make my dELay
April 17, 2005 11:02 AM Subscribe
The US house majority leader, a long-time supporter of an armed citizenry, jokes about weapons as the great equalizer in his battles with critics. “When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, he wants all of his friends around him, particularly armed,' said Delay to the NRA convention.
DeLay does seem to be embracing the behaviour of a psychopath these days. Someone ought to watch him closely.
posted by clevershark at 11:10 AM on April 17, 2005
posted by clevershark at 11:10 AM on April 17, 2005
House of Scandal is great too.
It's so perplexing that people don't connect all of these statements endorsing violence, coming from the Right. It's becoming way too common--from Senators and Reps to the usual radion and op-ed nuts. (she's going to be on Time's cover next issue)
posted by amberglow at 11:12 AM on April 17, 2005
It's so perplexing that people don't connect all of these statements endorsing violence, coming from the Right. It's becoming way too common--from Senators and Reps to the usual radion and op-ed nuts. (she's going to be on Time's cover next issue)
posted by amberglow at 11:12 AM on April 17, 2005
I don't know, I think a man is allowed to make jokes for a specific audience. I'm sure he wasn't serious and out of the context of that adoring crowd, it sounds barbaric, but I'm sure it was a light-hearted wink of a joke in their halls.
I'm reminded of something a state governor said recently at an indian gambling conference, some off handed joke that made light of racism against native americans -- that he knew people treated them bad and was mocking the attitude -- but out of context he pissed off a lot of people and had to apologize.
posted by mathowie at 11:13 AM on April 17, 2005
I'm reminded of something a state governor said recently at an indian gambling conference, some off handed joke that made light of racism against native americans -- that he knew people treated them bad and was mocking the attitude -- but out of context he pissed off a lot of people and had to apologize.
posted by mathowie at 11:13 AM on April 17, 2005
You Know, I dont like Delay, and would like him to just get real religeon, Mea Culpa and grow freaking goats for wool and leave us alone.
That being said, I hate to see someone self distruct so blatently. I mean even his own side can't get this goob to STFU. for even a week?
THAT being said too, being an apologist for this goob is even more of a train wreck for the GOP...
NOTE TO GOP< "Step away immedeatly from the GOOB"
posted by Elim at 11:58 AM on April 17, 2005
That being said, I hate to see someone self distruct so blatently. I mean even his own side can't get this goob to STFU. for even a week?
THAT being said too, being an apologist for this goob is even more of a train wreck for the GOP...
NOTE TO GOP< "Step away immedeatly from the GOOB"
posted by Elim at 11:58 AM on April 17, 2005
I don't know, I think a man is allowed to make jokes for a specific audience.
he certainly is, and on general principle I'd agree with you, but these days, after all those specific threats against the Schiavo judges (mostly Reagan-appointed, by the way, irony is such a delicious morsel sometimes) a man in DeLay's position -- at least as of now, who know what the future'll bring -- is supposed to be a little more careful with his jokes.
I suppose that John Kerry cracking a joke in front of a NARAL audience about Barbara Bush's (the older) lack of a chance to have a legal abortion in, say, early 1946, would create quite a stir.
or wouldn't it?
anyway:
posted by matteo at 12:00 PM on April 17, 2005
he certainly is, and on general principle I'd agree with you, but these days, after all those specific threats against the Schiavo judges (mostly Reagan-appointed, by the way, irony is such a delicious morsel sometimes) a man in DeLay's position -- at least as of now, who know what the future'll bring -- is supposed to be a little more careful with his jokes.
I suppose that John Kerry cracking a joke in front of a NARAL audience about Barbara Bush's (the older) lack of a chance to have a legal abortion in, say, early 1946, would create quite a stir.
or wouldn't it?
anyway:
The GOP's reluctance to condemn LaPierre suggests that its capacity to police its constituencies has weakened since 1995, when former President George Bush resigned very publicly from the NRA to protest LaPierre's characterization of federal law enforcement officials as "jackbooted thugs." In that instance, LaPierre actually ended up apologizing. This time out, Bush fils was entirely silent about LaPierre's crack and LaPierre, unsurprisingly, hasn't apologized.somebody's going to spend hisself a bit of that crapload o' "political capital", I guess.
posted by matteo at 12:00 PM on April 17, 2005
Does this witch hunt sound anything like the Clinton scandal? Which, FWIW, hurt the Repubs far worse than the legacy of Clinton.
Trent Lott was found to be "racist". Cheney is in bed with Halliburton. Bush lied about serving in the military. Frist overstepped his authority in the Schaivo case. Limbaugh is a drug addict. Jenna Bush is a drunk. Delay is crazy. And yet, who won the Presidency, House, and Senate? How exactly is a womanizer/drug user/porn star like Arnold in office?
I think that a strong focus on issues that Americans care about will win the next election, like American security, SS, and economic recovery. I also think that taking pot shots at the opposition (no matter how true the claims are) is a loser's game.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:01 PM on April 17, 2005
Trent Lott was found to be "racist". Cheney is in bed with Halliburton. Bush lied about serving in the military. Frist overstepped his authority in the Schaivo case. Limbaugh is a drug addict. Jenna Bush is a drunk. Delay is crazy. And yet, who won the Presidency, House, and Senate? How exactly is a womanizer/drug user/porn star like Arnold in office?
