PDA

View Full Version : Limits to lunacy in Arizona


Wonderment
04-19-2011, 12:25 AM
Kudos to arch-conservative Republican governor Jan Brewer for finally refusing to cave in to the lunatic fringe of her party. Today she vetoed both the Birther Bill (http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-jan-brewer/2011/04/18/brewer-vetoes-birther-bill)and the Guns on College Campuses bill.

The gun bill veto is probably due to public sentiment in the aftermath of the Tucson massacre last January. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/) works hard to dissuade legislators from regressing on arms control, so they should get some of the thanks too.

The Birther Bill is, of course, prima facie crazy, much like the Shariah Law Law in Oklahoma.

TwinSwords
04-19-2011, 12:36 AM
Kudos to arch-conservative Republican governor Jan Brewer for finally refusing to cave in to the lunatic fringe of her party. Today she vetoed both the Birther Bill (http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-jan-brewer/2011/04/18/brewer-vetoes-birther-bill)and the Guns on College Campuses bill.

Wow. Holy crap. That is amazing.

There is going to be wingnut hell for Brewer to pay. Tea Party won't be happy.

Now they're going to want to secede from Arizona! ;-)

operative
04-19-2011, 01:05 AM
Kudos to arch-conservative Republican governor Jan Brewer for finally refusing to cave in to the lunatic fringe of her party. Today she vetoed both the Birther Bill (http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-jan-brewer/2011/04/18/brewer-vetoes-birther-bill)and the Guns on College Campuses bill.

The gun bill veto is probably due to public sentiment in the aftermath of the Tucson massacre last January. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/) works hard to dissuade legislators from regressing on arms control, so they should get some of the thanks too.

The Birther Bill is, of course, prima facie crazy, much like the Shariah Law Law in Oklahoma.
Veto of stupid birther bill: good
Veto of law supporting second amendment rights and common sense: bad.

The fastest way to cut down on rape on college campuses would be to let female students carry handguns.

Don Zeko
04-19-2011, 02:29 AM
Veto of stupid birther bill: good
Veto of law supporting second amendment rights and common sense: bad.

The fastest way to cut down on rape on college campuses would be to let female students carry handguns.

Binge drinking and concealed firearms: two great tastes that go great together!

chiwhisoxx
04-19-2011, 02:31 AM
good for jan brewer, I guess.

Ocean
04-19-2011, 08:29 AM
Binge drinking and concealed firearms: two great tastes that go great together!

Yes, and one of the fast tracks to reach the Regressive Right's Wild West World fantasy.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 09:52 AM
Wow. Holy crap. That is amazing.

There is going to be wingnut hell for Brewer to pay. Tea Party won't be happy.

Now they're going to want to secede from Arizona! ;-)

LOL!

I am pretty surprised that Brewer vetoed the Birfer Bill. I wonder why. If I had to guess, I'd say she was worried about Arizona losing even more convention and tourism business.

I'll give her credit for plain common sense on the gun thing, though.

Thanks for passing along the good news, Wonderment.

operative
04-19-2011, 10:35 AM
Binge drinking and concealed firearms: two great tastes that go great together!

So should we ban cars and knives too? Neither goes particularly well with binge drinking.

graz
04-19-2011, 10:49 AM
So should we ban cars and knives too? Neither goes particularly well with binge drinking.

You've turned me on the guns in the classroom issue. I would like to see your students armed and capable of response to the least provocation ... such as a teacher/preacher telling them to abstain from sex and alcohol. No coddling!

Wonderment
04-19-2011, 02:58 PM
I am pretty surprised that Brewer vetoed the Birfer Bill. I wonder why. If I had to guess, I'd say she was worried about Arizona losing even more convention and tourism business.

That's a good thing. The message to crackpot legislators is that you risk shooting yourself in the foot by passing crazy gun and anti-immigrant bills, and you risk a national backlash if you go full bore mega-crackpot with purely ideological/bigoted nonsense like anti-Shariah and birther laws.


I'll give her credit for plain common sense on the gun thing, though.

She had some lame technical argument for not pandering to the base, but the fact of the veto speaks for itself.

uncle ebeneezer
04-19-2011, 03:34 PM
It's hard to see the difference between cars, knives and guns. Oh and water, and wind, and rocks, and sugar, and sunshine, and fire, and every other thing that can cause death. We should treat them all exactly the same!

operative
04-19-2011, 04:00 PM
It's hard to see the difference between cars, knives and guns. Oh and water, and wind, and rocks, and sugar, and sunshine, and fire, and every other thing that can cause death. We should treat them all exactly the same!

We have a right to own guns, the same as we have a right to own cars, knives, rocks and sugar.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 05:35 PM
So should we ban cars and knives too? Neither goes particularly well with binge drinking.

I would be made very happy if we regulated guns the way we regulated cars: a much better paper trail, reasonable license requirements for ownership and use, possibly also insurance requirements, especially for guns that aren't obviously rifles and shotguns for hunting.

