Blue State Alabama

I had the pleasure of attending a Republican Jewish Coalition in Birmingham, Alabama. Yes, there are Jews in Alabama, and no, they are not to the left of Leon Trotsky. Yet in what appeared to be the reddest of the red states, things were not as they seemed.

Mike Hubbard is the Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party. I can say two things with certainty after attending the event he was speaking.

First of all, his assistant is stunning. My lord her fella is one lucky man, and I do hope a free trade agreement can be worked out to export more of these republican southern belles to California in exchange for some of our Birkenstock wearing tree huggers.

Secondly, and more importantly, Alabama is not as red as people think. Yes, Governor Riley is a republican, as are both U.S. Senators. So is the Attorney General. So why can’t Alabama proceed at warp speed?

Because the legislature is blue…and I mean heavily blue. True, the last few years have seen republicans win seats in areas that democrats held captive since reconstruction. However, Alabama is democrat country in terms of their legislature.

Some would say this does not matter, because Alabama democrats are conservative, and not Massachussetts democrats. People who think this have never been to Alabama. For one, like many Mid-Atlantic and New England states, Alabama democrats are held hostage by powerful teachers unions. According to Mr. Hubbard, several democrats want to support the republicans on education reform, but the Alabama version of George Soros attends sessions and stares at them from the gallery. Sometimes this fellow will point to his nose to tell them to vote “no,” and point to his eyes to tell them to vote “aye.”

One key group that agrees with Alabama republicans but does not always help them is the Alabama business community. Business tends to favor republican policies, but businesspeople are always willing to put pragmatism above ideology. I wish liberal politician would do that once or twice. The business community sympathizes with republicans, but makes sure to give to democrats that are already in power. It is almost a form of blackmail, even though most people see it as politics as usual. THe business leaders can elect democrats who might do them some economic harm in terms of taxes, or they can refuse to donate, at which point they can be even more harmed if the democrats win again and come after them.

Sucess feeds on itself, and the only way the republican party in Alabama can break this cycle is by showing that they have te ability to take over the legislature. Until this appears imminent, businesspeople will hedge their bets. As Mr Hubbard put it, “Business likes us, but they won’t do our job for us. We have to do it ourselves.”

Another aspect of the people I met, and there were plenty of them at this function, was that they were not the “bible thumpers” they were made out to be. For one, social issues were not even mentioned, and nobody…not one person…asked about them during the question and answer session that followed. There was nothing about abortion or gay rights. Those discussions happen when a party is in power and control everything. When a party is out of power, and needs to be united, they focus on what republicans agree on, in this case lower taxes, less regulation, and more freedoms. Heavy on the minds of people was the corrupt teacher’s union.

Another issue dealt with the Presidential race. People want to win, and they are deathly afraid of Hillary in Alabama. When I asked people who they liked, they did not immediately gravitate towards Fred Thompson. Apparently not all southerners are the same, which blue staters might be interested in knowing. Several people mentioned Mike Huckabee as a likable guy, but that he was not going to win. What really might surprise some is that the name bandied about most in a positive light was Rudy Giuliani. Yes, the twice divorced, pro-choice blue state Mayor was seen as somebody who could beat Hillary. The people I met knew his positions. They simply did not care as much as they did about winning the War on Terror, and preventing socialized medicine. Those were the two reasons given for wanting him. Duncan Hunter also got a couple of positive mentions, but it was acknowledged that rooting for him was wishful thinking.

I am not saying Alabama is California. God forbid. Mr. Hubbard laughed when, after he thanked me for coming from California, I replied, “I apologize for the 75% of Californians you read about in the paper.”

The truth is, there is no such thing as a hopeless county. Every are in America is up for grabs in the sense that even if republicans do not win, they can force democrats to defend once reliably safe turf.

As Mr. Hubbard reaffirmed, “Alabama is a red state, but now we need to make it redder.”

As for those on both coasts who like to sneer at the deep south, and how dysfunctional they perceive it to be, just remember…the people trying to pass all the laws are still democrats, and have been for some time. True, there are people trying to change things for the better, and, as with most places, much like Alabama, they are republicans.

eric

57 Responses to “Blue State Alabama”

  1. Gayle says:

    It’s no surprise that those who are attempting to change things for the better are for the most part Republicans, Eric. The Democrats would take us down to a socialized hell, and from what I’ve been hearing, reading and posting, they’re doing a pretty good job of it already. Schwartzenegger signed SB777!

  2. Jersey McJones says:

    Eric,

    Were you expecting “Bible thumpers” at a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting?

    The irony of Alabama, of course, is that being a Red State probably holds it down and keeps it backwards and poor more than anything else. Here’s some facts:

    Alabama is more than a quarter black, but the lingering affects of segregation have squeezed these folks mainly into 11 counties, where they represent a majority of the population, and this reduces their political power and explains the Redness of the state.

    Alabama suffers widely disparate wealth, with counties reporting per capita income as low as 10, 000 and as high as 27,000. Very low over all, but widely disparate just the same. Needless to say, political power is concentarted in the wealthy counties. Some cities in Alabama have pci’s well under 10,000.

    Jews represent a tiny percentage of the population there. Alabama is exteremly religious and extremely Christian. Of course, you’re not going to see much Bible thumping at a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting, as it would be untoward, but in general it is a Christian identity that keeps the poor white vote with the Right. Hopefully, with a full quarter of Alabama’s population under 18, these youths will help to bring positive change in the future, but it’s hard to say.

    The future for Alabama? Well, it looks pretty much like the past. The Right mainatins some power by playing to the religious, but at the local level, the Dems should continue to accrue power. Gov Riley, seeing his state wallowing at the bottom and sensing a nascent displeasure with the pro-wealthy Right, has employed some rather liberal efforts and agendas recently. But being a Right to Work state, Alabama will continue to suffer poor schools and other poor institutions and sectors. So much for the unions.

    Alabama wil continue to be a Red State at the federal level, but at the local level, it will probably go more and more Left. The 2008 elections should be telling.

    JMJ

  3. laree says:

    Hey, I have family in Alabama, no they are not all backwards and bible thumpers…I lived in Alabama and I met many wonderful people of many ethnicities.