I think that a strong focus on issues that Americans care about will win the next election, like American security, SS, and economic recovery. I also think that taking pot shots at the opposition (no matter how true the claims are) is a loser's game.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:01 PM on April 17, 2005
I'm reminded of something a state governor said recently at an indian gambling conference,
Was that the "the natives are getting restless" comment?
I agree with mathowie. I think these NRA guys make shooting-people jokes all the time. It may be stupid, but it's like proctologists making asshole jokes . . . it just goes with the territory.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:02 PM on April 17, 2005
Was that the "the natives are getting restless" comment?
I agree with mathowie. I think these NRA guys make shooting-people jokes all the time. It may be stupid, but it's like proctologists making asshole jokes . . . it just goes with the territory.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:02 PM on April 17, 2005
meanwhile, deep in the heart of a teapot, a tempest is brewed...
posted by jonson at 12:08 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by jonson at 12:08 PM on April 17, 2005
Mh yeah probably it was a slurp suck to the audience and man what a blowjob it should be recorded in the hall of asskissing
When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, he wants all of his friends around him, particularly armed,' the Republican from nearby Sugar Land said. ``So I'm in good company tonight.'
Ahhhh so funny he's as got a future as a comedian ! After all he really really owed the audience that one
About 2,550 NRA members paid $75 to hear DeLay's speech and dine on salad with goat cheese and sirloin steak with peppercorn cognac sauce.
Yummy ! All this goodie for only $75 ? Goat cheese salad , sirloin steak and a fresh Delay speech...but then again in my opinion isn't it better to have a dinner while listening to a real comedian and no to one that acts like he's a politician ?
It amazes me that one should pay $75 to hear the same stuff over and over again, just get Delay tape or something.
posted by elpapacito at 1:14 PM on April 17, 2005
When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, he wants all of his friends around him, particularly armed,' the Republican from nearby Sugar Land said. ``So I'm in good company tonight.'
Ahhhh so funny he's as got a future as a comedian ! After all he really really owed the audience that one
About 2,550 NRA members paid $75 to hear DeLay's speech and dine on salad with goat cheese and sirloin steak with peppercorn cognac sauce.
Yummy ! All this goodie for only $75 ? Goat cheese salad , sirloin steak and a fresh Delay speech...but then again in my opinion isn't it better to have a dinner while listening to a real comedian and no to one that acts like he's a politician ?
It amazes me that one should pay $75 to hear the same stuff over and over again, just get Delay tape or something.
posted by elpapacito at 1:14 PM on April 17, 2005
This is hysterical, from Richard Morrison, the guy running against him in Texas: My Family is Pretty Disappointed
It's not always easy running for congress, especially when your opponent is Tom DeLay. He's always in the news, usually doing something to embarrass the district and the nation. But this latest one is a humdinger. When my family read in the New York Times that DeLay's wife and daughter have made over $500,000 since 2001 from DeLay's various PACs, there was a bit of grousing in the Morrison household.
They've seen how successful this campaign has been in raising money from patriotic Americans who have had enough of Tom DeLay's corruption and bullying in Washington, D.C. They've seen how you respond when I ask you, please click here to contribute to my campaign.
But I promise you I can stand the pressure. No matter how many times my adorable daughter Haley submits her resume I won't be hiring her as my campaign manager at a grossly inflated price. Nor will I be hiring my beautiful and talented wife Allyson as a way to funnel campaign contributions into our personal pocketbooks. (Texas is a community property state, so any campaign money paid to Mrs. DeLay becomes Tom's personal property.) ...
posted by amberglow at 1:16 PM on April 17, 2005
It's not always easy running for congress, especially when your opponent is Tom DeLay. He's always in the news, usually doing something to embarrass the district and the nation. But this latest one is a humdinger. When my family read in the New York Times that DeLay's wife and daughter have made over $500,000 since 2001 from DeLay's various PACs, there was a bit of grousing in the Morrison household.
They've seen how successful this campaign has been in raising money from patriotic Americans who have had enough of Tom DeLay's corruption and bullying in Washington, D.C. They've seen how you respond when I ask you, please click here to contribute to my campaign.
But I promise you I can stand the pressure. No matter how many times my adorable daughter Haley submits her resume I won't be hiring her as my campaign manager at a grossly inflated price. Nor will I be hiring my beautiful and talented wife Allyson as a way to funnel campaign contributions into our personal pocketbooks. (Texas is a community property state, so any campaign money paid to Mrs. DeLay becomes Tom's personal property.) ...
posted by amberglow at 1:16 PM on April 17, 2005
I'm happy to report that my dad shelled out $75 to see this goon speak. *sigh*
How is it that people who were once somewhat principled and thoughtful conservatives have become sheep spouting party rhetoric without even thinking about what it means? In the '80s, my dad would never have gone to see a DeLay-type speak because of the embarrassment that such people bring to their party. I imagine there are quite a few Republicans who have undergone a similar change in mentality.
posted by papakwanz at 1:50 PM on April 17, 2005
How is it that people who were once somewhat principled and thoughtful conservatives have become sheep spouting party rhetoric without even thinking about what it means? In the '80s, my dad would never have gone to see a DeLay-type speak because of the embarrassment that such people bring to their party. I imagine there are quite a few Republicans who have undergone a similar change in mentality.