As far as knives go, I'll point out that switchblades are illegal in most (all?) places, as are certain other types (gravity knives, certain types of concealed or disguised knives, etc). I'm not sure how much of a problem knives are, especially in the way of stray bullets and cars careening into crowds, but if you would like to regulate them more strictly in return for stricter gun laws, I wouldn't oppose you.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 05:38 PM
We have a right to own guns, the same as we have a right to own cars, knives, rocks and sugar.

That's an empty assertion. Public safety considerations play a role. We don't have a right to own dynamite or anthrax spores, for example.

And we don't have a right to own cars (or, at least, to operate them on public roadways) -- it is explicitly stated as a privilege in California and elsewhere (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22driving+is+a+privilege+not+a+right%22) .

operative
04-19-2011, 05:38 PM
I would be made very happy if we regulated guns the way we regulated cars: a much better paper trail, reasonable license requirements for ownership and use, possibly also insurance requirements, especially for guns that aren't obviously rifles and shotguns for hunting.

As far as knives go, I'll point out that switchblades are illegal in most (all?) places, as are certain other types (gravity knives, certain types of concealed or disguised knives, etc). I'm not sure how much of a problem knives are, especially in the way of stray bullets and cars careening into crowds, but if you would like to regulate them more strictly in return for stricter gun laws, I wouldn't oppose you.

I'd favor more freedom rather than less. While there are restrictions about operating a vehicle, to my knowledge, there is not concerning owning a vehicle. If you want to operate a vehicle in public, then you must own a license. Ok. I'm not necessarily opposed to licensing for public concealed carry. I am, however, absolutely against forcing people to be defenseless.

operative
04-19-2011, 05:40 PM
That's an empty assertion. Public safety considerations play a role. We don't have a right to own dynamite or anthrax spores, for example.

Yes, and thankfully there isn't an amendment saying "the right to bear anthrax spores shall not be infringed." ;)


And we don't have a right to own cars (or, at least, to operate them on public roadways) -- it is explicitly stated as a privilege in California and elsewhere (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22driving+is+a+privilege+not+a+right%22) .

Hopefully I covered this sufficiently in the other post.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:04 PM
Yes, and thankfully there isn't an amendment saying "the right to bear anthrax spores shall not be infringed." ;)

I don't take anyone seriously who resorts to a blind recitation of the supposed "Second Amendment rights." I don't accept the interpretation that the amendment, even as written, provides for blanket personal ownership rights. (I am not going to debate this -- it never goes anywhere.) I also don't accept as serious anyone who refuses to acknowledge the realities of the limitations on weapons technology in the late 1700s and how much has changed since then.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:07 PM
I'd favor more freedom rather than less.

Who wouldn't? That's just about an empty statement. It doesn't acknowledge that there are always chances that one person exercising his freedom infringes on another, especially in a crowded society.

While there are restrictions about operating a vehicle, to my knowledge, there is not concerning owning a vehicle. If you want to operate a vehicle in public, then you must own a license. Ok. I'm not necessarily opposed to licensing for public concealed carry. I am, however, absolutely against forcing people to be defenseless.

People aren't defenseless if they aren't carrying guns. And if no one carried guns, there'd be a lot less to worry about in this self-defense regard.

operative
04-19-2011, 06:14 PM
Who wouldn't? That's just about an empty statement. It doesn't acknowledge that there are always chances that one person exercising his freedom infringes on another, especially in a crowded society.


The proper exercising of the right to bear arms never infringes on anyone else's rights, any more than the proper right to own knives does.


People aren't defenseless if they aren't carrying guns. And if no one carried guns, there'd be a lot less to worry about in this self-defense regard.

And if unicorns existed we'd all be happier. Guns exist. Criminals will always have access to them. Preventing law-abiding citizens from getting them leaves them at a disadvantage.

I'll address your other post to consolidate:
I am not saying that there are no limitations, in any way, to gun ownership. I'm saying that there's no good reason to not permit guns on college campuses.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:18 PM
The proper exercising of the right to bear arms never infringes on anyone else's rights, any more than the proper right to own knives does.

The key word is "proper." The hard part is acknowledging that not everyone attains this, and deciding what the tradeoff should be between personal freedom and societal safety.

I'll address your other post to consolidate:
I am not saying that there are no limitations, in any way, to gun ownership. I'm saying that there's no good reason to not permit guns on college campuses.

There's no point in pretending I think this is anything other than pig-ignorant.

operative
04-19-2011, 06:23 PM
The key word is "proper." The hard part is acknowledging that not everyone attains this, and deciding what the tradeoff should be between personal freedom and societal safety.

And if someone does not demonstrate the proper exercising of their rights then we punish them. Fear that people could choose to not exercise rights properly is an excuse that one could use to limit any freedom.



There's no point in pretending I think this is anything other than pig-ignorant.

Right, because Colorado State is a total warzone, and University of Utah's like Mormon Baghdad.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:28 PM
And if someone does not demonstrate the proper exercising of their rights then we punish them.

Doesn't do much to bring back the dead or heal the crippled. There are times when preventing things from happening in the first place is a better approach than threatening to punish after the fact.