    You know there is a line in Sweet Home Alabama..to Neil Young…Southern Man don’t need you around any how. I spent time with people of all colors, and for the folks living on the Left coast and the NE., people from Alabama of color identify themselves as Southern, and they don’t really care for Yankees either. I was told by African Americans, that just because I was from Montana, didn’t make me a Northerner, that I should tell people when asked that I was from the West.
    The word in the South-Alabama is “Respect” if you give it, you get it, if not keep movin on. A very popular saying in the South.

    It ain’t the heat, it is the humidity, and it ain’t the hate, it is the stupidity.

  4. laree says:

    Eric,

    I don’t know where to post this but I have Senator Clinton news I thought you might interested in.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/15/imus-returns-will-avenge-hillary-s-shameless-exploitation-rutgers-con

  5. micky2 says:

    laree,
    Did you watch the lib clip off on the side ?
    How embarrassing, she needed a laugh track.
    Not to mention some stand up lessons.
    Yup, its still early, and I’ll bet theres alot in Hillarys closet that is being kept for last.
    And Imus will be sure to blow it out at the right time.

  6. Lord Nazh© says:

    Jersey: Alabama cannot go more to the left locally.

    Alabama has always been a Democrat state up to the Federal elections. Most local leaders are democrat, most people have been democrats since their great grandparents were democrat, yet most will and do vote Republican in federal elections.

    Why? 2nd Amendment mostly, Alabamians (like most southerners) have a high regard for the constituion (all of it) and take the right to bear arms very seriously. If you want to see a D win the state, have them campaign on the rights of the people.

  7. aurorawatcher says:

    Let us remember that the South was heavily Democrat since the Civil War. Like my grandfather who was a very conservative farmer who always voted Democrat, it isn’t about ideology there. My grandfather voted for FDR and then spent his entire administration grousing about his social policies, then turned around and voted for Truman and groused about the same things. Political viewpoint has little to do with politics in most rural areas. If your father was a Democrat, you’re expected to be a Democrat. It’s only been in the last few years that people have begun to question that — to look at the ideology of the Democrat party and the individual candidates and say “Hey, why am I voting for something I don’t believe in?”

    This is reflected in the presidential election because there is a misguided idea that national elections are more important than local elections. Many people actually pay attention to what the presidential candidate is saying and some pay attention to what the senators and congressmen are saying. When they get to the local level, they haven’t paid attention, so they vote for the D because it’s comfortable.

    That should change if conservative politicians become more adept at speaking to issues that voters care about. Yes, it matters whether white students and black students are treated differently, but not for the reasons most Democrats think. Republicans can and should be addressing that blacks and whites should be treated equally, which means no props because your great-greadfather was a slave. They need to be explaining why preferential treatment is bad for you in the long run.

    Once they accomplish that, I think you’re going to see “blue” states like Alabama become increasing “red”.

  8. Lord Nazh (that’s one helluva moniker),

    “Alabama cannot go more to the left locally.”

    I know. It is still heavily segregated.

    “Alabama has always been a Democrat state up to the Federal elections.”

    Yes, because it is still heavily segregated.

    “Most local leaders are democrat, most people have been democrats since their great grandparents were democrat, yet most will and do vote Republican in federal elections.”

    Yes… well, you get the point. What’s happening is that as younger white generations come, they will identify more with the GOP thans the Dems. Now, if this was 100 years ago – it would be just the opposite.

    “Why? 2nd Amendment mostly,”

    I know, “God, gays, and guns.” Bla, bla, bla….

    “Alabamians (like most southerners) have a high regard for the constituion (all of it) and take the right to bear arms very seriously. If you want to see a D win the state, have them campaign on the rights of the people.”

    Integrate the state, and you’d be hard pressed to have a real GOPer elected in anywhere but the rich local neighborhoods. Alabama has been districted to make sure that doesn’t happen. You should read about Alabama.

    Aurorawatcher, I don’t know what things are like on the North Pole, but here in the real world, people who care more about B.S. issues tend to be poor, very poor, ignorant, very ignorant, people.

    JMJ

    JMJ

  9. Mr. Fu says:

    Eric,

    I had not said where I live before, but next time you get down in these parts let me know beforehand. Dinner is on me, I’ll show you a little southern hospitality. I hope you received some while you were here.

    Yes, Alabama has problems. The poor schools are do to several factors, 1) lack of an education ethic in some areas that limits local funding of schools, 2) state level run school systems that steal money from communities that want and pay for better schools to give it to the areas that do not want to fund schools, 3) lack of educational choice, 4) powerful teacher’s union.

    Alabama does have some great things going for it, the presence of several high tech automotive manufacturing enterprises, and Huntsville, Alabama, this is Rocket City, USA, home of Werner von Braun and powerhouse of defense and technology industries. Other parts of the state are doing well too, but being local to Huntsville I am more keenly aware of our own advantages.

    Things continue to move to the Red end of the spectrum here. We have Bible thumpers (I am one myself), but many of us are highly educated, technically savvy, pro-military, copiously armed, and we don’t like Yankee b.s. We can set an ambushcade, shoot a deer, skin it, and calculate the ballistic co-efficient of the bullet. We may have one of the oddest mix of skills in the whole country, but we love America and will fight for freedom and the God given rights of anyone on the planet.

    Warmest Regards,

    Mr. Fu

  10. micky2 says:

    Jersey,
    Would you care to elaborate on your critique of Aurorawatcher ?

    What in his post would constitute as a BS issue ?

    You said;
    “people who care more about B.S. issues tend to be poor, very poor, ignorant, very ignorant, people.”

    Care to elaborate on this ?
    Or would you like to rephrase or rethink it ?

    The man was very educated ,congenial and precise in his statement and I found it to make all the sense in the world.
    He addressed a number of issues, which is it that claims ignorance and being poor ?

  11. Lord Nazh© says:

    Jersey, are you suggesting that we forcibly integrate the state? You do realize that most of the black population lives in the cities (like in most of the rest of the country) and we’d have to force them to move to other areas.

    Of course with a population around 11%, I’m not sure how you get from voting 60%+ Republican to voting Democrat (at the federal level) by moving some people.