posted by papakwanz at 1:50 PM on April 17, 2005
Between DeLay accepting trips from lobbyists for slave labour factory owners on Saipan or cracking a dumb joke, I'm going to worry about the former.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:10 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by Space Coyote at 2:10 PM on April 17, 2005
Well, though there's an appearance of impropriety with the lobbyist trip to Russia (and the fact that his family members were on the Re-elect Delay payroll), his actions really weren't illegal. There are many other members up on Capitol Hill who could be accused of doing the same things. So I predict Delay will survive this. His opponents have to come up with something more substantial before the GOP decide to cut their losses. I think he still has enough power to make their lives miserable, which is why he hasn't been shown the door yet. Any chance for him becoming the Speaker, though, are gone, gone, gone. It's interesting how all his redistricting shenangans haven't bought him much in the way of goodwill of his party. And the whole Shaivo issue seems to have not had the effect he were looking for. It's looking like Delay's days are definitely numbered.
posted by crunchland at 2:21 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by crunchland at 2:21 PM on April 17, 2005
The US house majority leader, a long-time supporter of an armed citizenry, jokes about weapons as the great equalizer in his battles with critics. “When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, he wants all of his friends around him, particularly armed,' said Delay to the NRA convention.
I must be missing something. Why was this posted?
posted by knave at 2:32 PM on April 17, 2005
I must be missing something. Why was this posted?
posted by knave at 2:32 PM on April 17, 2005
The Casino stuff was definitely illegal tho, i hear.
posted by amberglow at 2:36 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by amberglow at 2:36 PM on April 17, 2005
Sorry Knave, too recent for you? I should have looked for a nine year old article from the NY Times for you.
posted by found missing at 2:46 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by found missing at 2:46 PM on April 17, 2005
Wrong. You're an idiot. (That's ad hominem.)
posted by found missing at 2:55 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by found missing at 2:55 PM on April 17, 2005
Here's the thing: I don't think he needs to do anything else. His opposition just needs to educate people on what a scumbag he really is. Not make excuses that the media won't give them a voice, just match the GOP's bombasticity in 94, and message will grow its own legs.
As for the menu/price ratio, I'm impressed that people who shelled out $75 got so much in return, actually. It sounds like he's one of the cheaper speakers one could go see.
Consider that people were paying $2,000 for a goddam hotdog and state-line potato chips on a paper plate during the election year.
on preview, LOL docpops YCM! FR!
posted by Busithoth at 3:01 PM on April 17, 2005
As for the menu/price ratio, I'm impressed that people who shelled out $75 got so much in return, actually. It sounds like he's one of the cheaper speakers one could go see.
Consider that people were paying $2,000 for a goddam hotdog and state-line potato chips on a paper plate during the election year.
on preview, LOL docpops YCM! FR!
posted by Busithoth at 3:01 PM on April 17, 2005
I know Metafilter is a haven for socialists and all, but what you're implying (that DeLay has somehow goofed) makes no sense to me.
How do you intend to defend yourself when a violent criminal decides to attack you? Do you plan to dial 911? What if the cops decide not to come? After all, the police have no obligation to protect you. It is your responsibility to protect yourself.
It is also considered by myself, millions of other Americans, and the framers of this country that the right to bear arms is an innate human right. I'm always amazed to see people get up-in-arms about first amendment issues, but then happily surrender the freedom to protect oneself.
By the way, DeLay has tons of reproachable actions that should be scrutinized. This isn't one of them.
(Yes I'm ignoring the foolishness above.)
posted by knave at 3:07 PM on April 17, 2005
How do you intend to defend yourself when a violent criminal decides to attack you? Do you plan to dial 911? What if the cops decide not to come? After all, the police have no obligation to protect you. It is your responsibility to protect yourself.
It is also considered by myself, millions of other Americans, and the framers of this country that the right to bear arms is an innate human right. I'm always amazed to see people get up-in-arms about first amendment issues, but then happily surrender the freedom to protect oneself.
By the way, DeLay has tons of reproachable actions that should be scrutinized. This isn't one of them.
(Yes I'm ignoring the foolishness above.)
posted by knave at 3:07 PM on April 17, 2005
Delay is both for and against constitutional rights. How surprising.
posted by abez at 3:27 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by abez at 3:27 PM on April 17, 2005
Careful knave, your tinfoil is showing. Now I’m more worried that you are armed than I am that Delay might end up as the next David Koresh.
posted by found missing at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by found missing at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2005
I know Metafilter is a haven for socialists and all
I stopped reading at that point.
posted by SPrintF at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2005
I stopped reading at that point.
posted by SPrintF at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2005
it seems Santorum might need some heavily armed friends, too.
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on April 17, 2005
I think Delay is going to become the Republican party's Dan Rostankowski (not because of the NRA thing).
posted by drezdn at 8:26 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by drezdn at 8:26 PM on April 17, 2005
"In the Old West, if someone had accused me of the things that Montana Democratic Chairman Bob Ream did recently, we would have been meeting in the street. Today, we just chalk it up to the start of negative campaigning, even though we are over a year and a half away from Election Day. The Montana Democratic Party has accused me of ethics violations and even brought up the word "bribery" in their blatantly false allegations".
