Dec 22 2012
06:24 am

They want power and money. Why is it okay to support the NRA as a defender of gun rights but it is not okay to support unions as defenders of workers? The NRA wants to embed more guns into our daily lives. They want to train school guards for our 99,000 schools across the country.

“There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus [Columbine], and you see what happened — 15 dead,” Ms. Feinstein [Democratic Senator, California] said.

Will we once again rollover? Will our apathy allow this to happen?

WhitesCreek's picture

If more guns make us safer

If more guns make us safer why did the NRA ban guns from its press conference? They are nothing more than chickenshit shills for weapons dealers, spewing bile and paranoia.

fischbobber's picture

Buying judges

You have to give them credit. They were smart enough to buy a judge who would base his ruling on the definitions contained in this book.


Isn't it odd, that the treatise that changed two hundred years of constitutional law is so obscure, that the reprint isn't even guaranteed to be free from flaws?

onetahiti's picture

An aside: Reprints of old books often have errors

The reprint's disclaimer is fairly typical, even for important old books of historical interest. :(

Since 2005, has made old history-related books and documents available free online in full text, annotated and fully searchable. However, the work of republishing each old book is considerable, essentially a labor of love.

Just a plain OCR of a scanned book tends to contain much more gibberish than one would hope. Even with modern tools such as spellcheckers, it is necessary to hand-type much of each page, then hand-check everything for accuracy. Even so, errors can still be overlooked. :(

-- OneTahiti

fischbobber's picture

The texts

The point I was trying to make is that Scalia's entire argument boiled down to an interpretation of the perforatary clause. He defined that clause by using out of print and somewhat obscure historical grammarical references that were valid neither to the time of the framers nor the time of the interpretation. It seemed to be an example of finding sources to fit an opinion as opposed to basing an opinion on historical rulings of constitutional law.

This is not to say that I place no value on historical texts, indeed I have some in my personal stacks, I'm just not in the habit of quoting obscure information from out of print texts as common knowledge that will become the basis for how society deals with its most vexing problems.

I find Scalia's argument poorly constructed and a stretch from reality.

EricLykins's picture

Dead or Alive: Originalism as

Dead or Alive: Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller
"The majority presents this account as the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, yet draws upon evidence that may incorporate understandings that emerge long after the founding."

Also, "In practice, originalism appears to be a species of popular constitutionalism. "

fischbobber's picture

In short

Are you saying I am not alone in my opinion?

EricLykins's picture

Yes, and you didn't have to

Yes, and you didn't have to be a Yale Law School professor to come to the same conclusion!

reform4's picture

Quick numbers and Unfunded Mandates

100,000 schools
~ 3 resource officers at each one (just to give you 2.5 given time off, sick leave, etc)
x $50,000 for salary, training, equipment

= $15 BILLION per year

Now, I would suggest we embrace the NRA's proposal, contingent on a new tax on gun sales to pay for it. Based on roughly 15 million new gun sales per year, that would be a $1000 tax on each gun sale.

My suggestion would be to pro-rate that by gun type, so maybe only $500 for a home-defense or true sport weapon (non-military shotgun, bolt-action rifle), $800 for a handgun, and $10,000 for AR-15s and the like.

Let's embrace the NRA's suggestion in this manner. And maybe, using Chris Rock's logic, a 50-cent-per-round ammunition tax.

fischbobber's picture


Not to make light of this situation but in Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" the catch was this.

Insane pilots were not allowed to fly combat missions. The definition of insanity was anyone crazy enough to fly a combat mission, BUT, the only was to act upon this clause was for the pilot to ask that it be invoked, however, once the pilot asked to be declared insane he showed reasonable concern for his well being and thereby proved his sanity.

In Heller vs. D.C. (or vica versa) the catch is that the local governments are in charge of regulating their own militias to provide order and safety but they're not allowed to regulate their own gun owners because gun ownership is now an individual right not tied to being in a militia.

Every time we let this Heller guy come up with something it turns out to be bizarre.

reform4's picture


"You don't like bigots, bullies, snobs or hypocrites. Subconsciously there are many people you hate."

"Consciously, sir, consciously...I hate them consciously."

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Personally, I support the placement of armed School Resource Officers in schools. As the NYT reports, about 1/3 of all schools nationally (and locally, I believe) already have SROs on staff, virtually all of whom enjoy strong, positive relationships with the students who are their charges. What I don't support is armed volunteers, to include teachers and/or administrators.

But yeah, it's offensive that the NRA promoted armed SROs, decried inadequate treatment for mental illness, and dissed violence in media, but wouldn't give an inch on the "need" for assault weapons in the hands of the general citizenry.

Sure seems to me that there are lots of preventive changes we could make, and we should enact every last one of them.

bizgrrl's picture

“There were two armed law

“There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus [Columbine], and you see what happened — 15 dead,” Ms. Feinstein [Democratic Senator, California] said.

I think the discussion should go past armed School Resource Officers. They can't be at every entrance at all the times.

EricLykins's picture

What do they want? "This is

What do they want?
"This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking questions today.”

I think the implied "shut the hell up" is pretty clear, but I don't plan on it.

Rachel's picture

What do they want? Absolute

What do they want? Absolute power.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


I think the discussion should go past armed School Resource Officers.

Completely agree that SROs (but not armed volunteers, teachers, or administrators) are just part of the fix needed.

I've been arguing with folks at the KNS site for a week that their insistence that the assault weapons ban didn't "lower the crime rate" really misses the point.

The fact remains that assault weapons have been the weapons of choice in virtually every mass shooting, it's mass shootings that are the topic of conversation recently, and their side simply hasn't offered any rationale for why the general citizenry "needs" these particular weapons.

To the folks who insist that reinstating the ban would constitute an abridgement of their Second Amendment rights, I've reminded 'em that they're denied grenades, bombs, and "yellowcake" uranium, too, and that our rights outlined in the Constitution are never absolute.

I even met up with a former Marine yesterday who posited that there really aren't that many people who die in mass shootings, anyway, and that as many die in swimming pool accidents! Wow!

We should do everything that we can do to alleviate this problem and it's perfectly obvious to me that that includes curtailing availability of the weapons most often used in mass shootings.

EricLykins's picture

The wins for home

The wins for home self-defense in D.C. and Chicago were not necessarily wins for the libertarian Mad 193

Heller holds that government cannot deprive citizens of traditional weapons of self-defense, but may ban civilian use of military weapons, even if this means that the right to bear arms may no longer be effectively exercised for the republican purpose of resisting tyranny that the prefatory clause discusses

Scalia, in the Heller majority opinion:"modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right

A friend of mine is currently arguing before the ninth circuit that the right to self-defense extends beyond the home as well (audio here,) but I didn't hear any mentions of AR-15s.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


BTW, the kid pictured in yesterday's KNS article entitled Knox gun sales see surge, who's getting some help installing the Knight's Armament rail system on his Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle, is a junior at Powell High School.

Unless he were held back a grade in years past (which I don't recall), he's the same age as my son, namely 16 or 17.

Current law says it's none of my beeswax, but I don't understand why a parent would buy his or her minor child an assault rifle, whether or not the child enjoys "target shooting."

Tamara Shepherd's picture


...were not necessarily wins for the libertarian Mad Maxes, page 193.

Eric, I'm not understanding where you're directing us in this last link?

It looks like the linked document is 55 pages long, so where is this "page 193?"

(Interesting background info. Thanks.)

EricLykins's picture

It's actually page 3 of the

It's actually page 3 of the PDF. The pages of the source document are numbered.

Tamara Shepherd's picture


Oops. Coulda opened the doc, I guess...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.


TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

State .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Monthly archive