    Remember, the WHOLE state votes in federal elections, no matter where they are.

    Is the whole thing with you and the south racism? Maybe you should come to the south and live in it awhile?

  12. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky,

    “What in his post would constitute as a BS issue?”

    I didn’t say there was. What I meant is that poor, white southern voters are often swayed by non-issues like abortion, gays, guns, etc… Educated people are usually above that sort of nonsense.

    Lord Nazh © (I love the copyright!),

    “Jersey, are you suggesting that we forcibly integrate the state?”

    No. We tried that already. It never really took.

    “Of course with a population around 11%, I’m not sure how you get from voting 60%+ Republican to voting Democrat (at the federal level) by moving some people.”

    Blacks are 25% of Alabama. Get your facts straight.

    “Remember, the WHOLE state votes in federal elections, no matter where they are.”

    No, districts vote, not the “whole state.” Again, get your facts straight.

    “Is the whole thing with you and the south racism?”

    The “whole thing?” No.

    “Maybe you should come to the south and live in it awhile?”

    I do. I live on the southern edge of the Bible Belt in central Florida.

    JMJ

  13. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;

    “I didn’t say there was. What I meant is that poor, white southern voters are often swayed by non-issues like abortion, gays, guns, etc… Educated people are usually above that sort of nonsense.”

    Would you be saying that poor people are less aware of the 2nd amendment ?
    I know some very educated people that do not for one second think this a BS issue.
    And how is it possible that abortion could ever be a none issue ?

    Sounds to me more like you are generalizing genuine concerns of intelligent middle class Americans as non issues.

    I see no connection or relevance to ignorance in finding these two issues only applicable to ignorant poor people

    What gives you the authority to describe what is VERY important to a majority of Americans as nonsense ?
    You may think its nonsense but I and the majority of this country most certainly do not.

    We have a lot of rich educated white people that think global warming is an important issue. But since I believe otherwise, does that make them poor and ignorant ?

  14. Micky,

    Jersey said;

    “Would you be saying that poor people are less aware of the 2nd amendment ?”

    Well, yes. That’s part of it. Firstly, they don’re really understand the
    nd Amendment, and secondly, it’s not really and issue. No one is trying to take their guns away.

    “I know some very educated people that do not for one second think this a BS issue.”

    I don’t know how much of that is true belief that there is an issue to be had, or that it makes a convenient marionette string to control dumber voters.

    “And how is it possible that abortion could ever be a none issue ?”

    Because it’s none of your business.

    “Sounds to me more like you are generalizing genuine concerns of intelligent middle class Americans as non issues.”

    Polls show that the middle class are more concered with the war, job security, the economy, immigration, education and healthcare than they are about pointless non-isses.

    Here’s one: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27949

    A “majority of Americans” don’t care about your silly non-issues.

    JMJ

  15. micky2 says:

    First of all jersey, you need to put your precious little poll in its proper perspective.
    The majority of poor ignorant white folk as you call them also think the war is priority #1.
    These would be the same decent honest people who make it there business when a life about to be ended has no voice.
    What are you? some kind of monster ?
    A life is a silly pointless non issue ? You’re a peice of work man.

  16. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;
    Well, yes. That’s part of it. Firstly, they don’re really understand the
    nd Amendment, and secondly, it’s not really and issue. No one is trying to take their guns away.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58009

    Threat to vets’ 2nd Amendment rights on hold
    Proposal could be used to deny gun ownership to Americans

    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: October 6, 2007
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

    An anchor has been attached to a proposal in the U.S. Senate that will slow down progress on the plan that could be used to permanently remove a person’s right to own a gun in the United States, according to an organization opposing the measure.

    Eric Pratt, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America, told WND that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has attached a “hold” to the plan, H.R. 2640, dubbed the “Veterans Disarmament Act,” which means that while the bill remains alive, its advance will be delayed considerably.

    Pratt’s group earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as “disarmament by diagnosis.”

    The Gun Owners also are being joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and now the American Legion.

    How many of our vets would be these poor ignorant white folk ?

    “The American Legion, the nation’s largest wartime veterans’ service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 …

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51508
    Posted: August 14, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

    Documents made available for the first time in the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., show there was an aggressive administration plan to attack the gun industry and impose new limits on citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    In Clinton’s handwriting at the top, there’s a note, “Bruce, See me re: this … has some good ideas for future.” ( that would be now)

    And Hillary will only be too glad to continue thid measure if elected.

  17. micky2 says:

    Well, it looks like I’m gonna have to do this in sections, cant post anything in its entirety

  18. micky2 says:

    http://volokh.com/posts/1192051881.shtml
    1. President Hillary Rodham Clinton strongly believes in gun control. (Consider that as Senator, she, unlike Senator Obama, actually voted against an appropriations rider to prevent federal funds from being used to fund gun confiscation during/after a natural disaster or similar emergency, even when the confiscation had no legal basis, or was formally prohibited by state law.)

    . 2. She can’t get 60 votes in the Senate to pass her domestic anti-gun proposals, much less the 2/3 support necessary for ratification of the new UN international gun control treaty. (Without U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. like John Bolton, a new U.N. gun control treaty is a certainty within a few years. Indeed, it is doubtful that any U.S. delegation can block the forthcoming Arms Trade Treaty.)

    3. The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, along with a reservation stating that the Covenant is not self-executing.

    4. United Nations Special Rapporteur Barbara Frey (a University of Minnesota law professor) has written a report for the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report has been adopted by the Human Rights Council’s subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which claims that the Report accurately describes existing mandatory international law.

    5. Under the report’s standards, U.S. gun control laws are in massive violation of the international law obligation (contained, inter alia, in the International Covenant) not to violate “the right to life.” For example, most states do not require a periodically-renewed license for the possession of handguns, and hardly any do so for long guns. All states allow ordinary citizens, and the police, to use deadly force against certain felonies (e.g., rape, arson, armed robbery, serious assaults), even when the person using deadly force does not believe that deadly force is necessary to save a life. Even New York City’s gun laws are deficient, for they allow licensed owners of rifles and shotguns to use their guns for any lawful purpose (e.g., target shooting, hunting, collecting, self-defense in the home) rather than only for a specified purpose. (For details, see pages 12-14 of my forthcoming article in the BYU Journal of Public Law, “The Human Right of Self-Defense.”)