Apparently our good junior Senator from Montana must consider himself a good ole, gun-totin', duel fightin' friend of Zell Miller. Funny, though, I don't think his line of crap is playing too well in this state.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:59 PM on April 17, 2005
Apparently our good junior Senator from Montana must consider himself a good ole, gun-totin', duel fightin' friend of Zell Miller. Funny, though, I don't think his line of crap is playing too well in this state.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:59 PM on April 17, 2005
The problem with the GOP isn't that they support the second amendment, but that they support even the most extreme positions of the NRA including actually HELPING TERRORISTS OBTAIN ASSAULT WEAPONS by 1) opposing efforts to screen gun background checks with the terrorist watchlist; and 2) enacting new laws mandating the desctuction of records of terrorists purchasing weapons in the US.
See for yourself: Terror suspects legally buying guns, GAO finds.
Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours, as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year, but Lautenberg maintains the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.
"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy. "
He blamed the problem on what he called the Bush administration's twisted allegiance to the National Rifle Association.
The NRA and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought -- successfully, for the most part -- to limit the use of the FBI's national gun-purchasing database in West Virginia as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.
[...] Attorney General John Ashcroft[...] had blocked the FBI from using the gun-purchasing records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the [9/11] investigation.
Ashcroft maintained that using the gun records in a criminal investigation would have violated the law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.
Don't forget that Congress let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004. 9/11-shmine-eleven.
REALISTIC Terrorist threat: assault weapons
It is fairly easy even for terror suspects to aquire assault weapons, legally, in this country. Far easier than obtaining and deploying biological or radiological devices.
A couple dozen men armed with assault weapons and body armor could kill several times the number of people that were murdered on 9/11. All they would have to do is go into a busy metro station or malls during peak hours. Do it at several places at once, around the country, and the impact could well be more devastating psychologically and economically than even 9/11.
But hey, the NRA writes big checks, most of choice targets are in Blue States, and 9/11 really helped Bush's poll numbers, so this is really a no-brainer.
BTW If the GOP and NRA were sincere about their love of an armed citizenry (as opposed to just blowing their campaign contributors), why do they prohibit people from bringing guns to NRA speaking events, or joing sessions of Congress, or presidential campaign stops?
The answer is that they're important people who need to be protected. The rest of us unimportant peasants are expendable. That, and it would be ironic to have a pro-gun politician shot (and Republicans just don't seem to be good at humor, yet alone irony, these days).
posted by Davenhill at 9:03 PM on April 17, 2005
See for yourself: Terror suspects legally buying guns, GAO finds.
Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours, as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year, but Lautenberg maintains the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.
"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy. "
He blamed the problem on what he called the Bush administration's twisted allegiance to the National Rifle Association.
The NRA and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought -- successfully, for the most part -- to limit the use of the FBI's national gun-purchasing database in West Virginia as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.
[...] Attorney General John Ashcroft[...] had blocked the FBI from using the gun-purchasing records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the [9/11] investigation.
Ashcroft maintained that using the gun records in a criminal investigation would have violated the law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.
Don't forget that Congress let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004. 9/11-shmine-eleven.
REALISTIC Terrorist threat: assault weapons
It is fairly easy even for terror suspects to aquire assault weapons, legally, in this country. Far easier than obtaining and deploying biological or radiological devices.
A couple dozen men armed with assault weapons and body armor could kill several times the number of people that were murdered on 9/11. All they would have to do is go into a busy metro station or malls during peak hours. Do it at several places at once, around the country, and the impact could well be more devastating psychologically and economically than even 9/11.
But hey, the NRA writes big checks, most of choice targets are in Blue States, and 9/11 really helped Bush's poll numbers, so this is really a no-brainer.
BTW If the GOP and NRA were sincere about their love of an armed citizenry (as opposed to just blowing their campaign contributors), why do they prohibit people from bringing guns to NRA speaking events, or joing sessions of Congress, or presidential campaign stops?
The answer is that they're important people who need to be protected. The rest of us unimportant peasants are expendable. That, and it would be ironic to have a pro-gun politician shot (and Republicans just don't seem to be good at humor, yet alone irony, these days).
posted by Davenhill at 9:03 PM on April 17, 2005
but what you're implying (that DeLay has somehow goofed) makes no sense to me.
How do you intend to defend yourself when a violent criminal decides to attack you? etc. etc.
The "good fight" he wants his "friends" "armed" for is a) a legal battle in Texas, b) a political power struggle in Congress and c) a PR battle in the media.
Delay is joking about having his political enemies, and the prosecutors in Texas, shot.
So yeah, I'd say he "goofed."
Sorry, if you want to educate us socialists about how the whole "police" thing is a pipe dream and the goons are coming for our women, please start your own thread.
And viva la revolucion, by the way.
posted by PlusDistance at 9:05 PM on April 17, 2005
How do you intend to defend yourself when a violent criminal decides to attack you? etc. etc.
The "good fight" he wants his "friends" "armed" for is a) a legal battle in Texas, b) a political power struggle in Congress and c) a PR battle in the media.
Delay is joking about having his political enemies, and the prosecutors in Texas, shot.
So yeah, I'd say he "goofed."
Sorry, if you want to educate us socialists about how the whole "police" thing is a pipe dream and the goons are coming for our women, please start your own thread.