Fear that people could choose to not exercise rights properly is an excuse that one could use to limit any freedom.

Only in your paranoid mind. Besides, there's a wealth of data showing the cost of people not "exercising their rights properly," as far as guns go. Which stands in stark contrast to the exercise of just about every other right, particularly the ones enumerated in the Constitution.

... and University of Utah's like Mormon Baghdad.

I think you mean BYU.

operative
04-19-2011, 06:33 PM
Doesn't do much to bring back the dead or heal the crippled. There are times when preventing things from happening in the first place is a better approach than threatening to punish after the fact.


You can say the same of cars. You can say the same of the effects of alcohol. And I could go on and on. Guns aren't different than anything else.


Only in your paranoid mind.

Tell that to the 41,000 people killed in auto accidents in 2007.





I think you mean BYU.

No that's Mormon Kabul ;)

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:42 PM
The key word is "proper." The hard part is acknowledging that not everyone attains this, and deciding what the tradeoff should be between personal freedom and societal safety.

This just in (http://wonkette.com/443512/texas-5-year-old-injures-3-children-exercising-his-second-amendment-rights):

Texas Kindergartner Exercising 2nd Amendment Rights At School Hurts 3

operative
04-19-2011, 06:44 PM
This just in (http://wonkette.com/443512/texas-5-year-old-injures-3-children-exercising-his-second-amendment-rights):

So much straw.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:44 PM
You can say the same of cars. You can say the same of the effects of alcohol.

To repeat what I already said, I would be very happy indeed if guns were regulated the way cars are. And I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on alcohol use, as well.

And I could go on and on.

Or you could just admit you couldn't think of any other examples that weren't laugh-out-loud stupid.

Guns aren't different than anything else.

Already addressed above, by many of us. This is just wingnut mantra chanting.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:45 PM
So much straw.

Once again, an empty insult when you can't respond to data that contradicts your beliefs.

operative
04-19-2011, 06:45 PM
To repeat what I already said, I would be very happy indeed if guns were regulated the way cars are. And I'm pretty sure there are some restrictions on alcohol use, as well.



Or you could just admit you couldn't think of any other examples that weren't laugh-out-loud stupid.



Already addressed above, by many of us. This is just wingnut mantra chanting.

Come back when you're actually willing to discuss things instead of turning back to sophomoric responses.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:46 PM
Come back when you're actually willing to discuss things instead of turning back to sophomoric responses.

Says the clown who is firing off responses, instantly, to every post I put up.

operative
04-19-2011, 06:48 PM
Once again, an empty insult when you can't respond to data that contradicts your beliefs.

#Strawman
If BJ is being serious
BJ=unable to understand the pitfalls of using strawman arguments
Ignore post

Elseif Strawman
BJ=Intentionally using a strawman for trolling purposes
Ignore post.

Ah, the results converge. Equilibrium is reached.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 06:50 PM
#Strawman
If BJ is being serious
BJ=unable to understand the pitfalls of using strawman arguments
Ignore post

Elseif Strawman
BJ=Intentionally using a strawman for trolling purposes
Ignore post.

Ah, the results converge. Equilibrium is reached.

Why don't you ever follow your own pseudocode? You've promised to ignore me for a whole bunch of things, and so far, I've not seen this promise kept on any of them.

Will it help if I go back to telling you how Mr. Koch may someday pat you on the head for all of your parrot work?

operative
04-19-2011, 06:53 PM
Why don't you ever follow your own pseudocode? You've promised to ignore me for a whole bunch of things, and so far, I've not seen this promise kept on any of them.


Well I forgot this part of the pseudocode

If Bored
Engage BJKeefe or Florian

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 07:33 PM
Well I forgot this part of the pseudocode

If Bored
Engage BJKeefe or Florian

You should take up drinking.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 07:35 PM
Kudos to arch-conservative Republican governor Jan Brewer for finally refusing to cave in to the lunatic fringe of her party. Today she vetoed both the Birther Bill (http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-jan-brewer/2011/04/18/brewer-vetoes-birther-bill)and the Guns on College Campuses bill.

No limits in Lousiana (http://wonkette.com/443492/bobby-jindal-to-the-rescue-says-he-will-sign-birther-legislation), though!

Bobby Jindal To the Rescue: He Will Sign Birther Legislation

operative
04-19-2011, 07:37 PM
You should take up drinking.

I'm drinking some water as I type this.

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 07:41 PM
I'm drinking some water as I type this.

Clearly not working very well. You're still unable to keep your promises, I see.

operative
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
Clearly not working very well. You're still unable to keep your promises, I see.

Return to If Bored

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 07:49 PM
Return to If Bored

Why keep making promises you can't keep? Just makes you look even worse.

operative
04-19-2011, 07:51 PM
Why keep making promises you can't keep? Just makes you look even worse.

Geez if I keep up I may look as bad as you soon :o

(spelling corrected)

bjkeefe
04-19-2011, 08:06 PM
Geez if I keep up I make look as bad as you soon :o

You make look, all right.

operative
04-19-2011, 08:11 PM
You make look, all right.

Meh.