    6. In collusion with the Clinton administration, a foreign government brings suit in before the World Court. The suit might be premised on the dangers to the foreign government’s nationals when they visit or work in the United States. The Clinton administration accepts the World Court’s jurisdiction.

    7. The World Court issues a ruling consistent with the standards of the UN Human Rights Council.

  19. micky2 says:

    Still think its a silly non issue for only poor ignorant white folk ?.
    That would probably be true if everyone saw gun ownwers as simple rednecks shooting squirrels like you do.

  20. Micky, you really need to condense more.

    “First of all jersey, you need to put your precious little poll in its proper perspective.
    The majority of poor ignorant white folk as you call them also think the war is priority #1.”

    Isn’t that exactly what I said, and in such order?

    Abortion is a non-issue. That is to say – it has no place in politics. It is a private, personal, ethical, moral, medical matter. And it is none of your business. I seriously doubt you’ll ever need an abortion, Micky.

    As for guns, it’s paranoid non-issue. No one wants to take your guns away. All some people, like myself, want is sensible rules and regulations, as expressly allowed by the constitution.

    Yes, I still think these are non-issues for the consumption of poor (and other classed), ignorant white folk, put upon them by sleazy polticians who really have little intention of “solving” these non-issues as that would ruin the value of their obfucation of the real issues that erstwhile distracted voters don’t understand.

    JMJ

  21. micky2 says:

    J said;
    Isn’t that exactly what I said, and in such order?
    Well since you dont know the answer and have to ask;
    No!, can you read your own writing ?

    “You said;
    As for guns, it’s paranoid non-issue. No one wants to take your guns away. All some people, like myself, want is sensible rules and regulations, as expressly allowed by the constitution.”

    You’re dreaming, and we are not talking about you on this issue.
    My links are countless on this issue, the left has always tried to take away gun rights, ALWAYS!
    Its not a paranoid non issue because you think so. Its a huge issue in this country.
    Whoever sways the NRA gets a huge amount of votes. As much as he has alienated them. This is why Giulianni was there a couple weeks ago. (looking like an idiot on the phone with his wife)
    You said;
    “Abortion is a non-issue. That is to say – it has no place in politics. It is a private, personal, ethical, moral, medical matter. And it is none of your business. I seriously doubt you’ll ever need an abortion, Micky.”

    Did this brainstorm statement actually come out of your mouth or…

    My daughter would not be here if I had not made it my business Jersey, so I suggest once and for all you start taking a closer look at what comes out of your mouth.
    That is quite possibly one of the dumbest most incensitive things I have ever heard !
    Just who the hell on Gods green earth do you think you are ?

    That was my child, a life ! It was ALL MY BUSINESS !!!!!

  22. Micky, you said, “No!, can you read your own writing ?” abou the war being the primary issue on the voters minds. Prior I specifically said, “Polls show that the middle class are more concered with the war, job security, the economy, immigration, education and healthcare than they are about pointless non-isses.” So, in way, you’re right. I hadn’t mentioned the poor. I would imagaine that the poor care about the war more than more other issues as well.

    “My links are countless on this issue, the left has always tried to take away gun rights, ALWAYS!”

    Nonsense. All the left wants is sensible regulations.

    “My daughter would not be here if I had not made it my business Jersey,…”

    You and your spouse (?) chose to have a baby, Micky. You didn’t just accidentally make one, did you? Again, abortion is none of your business. Ever.

    JMJ

  23. micky2 says:

    How do you know the details of my personal life, and how do you obtain the right to determine what is and is not my business ?
    20 years ago my daghters mom got pregnant without telling me and was going to have an abortion without my consent, It was my kid you jerk!
    I made it my business ! This was the third time she had done it ! And I was not going to take it anymore !
    Unlike the chicken crap left that seems to care so much about life I actually saved one by promising her that I would take care of the child no matter what.
    So kiss my ass !

    It may be your opinion that its none of my business.
    But how dare you climb on top of your judgemental heap of crap and dictate to anyone what their business is. ?
    YOU’RE VIEW IS FEMINIST !
    It also does not take the man into account at all. Just because he doesn’t carry the child, does that mean that the child is any less his, and that he shouldn’t have any say in whether or not the child makes it outside of the womb? Abortion doesn’t allow for the father in any way, shape or form. This is wrong.

    So spare me (once again) oh great harvester of all knowledge your holier than thou crap !

  24. micky2 says:

    I said;
    My links are countless on this issue, the left has always tried to take away gun rights, ALWAYS!”

    You said;
    Nonsense. All the left wants is sensible regulations.”

    Once again folks ! Pay close attention here !
    Jersey McJones has said that my facts , links and documents are ” nonsense”

    But of course we all must take his word for it because his opinion carries more weight than the facts !

    Please sroll to the top of the top of the page so you can see what the great McJones calls nonsense just because he cant believe it !

  25. micky2 says:

    You said:
    “Aurorawatcher, I don’t know what things are like on the North Pole, but here in the real world, people who care more about B.S. issues tend to be poor, very poor, ignorant, very ignorant, people.
    What I meant is that poor, white southern voters are often swayed by non-issues like abortion, gays, guns, etc… Educated people are usually above that sort of nonsense.”

    After showing you that you were wrong you also asked me to condense. Very well , here goes.

    Jersey thinks that the folks who are concerned with abortion and guns are nothing more than a bunch of incestial rednecks high on crank who run around , shoot squirrels and make babies so they can collect welfare instead of finishing school. And are too dumb to even care about our countrys security.

    I guess when I opinionate without facts I can condense pretty well, just like you !
    Right Jersey ?

  26. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, the left only wants “sensible regulations” on firearms? Does “the rights of the people” mean an individual right or a collective right? And abortion is not a male issue? Last time I checked it takes two to tango, and the guy has no say on whether he pays or not if the woman wants the child but he does not, or whether he wants the child but she does not. Is it reasonable that only one party gets to decide the issue but the other party must always pay? That is a bit like me getting to decide whether you will make my mortgage payment or not. Hmmm, let’s see, I want to keep my house, so sure, Jersey, you pay it! But you don’t get to live here….