And viva la revolucion, by the way.
posted by PlusDistance at 9:05 PM on April 17, 2005
Several times in various places people have posted things to the affect that "well lots of Democrats are doing the same things" (including Delay himself). But I've not actually heard them lay out any real charges. Are there actually any real corruption issues about say Pelosi for example? Or is just the usual misdirection?
posted by dopeypanda at 9:10 PM on April 17, 2005
posted by dopeypanda at 9:10 PM on April 17, 2005
Oh, one more thing. DeLay and the NRA are also equating people who oppose them (i.e. people who don't want terror suspects to be able to buy assault weapons) to traitors to their country.
DeLay Finds Safe Haven at NRA Meeting
Some examples of the language they used, from an LA Times article (so it's likely just a watered down sampling), opponents/liberals were called: "kill-the-babies pantywaists".
They were accused of trying to "take away [their] gun rights and sacrifice the sovereignty of our nation", "trying to tear down our American way of life" because liberals/NRA opponents "really don't like our country".
So those who defend the NRA and Tom DeLay, please be sure you know what you're defending.
posted by Davenhill at 9:12 PM on April 17, 2005
DeLay Finds Safe Haven at NRA Meeting
Some examples of the language they used, from an LA Times article (so it's likely just a watered down sampling), opponents/liberals were called: "kill-the-babies pantywaists".
They were accused of trying to "take away [their] gun rights and sacrifice the sovereignty of our nation", "trying to tear down our American way of life" because liberals/NRA opponents "really don't like our country".
So those who defend the NRA and Tom DeLay, please be sure you know what you're defending.
posted by Davenhill at 9:12 PM on April 17, 2005
Davenhill: Y'know, Knave's off the rails with his argument that you have to have guns for protection, because there really isn't the level of threat that he believes there is. But you're off the rails by going with the GAO report about "terrorists" buying guns.
The whole point of the second ammendment and keeping people armed is that there can be capacity for defense from the tyranny of the government. People having guns is meant to protect from the government simply declaring some terrorists and imprisoning them.
What I'm saying is that you're putting too much faith in the government by allowing them to decide who is and who is not a terrorist, especially if they're going to deny them the right to own a gun.
Oh, and the "assualt rifle" thing is bullshit. I know that it's a good tactical point for the Democrats, but the definition of "assault rifle" used has little to do with function and more to do with the aesthetic of the gun.
All in all, DeLay's remarks are only worth noting because they can be played for a cheap political point by his opponents. Which, hey, I'm for smokin' 'em if you got 'em, but this is like the Capri Slims of political debate.
posted by klangklangston at 9:44 PM on April 17, 2005
The whole point of the second ammendment and keeping people armed is that there can be capacity for defense from the tyranny of the government. People having guns is meant to protect from the government simply declaring some terrorists and imprisoning them.
What I'm saying is that you're putting too much faith in the government by allowing them to decide who is and who is not a terrorist, especially if they're going to deny them the right to own a gun.
Oh, and the "assualt rifle" thing is bullshit. I know that it's a good tactical point for the Democrats, but the definition of "assault rifle" used has little to do with function and more to do with the aesthetic of the gun.
All in all, DeLay's remarks are only worth noting because they can be played for a cheap political point by his opponents. Which, hey, I'm for smokin' 'em if you got 'em, but this is like the Capri Slims of political debate.
posted by klangklangston at 9:44 PM on April 17, 2005
Oh, and the "assualt rifle" thing is bullshit. I know that it's a good tactical point for the Democrats, but the definition of "assault rifle" used has little to do with function and more to do with the aesthetic of the gun.
Assault Rifle
posted by Thoth at 11:38 PM on April 17, 2005
Assault Rifle
posted by Thoth at 11:38 PM on April 17, 2005
Thoth, note that the definition we are talking about is at the bottom at the page under Unrelated Terms.
posted by signalnine at 12:14 AM on April 18, 2005
posted by signalnine at 12:14 AM on April 18, 2005
what i can't understand is why the selfsame people who believe that gun ownership should be completely unfettered by regulation have no problem with the concept that one must register one's car and pass a test of competence at the operation of a vehicle in order to operate one.
no one's gonna take your guns away, jackasses. but why should any creep be able to purchase any weapon in any scenario? why must i be put at risk by your bad social policies? REGISTER THE GUNS AND RESTRICT THEIR OWNERSHIP TO NON-FELONS. how hard is that?
as for the second amendment red herring, it's telling that the NRA challenges gun laws without invoking the 2nd amendment. they know that courts have consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment as pertaining to militias (the national guard) and not as an individual right.
so go ahead and bray about that constitutional protection you think exists. it is then when i know the argument has been won.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:36 AM on April 18, 2005
no one's gonna take your guns away, jackasses. but why should any creep be able to purchase any weapon in any scenario? why must i be put at risk by your bad social policies? REGISTER THE GUNS AND RESTRICT THEIR OWNERSHIP TO NON-FELONS. how hard is that?
as for the second amendment red herring, it's telling that the NRA challenges gun laws without invoking the 2nd amendment. they know that courts have consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment as pertaining to militias (the national guard) and not as an individual right.
so go ahead and bray about that constitutional protection you think exists. it is then when i know the argument has been won.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:36 AM on April 18, 2005
Klang, I see that you're reading directly from the Wayne LaPierre talking points, which say that the assault weapons ban only targets "cosmetic accessories" on semiautomatic weapons while allowing similar weapons with just as much firepower to stay on the market.
