 1/NASCAR on the one hand, and "regular" cars on the other.

[Andrew]

Mad Max, put your reading glasses back on. I didn't say "the sole purpose of guns (many guns, anyway) is not to kill people." Obviously just about every gun can be pointed at a target, a deer, or a person, and thus you have types of guns (and ammunition) which are designed with particular targets in mind.

Guns, like Glocks, AK-47s, Uzis, etc, are designed with the sole purpose of killing people (often in combat or law enforcement situations). Not for target practice. Not for hunting and not really for self-defense, either. Nobody in the civilian world needs a gun that can kill 50 people in a matter of minutes for hunting, target practice or self-defense.

And those types of guns, for the most part, are illegal and very tightly regulated. If we had a citizen army like Switzerland or Israel, I'd have less of a problem with the guy down the street having an M-16, but that's not our society. As I said above, I (and most NRA types, but admittedly not all) accept gun control over automatic weapons and such.

So really, I'm not sure what it is I wrote that you're countering.

[Joe Mama]

This simple-minded notion that the only purpose of a gun is to kill has been offered up previously on this blog (probably by David) and it's laughable in its asininity and short-sightedness. If the only purpose of a gun is to kill, then the only purpose for owning a gun is to kill, and hopefully we don't need a tedious and protracted discussion about why that is idiotic. I've fired thousands of rounds of ammunition in my lifetime, and I don't remember killing a single thing. Maybe I'm a bad shot, or maybe my guns are broken . . . or maybe assigning a moral value to an inherently neutral object is silly.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

Would it change your mind if both the Virginia Tech killer and the NIU killer ordered their Glocks online from a company in Wisconsin (a state they didn't even live and with no real proof of who they were)?. Because that, in fact, is what they did.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Brian-

My point being that NASCAR and Forumula 1 cars are not street legal, regardless of who is driving them.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Joe Mama-

You obviously did not read my post or chose not to consider what I wrote. AK-47s are designed to do one thing...kill people. They are military weapons. Glocks are designed to kill people. Basically any handgun is designed for killing people because they 1) aren't practical for hunting, 2) are less accurate than rifles and shotguns for target shooting, and 3) were really designed to be concealed for killing people...period.

[Joe Mama]

Anyone who thinks handguns are designed only to be concealed, and are not or cannot be used for target shooting, doesn't know what they're talking about...period.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Joe Mama-

I have been around guns my entire life. I have used both handguns and rifles for target practice and can tell you that rifles are much more practical for target shooting than handguns. How many hunters use handguns over rifles because of their accuracy? Not many, if any.

[Joe Mama]

Then you need to be "around guns" a little more, Max, because handguns are very often used for target shooting, as anyone who has trained and participated in handgun shooting competitions will tell you.

[Joe Mama]

Not to bring back the whole wiretap thing, but . . . DOH!