  27. Lord Nazh© says:

    jersey: districts (federal) vote on house reps, but the state (whole) votes on POTUS and Senate seats, hence no change in the vots for Senate or POTUS if you move the ‘around’ 11% (yes you said 25%, I didn’t state mine as a ‘fact’ so sue me, k?) you will still end up with 60%+ R votes on STATE votes for federal elections.

    You could move plenty of black people around and end up losing some D votes in the House though, or you could gerrymander districts to take advantage of a pool of voters to get more D votes in. That’s what currently happens.

  28. For my point of view on abortion, please visit my latest post on my site today.

    Micky,

    “…how do you obtain the right to determine what is and is not my business?”

    You are not a woman, therefore abortion is none of your business.

    “20 years ago my daghters mom got pregnant without telling me and was going to have an abortion without my consent, It was my kid you jerk!
    I made it my business ! This was the third time she had done it ! And I was not going to take it anymore !
    Unlike the chicken crap left that seems to care so much about life I actually saved one by promising her that I would take care of the child no matter what.”

    That’s all well and fine, Micky. But it still wasn’t your choice. You simply convinced her to have the child. That’s very nice, but not relevent to the point.

    “So kiss my ass !”

    No thank you. And you shouldn’t ask men to kiss your ass, lest you find yourself in Larry Craig’s tapping shoes.

    “It may be your opinion that its none of my business.
    But how dare you climb on top of your judgemental heap of crap and dictate to anyone what their business is. ?”

    One’s “business” are matters that are their’s. You are a man, therefore, abortion is not a matter that will ever be your’s.

    “YOU’RE VIEW IS FEMINIST !”

    Yes, I suppose it is. Got a problem with that?

    “It also does not take the man into account at all. Just because he doesn’t carry the child, does that mean that the child is any less his, and that he shouldn’t have any say in whether or not the child makes it outside of the womb?”

    I believe that once a fetus is sentient and viable, and preferably earlier than that, then it should be considered a child. Before then, it is no more a child than a seed is a tree, or a tadpole is a frog, or a spore is a mushroom. Once the status of child is asserted, then both parents should be responsible for that child’s well-being. I think that’s fair and ethical.

    “Abortion doesn’t allow for the father in any way, shape or form. This is wrong.”

    It doesn’t allow for rapists either.

    “Jersey thinks that the folks who are concerned with abortion and guns are nothing more than a bunch of incestial rednecks high on crank who run around , shoot squirrels and make babies so they can collect welfare instead of finishing school. And are too dumb to even care about our countrys security.”

    No. I think that the “God, gays, and guns” crowd are simply people who have been diverted from serious poltiical issues to silly apolitical issues. if anything, the crowd you mentioned tend to be hypersensitive to securiyty and defense issues.

    Mr. Fu,

    “Jersey, the left only wants “sensible regulations” on firearms? Does “the rights of the people” mean an individual right or a collective right?”

    Does the word “regulated” mean anythingl? How about the word “militia”?

    All rights have limits, and the right to bear arms happens to be the only right in the constitution the specifies it’s regulation. The Founding Fathers weren’t stupid enough to allow for completely unregulated armament of the people.

    “And abortion is not a male issue?”

    Not unless you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Junior.”

    “Last time I checked it takes two to tango,…”

    And one to carry a child.

    “…and the guy has no say on whether he pays or not if the woman wants the child but he does not, or whether he wants the child but she does not.”

    I thought it took “two to Tango,” no? The man knows the risks.

    “Is it reasonable that only one party gets to decide the issue but the other party must always pay?”

    The woman doesn’t pay?

    “That is a bit like me getting to decide whether you will make my mortgage payment or not.”

    No, it’s not like that at all. In fact, that’s about the most inane analogy I’ve ever read!

    Lord Nazh©,

    “You could move plenty of black people around and end up losing some D votes in the House though, or you could gerrymander districts to take advantage of a pool of voters to get more D votes in. That’s what currently happens.”

    At twenty-five percent of the population, I think you’d see a lot more Dems federally if that population could safely disperse.

    JMJ

  29. micky2 says:

    Jerset says;
    “You are not a woman, therefore abortion is none of your business.”

    You still (as always) fail to address the issue that it is not about the woman alone,
    It is about a part of myself being tossed as much as it is an issue about the womans body.

    You said;
    That’s all well and fine, Micky. But it still wasn’t your choice. You simply convinced her to have the child. That’s very nice, but not relevent to the point.

    It was all my choice and hers. Convincing her was not as simple (as much as you think you know everything as usual)
    And dont be a smart ass OK ? Its all relevent Sherlock !
    My daughter is alive and well and grateful as can be.
    The point is that men have a say so in their childs future when the point is discussed with intelligent rational people, who believe that taking care of a child is where the real work is at. Not a couple hours of labor or 9 months carrying.
    I took care of that lady for 9 months and made sure she and the baby were well cared for during the whole pregnancy, it was as the mother said : more work for me than it was for her.
    It is ALL my business when its my kid Jersey ! Whether you thinkk so or not.
    And once again, NOT BECAUSE YOU SAY SO O GREAT ONE !

  30. micky2 says:

    Heres where you just shot yourself in the foot.

    You say repeatedly that abortion is non of my business because I’m not a woman.
    And then you contradict yourself and say this;
    believe that once a fetus is sentient and viable, and preferably earlier than that, then it should be considered a child.
    “Once the status of child is asserted, then both parents should be responsible for that child’s well-being. I think that’s fair and ethical.”

    How can it not be my business and at the same time I have to be responsable ?
    DUH ? Please, see if you can BS your way out of that one.

    Both parents should be responsable for the child, and you believe it is a child once it is viable (who determines viability Jersey ? You?) So if an abortion becaiomes an issue I am so supposed to just shut up and back out all of a sudden and not be responasable any more ?

    And the rapist line was simply just laughable and dumb, flat out dumb and has little to with the ethics and morals we are talking about.
    The statement really reflects on your limited imagination on how feebly you try to get around your idiotic points

    You must really deal with your own confusion before you should ever even have the gumption to open your mouth on this subject.