So your argument (and LaPierre's) is that if not all assault weapons are banned by the legislation, then none should be?
By that logic, because we can't trust the government (as you say) "to decide who is and who is not a terrorist", then we shouldn't try to keep terrorists out of country either!
Of course, it's just as easy to take LaPierre's argument that the definition of "assault weapons" isn't sufficiently comprehensive as a reason to expand the ban's definition to include far more assault weapons (clearly it is problematic to say 'all' because the NRA will always argue that any definition of assault weapon is faulty).
"People having guns is meant to protect from the government simply declaring some terrorists and imprisoning them."
Then your first concern should be this administration's belief that it can indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists.
So we don't need the constitution - apart from the 2nd Amendment - because we should all just trust the president. But if you're really concerned that a Democratic president might try to jail 43% of all American households for gun ownership, you should abhor this administration's end-runs around the constitution.
Or to put it more directly, although you may not care when your guy is knocking down constitutional safeguards, you may come to regret those missing safeguards should someone you dislike come into power.
BTW I'm guessing an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons.
All in all, DeLay's remarks are only worth noting because they can be played for a cheap political point by his opponents.
Sure, this isn't as bad as him hinting that the assassination of federal judges would be an understandable reaction for ruling against him. And it's certainly not as bad as him implying that the tsunami victims deserved to die because they weren't Christians. And taking money from the NRA is better than... taking money from Russian lobbyists, using homeland defense to track the flights of political opponents, violating Texas state law on campaign contributions, using PACs to obtain illegal federal campaign contributions, self-dealing hundreds of thousands of dollars through family members, and so on.
Tom DeLay has said or done so many inexcusable, indefensible things that it boggles the mind that any rational individual of conscience possessing even a modicum of decency would defend him.
posted by Davenhill at 1:59 AM on April 18, 2005
So your argument (and LaPierre's) is that if not all assault weapons are banned by the legislation, then none should be?
By that logic, because we can't trust the government (as you say) "to decide who is and who is not a terrorist", then we shouldn't try to keep terrorists out of country either!
Of course, it's just as easy to take LaPierre's argument that the definition of "assault weapons" isn't sufficiently comprehensive as a reason to expand the ban's definition to include far more assault weapons (clearly it is problematic to say 'all' because the NRA will always argue that any definition of assault weapon is faulty).
"People having guns is meant to protect from the government simply declaring some terrorists and imprisoning them."
Then your first concern should be this administration's belief that it can indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists.
So we don't need the constitution - apart from the 2nd Amendment - because we should all just trust the president. But if you're really concerned that a Democratic president might try to jail 43% of all American households for gun ownership, you should abhor this administration's end-runs around the constitution.
Or to put it more directly, although you may not care when your guy is knocking down constitutional safeguards, you may come to regret those missing safeguards should someone you dislike come into power.
BTW I'm guessing an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons.
All in all, DeLay's remarks are only worth noting because they can be played for a cheap political point by his opponents.
Sure, this isn't as bad as him hinting that the assassination of federal judges would be an understandable reaction for ruling against him. And it's certainly not as bad as him implying that the tsunami victims deserved to die because they weren't Christians. And taking money from the NRA is better than... taking money from Russian lobbyists, using homeland defense to track the flights of political opponents, violating Texas state law on campaign contributions, using PACs to obtain illegal federal campaign contributions, self-dealing hundreds of thousands of dollars through family members, and so on.
Tom DeLay has said or done so many inexcusable, indefensible things that it boggles the mind that any rational individual of conscience possessing even a modicum of decency would defend him.
posted by Davenhill at 1:59 AM on April 18, 2005
Davenhill: I'm sorry, you seem to be addressing someone else. I'll forward your comments to my straw man.
"So your argument (and LaPierre's) is that if not all assault weapons are banned by the legislation, then none should be?"
Yeah. That's exactly my argument. I also think we should use guns to kill puppies and children living in poverty.
My argument is that fully automatic assault rifles are already illegal, and that banning bayonet mounts on rifles doesn't make me more safe.
"Of course, it's just as easy to take LaPierre's argument that the definition of "assault weapons" isn't sufficiently comprehensive as a reason to expand the ban's definition to include far more assault weapons (clearly it is problematic to say 'all' because the NRA will always argue that any definition of assault weapon is faulty)."
Have you even read the bill in question? Jesus. What defines an assault weapon under the prior law? Two or more of the following: An extended clip, a pistol grip, a muzzle flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. How does banning those legitimately make me safer? Full auto is still illegal. Handguns are used in far more crimes and result in far more deaths.
"Then your first concern should be this administration's belief that it can indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists."
My first concern is, jackass. Oh, wait, you were addressing some fictitious reading of my writing. Sorry. I forgot that in your fervor you weren't actually addressing what I said. Jackass.
But I don't see how that supports your argument that we should be alarmed that people on the terrorist watch list are getting guns. If the government is imprisoning people on scant evidence, how much do you think there has to be to be listed on the terrorist watch list?
" Or to put it more directly, although you may not care when your guy is knocking down constitutional safeguards, you may come to regret those missing safeguards should someone you dislike come into power."
My guy? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you all hopped up on goofballs?
" BTW I'm guessing an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons."
No, but it sure provides some deterrent from randomly rounding up people into a Kafkaesque Gitmo experience. Armed resistance to the government is one of those things that's occasionally necessary, you know, tree of liberty and all that.