  31. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;
    “No. I think that the “God, gays, and guns” crowd are simply people who have been diverted from serious poltiical issues to silly apolitical issues”

    I’m not really concerned too much with the gay issue.
    But the majority of the country is concernrd with the gun and abortion issue. Both have been upfront and huge in our country for decades.
    So I guess the elitest Jersey who is such a great judge of peoples priorities and what they should concerned with thinks that most of the country is misguided because they already stand a position on the war but can actually worry about more than one thing at a time. Including the lefts persistant effort to chip away at our second amendment for decades now untill as some leftist would have it , cops wont even have guns!

    Oh I forgot . You said;
    No thank you. And you shouldn’t ask men to kiss your ass, lest you find yourself in Larry Craig’s tapping shoes.

    Oh man, ease up on the snotty ” Valley girl” high school humor.
    And the offer still stands.
    You insult the integrity of a real man who does not hide behind feminist agendas.

    And yea, I do have problem with feminist men, they are ass kissers who pander to dominating women by trying to act like some sort of metrosexual sensitive elite goody two shoes. They contadict themselves by telling me that abortion is non of my business, but make it their business to kiss the asses of feminist who need support on a warped perception of the whole issue.

  32. “…you still (as always) fail to address the issue that it is not about the woman alone,”

    Yes it is. Until men can carry babies, abortion will be a woman’s choice alone.

    “It was all my choice and hers.”

    No, it was only hers. You had no legal or ethical right to force her to have a baby.

    “The point is that men have a say so in their childs future,”

    But not in women’s bodies’ futures.

    “How can it not be my business and at the same time I have to be responsable ?”

    Abortion is none of your business. Your child is. And embryo is not a child.

    “And the rapist line was simply just laughable and dumb, flat out dumb and has little to with the ethics and morals we are talking about.”

    Well, per your argument, wouldn’t a rapist have a say?

    “But the majority of the country is concernrd with the gun and abortion issue.”

    No, they’re not. Look it up.

    “And yea, I do have problem with feminist men, they are ass kissers who pander to dominating women by trying to act like some sort of metrosexual sensitive elite goody two shoes. They contadict themselves by telling me that abortion is non of my business, but make it their business to kiss the asses of feminist who need support on a warped perception of the whole issue.”

    Any man who is not a feminist is not much of a man in my book.

    JMJ

  33. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, you obviously need a lesson in the phrasing of English dependent and independent clauses. Plus additional reading of period commentary clearly indicates the the Founding Fathers meant for individual citizens to be armed at the level of a military so if they so desired they could form a militia.

    As for your opinion as to who is a man or not, it is entirely irrelevant. No real man gives a damn about another’s opinion of his manhood, so I find it interesting that you keep injecting this into the discussion. Are you looking for validation of your manhood? And since you seem capable of only posing and not consideration of an argument, your opinions (since you also seem to have few ‘facts’) can be disregarded as well. Perhaps I would change my mind if you stopped speaking in other than platitudes.

  34. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;
    Yes it is. Until men can carry babies, abortion will be a woman’s choice alone

    This may be your opinion, but because you say so makes no difference in any arena.
    You already shot yourself in the foot on this and neber returned a reply that backed up a contradiction or explained your double standard.
    As follows;

    You say repeatedly that abortion is non of my business because I’m not a woman.
    And then you contradict yourself and say this;
    believe that once a fetus is sentient and viable, and preferably earlier than that, then it should be considered a child.
    “Once the status of child is asserted, then both parents should be responsible for that child’s well-being. I think that’s fair and ethical.”

    How can it not be my business and at the same time I have to be responsable ?
    DUH ? Please, see if you can BS your way out of that one.

    I’m still waiting for you to explain how I am responsable on one end but have no say so on the same and other end.

    You also said;
    No, it was only hers. You had no legal or ethical right to force her to have a baby.

    Since when do you determine or tell me what is ethical o great one ?
    And where on Gods green earth do you assume the knowledge of whether I forced her or not ?
    I explained to her everything I have told you and she was smart enough to see that it wasnt aboout hers or my rights but the rights of a life that cannot speak for itself.
    (we are christians, and we answer to a higher authority than you and your scientific rationale)

    You said;
    But not in women’s bodies’ futures.

    Once again , there is more than one future at stake. But as usual the big picture it seems will never fit into a narrow line of vision such as yours. And when a woman spreads her legs, if she has any class she will be accountable to the repercussions for all involved.

    You said;
    Abortion is none of your business. Your child is. And embryo is not a child.

    You are ignorant.
    An embryo is not a fetus.
    An embryo has not been met with the other half that gives it life and makes it a fetus.
    At that point it is a child in progress. It is at that point a potential life in constant progression, It is alive and growing just as much in the womb as it is outside. It has oficially begun the process of life to death, it is growing. Life forms grow.
    Embryos do not. From the time of conception it is a fetus.

    Your rapist arguement is still pathetically weak and quite frankly retarded.
    We are talking about consenting adults making future choices with the understanding that sex was not forced.
    So stop with the ridiculously insane comparison.

    You said;
    No, they’re not. Look it up.

    I did that already and you didnt like it or cant read.
    And once again and for all , when are you going to get it ?
    If you make the claim, it is incumbent upon you to do the research and prove it !
    I do not do research to prove your idiotic claims, that’s your job.
    I did my research to back up my claim !
    GOT IT ?

    You said;
    Any man who is not a feminist is not much of a man in my book.

    Your book was written by a feminist, and not by you.

  35. Mr Fu,

    “Jersey, you obviously need a lesson in the phrasing of English dependent and independent clauses. Plus additional reading of period commentary clearly indicates the the Founding Fathers meant for individual citizens to be armed at the level of a military so if they so desired they could form a militia.”

    You’f be a Fu-l to think I’m not educated in history and English. I am, and it should be obvious to any educated person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with my opinions. The SCOUTS agrees with my opinion, by the way, and most always have – Republican and Democrat appointees alike.

    “Are you looking for validation of your manhood?”

    A man who espouses the values of of the rights of women is not validating his manhood – he is validating the humanity of women. The man who rails against the rights of women is the man who has issues with his manhood.