"And taking money from the NRA is better than... taking money from Russian lobbyists, using homeland defense to track the flights of political opponents, violating Texas state law on campaign contributions, using PACs to obtain illegal federal campaign contributions, self-dealing hundreds of thousands of dollars through family members, and so on."
Yes. That's why it's more important to focus on those things, which do matter.
"Tom DeLay has said or done so many inexcusable, indefensible things that it boggles the mind that any rational individual of conscience possessing even a modicum of decency would defend him."
Right. And if I said he was a child molester too, it would just have to be uncritically added to the litany against him. Jesus, I realize that you want to be all strident and pine for your ideological purges, but you're full of shit on this in so many ways. Please shut up. You make thinking liberals look bad.
posted by klangklangston at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2005
"So your argument (and LaPierre's) is that if not all assault weapons are banned by the legislation, then none should be?"
Yeah. That's exactly my argument. I also think we should use guns to kill puppies and children living in poverty.
My argument is that fully automatic assault rifles are already illegal, and that banning bayonet mounts on rifles doesn't make me more safe.
"Of course, it's just as easy to take LaPierre's argument that the definition of "assault weapons" isn't sufficiently comprehensive as a reason to expand the ban's definition to include far more assault weapons (clearly it is problematic to say 'all' because the NRA will always argue that any definition of assault weapon is faulty)."
Have you even read the bill in question? Jesus. What defines an assault weapon under the prior law? Two or more of the following: An extended clip, a pistol grip, a muzzle flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. How does banning those legitimately make me safer? Full auto is still illegal. Handguns are used in far more crimes and result in far more deaths.
"Then your first concern should be this administration's belief that it can indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists."
My first concern is, jackass. Oh, wait, you were addressing some fictitious reading of my writing. Sorry. I forgot that in your fervor you weren't actually addressing what I said. Jackass.
But I don't see how that supports your argument that we should be alarmed that people on the terrorist watch list are getting guns. If the government is imprisoning people on scant evidence, how much do you think there has to be to be listed on the terrorist watch list?
" Or to put it more directly, although you may not care when your guy is knocking down constitutional safeguards, you may come to regret those missing safeguards should someone you dislike come into power."
My guy? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you all hopped up on goofballs?
" BTW I'm guessing an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons."
No, but it sure provides some deterrent from randomly rounding up people into a Kafkaesque Gitmo experience. Armed resistance to the government is one of those things that's occasionally necessary, you know, tree of liberty and all that.
"And taking money from the NRA is better than... taking money from Russian lobbyists, using homeland defense to track the flights of political opponents, violating Texas state law on campaign contributions, using PACs to obtain illegal federal campaign contributions, self-dealing hundreds of thousands of dollars through family members, and so on."
Yes. That's why it's more important to focus on those things, which do matter.
"Tom DeLay has said or done so many inexcusable, indefensible things that it boggles the mind that any rational individual of conscience possessing even a modicum of decency would defend him."
Right. And if I said he was a child molester too, it would just have to be uncritically added to the litany against him. Jesus, I realize that you want to be all strident and pine for your ideological purges, but you're full of shit on this in so many ways. Please shut up. You make thinking liberals look bad.
posted by klangklangston at 7:01 AM on April 18, 2005
Bah. Delay was outshone by The Nuge:
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.
"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
posted by Otis at 7:27 AM on April 18, 2005
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.
"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
posted by Otis at 7:27 AM on April 18, 2005
The idea that terrorists might deploy a coordinated shopping-malls attack is downright horrifying. I have no problem imagining the ease with which a dozen ready-to-die terrorists clad in body armour and armed with cheap automatic machine guns could strike movie theatres or food courts simultaneously, killing thousands of people within minutes, just randomly spraying the crowd until someone manages to pop off a defensive shot to their head.
It would be 10x more effective at destroying the USA than the WTC attack.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:55 AM on April 18, 2005
It would be 10x more effective at destroying the USA than the WTC attack.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:55 AM on April 18, 2005
fff- could you tell me were I could buy some of these "cheap automatic machine guns", I really like to have some.
posted by 445supermag at 1:32 PM on April 18, 2005
posted by 445supermag at 1:32 PM on April 18, 2005
I'll omit the obiligatory "All you people are bastard shitheads!!" comment when defending a position on the right here...
"Then your first concern should be...indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists."
Yep. Of course, when they come to imprison you all that concern & paperwork isn't going to do a whole lot of good.
"you should abhor this administration's end-runs around the constitution."
Insofar as I can interject myself here, I do.
"...an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons."
Olde argument Davenhill. I can do more damage with a sniper rifle (or an M-14) anyway. But that's not the equipment the gubbmint would use to SUBDUE it's populace. For that you need men. Men can be shot. Tanks can be disabled. Helios can be taken out. Everything else I don't have to worry about because if they used that kind of force against my position the entire country would rise up against them.
"The idea that terrorists might deploy a coordinated shopping-malls attack is downright horrifying."
Isn't it though? And it's been done so many times like...uh...
Hasn't been done in Israel either where battlefield weapons are plentiful.
No offense intended fish - this is just a general comment - I enjoy how so many people became counterterrorism experts after 9/11.