    Micky,

    I said, “Once the status of child is asserted, then both parents should be responsible for that child’s well-being. I think that’s fair and ethical.”

    “How can it not be my business and at the same time I have to be responsable ?”

    An embryo is not a child. I think I already said that.

    “Since when do you determine or tell me what is ethical o great one ?”

    Ethics set objective standards of behavior. Forcing a woman to carry an embryo to term strikes me as unethical.

    “And where on Gods green earth do you assume the knowledge of whether I forced her or not ?”

    I didn’t. You just missed the point.

    “You are ignorant.”

    You are an internet punk.

    “An embryo is not a fetus.
    An embryo has not been met with the other half that gives it life and makes it a fetus. … From the time of conception it is a fetus.”

    That is the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You have no clue about reproduction, do you? Unbelievable. I can’t believe a grown man in America would say something so outrageously wrong.

    “We are talking about consenting adults making future choices with the understanding that sex was not forced.”

    And you know this because…?

    JMJ

  36. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, since you are so versed in English and history please dissect the 2nd Amendment and explain the dependent and independent clauses if you please. Please explain how the language of this Amendment, in context given the contemporary comments of Adams, Mason, Jefferson,and Henry, does not imply an individual right to keep and bear arms. Please cite the references where the Supreme Court has held that the phrase “the right of the people” in teh Constitution does not imply an individual right.

  37. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;
    Ethics set objective standards of behavior. Forcing a woman to carry an embryo to term strikes me as unethical.

    What are you ? Stuck on stupid ?
    For the second time, I never forced anyone ! GOT IT !

    You said.
    You are an internet punk.

    Who repeatedly has shown you to be wrong with facts documents and proof.
    You only have opinions and “because I say so”
    I could care less what you call me.
    My mission is only to prove you wrong every chance I get.
    My mission is to use you as an example of everything that is wrong with America.
    My mission is to make you look bad, and its easy, I enjoy it.

    Ignorant is to ignore, this is what you do.

    You said;
    “We are talking about consenting adults making future choices with the understanding that sex was not forced.”

    And you know this because…?

    I was there and you werent?

    Oh ! wait a minute , that right ! You know for a fact how many women I’ve had ! Remember ? So you must know how our conversation went, right ?

    it is called an embryo from the moment of fertilisation until the end of the 8th week of gestational age, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.

    I stand corrected on the term, unlike you , I admitt mistakes.
    Although an embryo is still not a fetus, I was late on the germination, O.K?
    But the fact still remains that it is a child at the 6th to the 8th week
    Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain wave activity at about the 6th week. The heart will begin to beat around the same time.

    And so for the third time now, you said;
    “Once the status of child is asserted, then both parents should be responsible for that child’s well-being. I think that’s fair and ethical.”

    WE ASSERTED, NOT YOU JERSEY , GOT IT ?
    You cannot lay claim to the code of ethics and conduct in my personal relationships.
    No matter what you think is right or wrong.

    WE did not approach this from the simple base of just the mothers and my rights.
    We made a moral judgement based on the consideration for a living thrining being that had no voice and we leaned on the side of life instead of banging on our chest about our rights.
    This would be consisderd three dimensional thinking which I will not explain to you because you have shown that you are incapable of GETTING IT!
    This might define you as an ignorant punk

  38. Jersey McJones says:

    Mr. Fu,

    As much as I enjoy homework, and as much I as you may think yourself a professor, I’ll play a long a little.

    “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.”

    Okay.

    If the purpose of the right to bear arms is to maintain the security of the state with a regulated militia, the question is begged: What is a well-regulated militia? In US v Miller the SCOTUS set the boundaries:

    “The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power – To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” (http://www.awesomelibrary.org/guncontrol.html)

    The next question then would be, how so is it necessary to the security of the state?

    The SCOTUS ruled that a sawed-off shotgun did not fit the definition of an arm necessary for the security of the state, and that Miller himself was not a part of the state “militia.”

    The Founders did not foresee permanent standing armies in America. They envisioned a citizens militia that could be called to duty when needed (needless to say, they must be rolling in their graves with what the hawks have been up to since the end of WWII). Disarming of citizens has been a constant in our history – from the sign at the tavern telling people to remove their pistols, to the courtrooms and halls in which weapons were disallowed. Criminal law has long allowed disarmament of people who have otherwise paid their debt to society. And just as we’ve had (and still have) “Dry Counties,” there were plenty of locales in our history that outright banned arms among most residents.

    Later decisions watered Miller down a bit, but the basic standard remains – there are limits to all rights.

    The trouble with the Second Amendment is that it infers that a right is both unfringable and regulated. The 2nd is flawed, indeed. “Activist” judges, whom I assume we both agree with, have found room in the interpretation of the 2nd to allow for a much broader interpretation of the “militia,” being most all citizens, for the most part, but not all the time and everywhere, and not for every possible arm.

    Just the same, all rights have limits, and the right to bear arms should have lmits as well.

    JMJ

  39. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, what part of the assignment about figuring out which clause was which, and how the SCOTUS interprets “the right of the people” didn’t you get? I am afraid you get a big zero on this quiz.

  40. Jersey McJones says:

    Mr. Fu, I’m afraid you are not up to snuff here. Your question is insipid. And if you think the physical order of clauses in a sentence determines subject and object, then you are illiterate. Your “assignment” is stupid.

    JMJ

  41. Mr. Fu says:

    To provide the answer, if you are grading yourself at home, the dependent clause is “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” The independent clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Jersey, since you are unable or unwilling to answer a this question about English grammar for which you state you are quite educated about, then there seems little point in attempting to continue with you. I do not think actual argument or discussion will change your mind. I have yet to receive an answer to the questions that might persuade me to change mine. But name calling is not going to cut it.

    If I have somehow disrespected you, Jersey, I apologize. With nothing here to accomplish I will bow out at this point as I have more constructive uses of my time.

  42. Jersey McJones says:

    Fu, you got it backwards. Jeez man. LOL!!! How the heck does someone who can mention dependent and independent clauses get them backwards??? OMG!!! Dude – you’re a joke! “The right” is dependent on the “Militia”! Not the other way around! LOL! Holy Moly! Have you ever even read a single SCOTUS decision??? Man ‘o man!