I had a guy (not a vet) telling me - while I was in uniform - (granted we were in a bar) tis hat what these terrorists like to do in battle see is hit and run...etc.
Yeah. DeLay's an idiot. He can go shove things of various size up his ass.
Many many times I have been driven to my knees in dispair by those who champion issues I favor - in utterly self-destructive ways.
The problem isn't guns folks.
Or rather - the problem may well be guns, it just depends on how you define what the problem is.
If 'dissent' is the problem, then yes, guns are a problem too.
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
If the courts keep ruling guns should only be held by a militia - that sort of illustrates the catch-22 of having the gubbmint define who gets to have them and who doesn't.
...I'm not saying I have a solution to that tho'.
I wouldn't want to go to the range or go hunting with or indeed even be within rifle shot of 'The Nuge'.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:10 PM on April 18, 2005
"Then your first concern should be...indefinitely imprison anyone, including US citizens, without trial or evidence simply based on the administration's suspicion (no evidence necessary!) that they are terrorists."
Yep. Of course, when they come to imprison you all that concern & paperwork isn't going to do a whole lot of good.
"you should abhor this administration's end-runs around the constitution."
Insofar as I can interject myself here, I do.
"...an assault rifle won't do you much good against the US military's tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons."
Olde argument Davenhill. I can do more damage with a sniper rifle (or an M-14) anyway. But that's not the equipment the gubbmint would use to SUBDUE it's populace. For that you need men. Men can be shot. Tanks can be disabled. Helios can be taken out. Everything else I don't have to worry about because if they used that kind of force against my position the entire country would rise up against them.
"The idea that terrorists might deploy a coordinated shopping-malls attack is downright horrifying."
Isn't it though? And it's been done so many times like...uh...
Hasn't been done in Israel either where battlefield weapons are plentiful.
No offense intended fish - this is just a general comment - I enjoy how so many people became counterterrorism experts after 9/11.
I had a guy (not a vet) telling me - while I was in uniform - (granted we were in a bar) tis hat what these terrorists like to do in battle see is hit and run...etc.
Yeah. DeLay's an idiot. He can go shove things of various size up his ass.
Many many times I have been driven to my knees in dispair by those who champion issues I favor - in utterly self-destructive ways.
The problem isn't guns folks.
Or rather - the problem may well be guns, it just depends on how you define what the problem is.
If 'dissent' is the problem, then yes, guns are a problem too.
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
If the courts keep ruling guns should only be held by a militia - that sort of illustrates the catch-22 of having the gubbmint define who gets to have them and who doesn't.
...I'm not saying I have a solution to that tho'.
I wouldn't want to go to the range or go hunting with or indeed even be within rifle shot of 'The Nuge'.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:10 PM on April 18, 2005
You're saying it would be difficult to find machine guns in the USA? You're saying they're going to be more expensive than airline tickets for a crew of hijackers?
posted by five fresh fish at 5:12 PM on April 18, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 5:12 PM on April 18, 2005
Yes and yes, fish. Sorry. You're going to need to buy a semiautomatic rifle, convert it to full auto, and buy ammo. For more than one person, I assume?
(Leaving aside the fact that the only things you can get for machine guns are replacement barrels and stocks, since the firing mechanism has been illegal since the '30s, when machine guns were used by organized crime. But I have a feeling you don't know a machine gun from a blunderbuss anyway).
A Mac-10 goes for upwards of a grand on the street, and that's a machine pistol (sold sa, but can be modified to fa). A chinese AK-47 usually goes for around 2k. You could buy them in bulk, but then you're still not going to find one for less than $900.
For $900, you can send about 4 people from Boston to NY, one way.
Hey, guess what? For about $10 in solvents and $10 in soybeans, you can make ricin in the comfort of your own home! If you have someone who's willing to die working as your vector point (say, with a computer fan that will run you less that $10), you can disperse enough ricin to kill hundreds. (The reason most terrorists wouldn't do that is that ricin is notoriously hard to contain, meaning that lots of people who have tried to manufacture it have ended up dying from inhaling it before they could spread it). Nerve toxins are also popular among the Aum Shinri Kyo set.
posted by klangklangston at 8:52 PM on April 18, 2005
(Leaving aside the fact that the only things you can get for machine guns are replacement barrels and stocks, since the firing mechanism has been illegal since the '30s, when machine guns were used by organized crime. But I have a feeling you don't know a machine gun from a blunderbuss anyway).
A Mac-10 goes for upwards of a grand on the street, and that's a machine pistol (sold sa, but can be modified to fa). A chinese AK-47 usually goes for around 2k. You could buy them in bulk, but then you're still not going to find one for less than $900.
For $900, you can send about 4 people from Boston to NY, one way.
Hey, guess what? For about $10 in solvents and $10 in soybeans, you can make ricin in the comfort of your own home! If you have someone who's willing to die working as your vector point (say, with a computer fan that will run you less that $10), you can disperse enough ricin to kill hundreds. (The reason most terrorists wouldn't do that is that ricin is notoriously hard to contain, meaning that lots of people who have tried to manufacture it have ended up dying from inhaling it before they could spread it). Nerve toxins are also popular among the Aum Shinri Kyo set.
posted by klangklangston at 8:52 PM on April 18, 2005
« Older Alliance Against Urban 4x4s | "He suggests living is language". Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by found missing at 11:04 AM on April 17, 2005