    JMJ

  43. Mr. Fu says:

    Which clause is a complete sentence?

  44. micky2 says:

    He wont answer you, he cant.

  45. Mr. Fu says:

    Yes, I am in pretty good company on this: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3230 and http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html for example.

    Jersey, I am curious, do you have a degree? If so, in which field or fields?

    BTW micky2, I like your web site. I especially appreciate your insight into the restaurant business. I have been fascinated with that over the last few years. Tough business to be in, at least around here.

    So much for more constructive uses of my time. I consider this a break though. Writing proposals, eck.

  46. Braden says:

    Despite our legislature, Alabama is making very impressive progress towards becoming a much more Red State. We have a Republican governor that go re-elected by a substantial margin and we’ve gone for Republican Presidential candidates for as long as I can remember.

    Democrats are having more and more difficulty winning the elections they’ve always won in Alabama. Our citizens are beginning to see that the corruption our state has had to deal with over the past several decades is the result of Democrats being in office, especially after idiots like former Democratic governor Don Siegelman have been convicted of felonies.

    Things are changing for the better in my state. It’s NOT left-wing. Also, you have to keep in mind that an Alabama Democrat isn’t the same as a national Democrat. Many Democrats in Alabama are pro-gun and pro-life, which makes an unusual dynamic.

    I’ve lived in Alabama all my life and I’ve seen the old Democratic power structure gradually erode while the Alabama GOP is achieving more and more success. We have the greatest governor in our history that is doing things for our state that we never dreamed were possible. If anything, we’re purple. We’re definitely not blue anymore.

  47. Mr Fu, you have the literary prowess of a fifth grader.

    “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.”

    The directive of the right and the purpose of the directive is the well regulated militia. That’s how the SCOTUS ruled in Miller. As I said, “activist” judges have since watered that down, but you know how that goes – rightwingers only selectively see constitutional flexibility.

    Do yourself a favor – don’t ever try to get on the Supreme Court. You’d just embarrass yourself. Keep your day job. 😉

    JMJ

  48. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, why don’t you answer the question? Are your grammatical skills such that you are not smarter than a fifth grader? I repeat, which is the independent and which is the dependent clause?

  49. Jersey McJones says:

    Mr Fu, I did answer the question. You’re just being a smarty-pants. There is more to a sentence than grammatical dependence. The SCOTUS knew this. Any read person knows this. You can not just ignore phrtases and clauses of the constitution because it suits you. And you can not just ignore other grammatical and rhetorical devices for some arbitrary hierachy of grammatical rules. Clause dependence is not relevent to this subject. Directives and purposes of the subject are key to understanding that sentence.

    Look, what do you think the significance of ” well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” means? Do you think it’s meaningless because it is grammatically dependent on the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?” Do you think it should just be ignored? Can you not understand that while grammatically the clause is dependent, rhetorically it’s the other way around? If I say to you, “In order to clean the house, you must buy a broom,” you should just go out and buy a broom but not clean the house?

    Please. You sound like a wise-@ss little child.

    JMJ

  50. Mr. Fu says:

    So finally you answer the question and reverse yourself from Comment #42. You make many poor assumptions about how I go about analyzing an issue. See the references at comment #45 for a complete discusssion of the wording of the Amendment and what it means.

    Your name calling does not add any substance to your position.

  51. Jersey McJones says:

    Mr Fu, I dismantled your petty argument with my simple analogy: “If I say to you, “In order to clean the house, you must buy a broom,” you should just go out and buy a broom but not clean the house?” The grammatical dependence is irrelevent.

    You’re beat. Live to fight another day. And better luck next time.

    JMJ

  52. micky2 says:

    Nobody beat anyone.

    This arguement on the 2nd has always been in place because of the two perspectives you guys hold.

    There wasn’t any debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment in 1789 because the Founders intended it to protect an individual right and they also understood that “everyone” was part of the “militia”.

    You cannot have a militia without at least 3 individuals or more.
    As the militia is disbanded the individual right still exists

  53. Jersey McJones says:

    Hey, Micky – once agan you’ve proven your intellectual prowess! (Why the hell aren’t you a lib?) Touche! On the other hand, if the “militia” was disbanded, then why does Bush need them to fight his war in Iraq? Is not the National Guard the Miller version of modern militia?

    JMJ

  54. micky2 says:

    The second has always been an ambiguous amendment.
    Once again you ask something that has nothing to do with the price of tea in china.

    I never said it was disbanded.
    it was hypothetical.
    Refering to the fact that the militia and the individual exist for the sake of each other.
    Individuals make up the militia.
    If their is no need for a militia it will disband and the individual is still garaunteed his right to bear arms.
    In case the moonbats try to take over , each individual will have his own arms so as to be able to unit and conglomerate for a cause.
    That would be moonbat hunt.
    Might even bring along Ted nugent, show him your picture.

    You’re shooting blanks in the dark again man, I wont fall for it.

  55. Mr. Fu says:

    Jersey, your analogy makes no sense, I have carpeting. But it does illustrate that cleaning house requires some sort implements, and that a broom is one possible implement. You could construct the analogy such that brooms were required for cleaning house, at least in some odd legal sense, i.e. modifying how a house should be cleaned. In the same way the Militia clause modifies the right clause in stating that the right references must at least include Militia level weapons. The Founding Fathers could have specified a right to keep and bear swords, but they stated arms, and they specified that the arms should be military grade.

    I write this knowing full well that this is an exercise of wrestling a pig in a mud hole….

  56. Jersey McJones says:

    Mr. Fu, you just shot down your own argument. My anaogy was perfect! Show me where it was wrong! And if you think that the constructionist view would be “military grade weapons” then you’d be driving to work in an M1 Abrams everyday! That would be insane!

    Micky’s right. The 2nd is a very vague amendment, as is much of the constitution. It is open to reasonably reflexive interpretation over time. Look, I’m a lib, but the last thing I’d want would be to take away everyone’s guns, or ban hunting or recreational shooting. But there have to be some reasonable regulations, and “regulated” happens to appear in that particular amendment right.

    It’s a non-issue. A BS issue invented to keep your eyes off the prize.

    JMJ

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.