Saturday, January 11, 2014
You don't ever take sides against the family, Dick.
Since Dick went crying to the New York Times with a tale of how those extremist whackos in the gun industry had given him a wedgie for not being extremist enough, it's only fair to link to Claire Wolfe's rebuttal in the February issue of S.W.A.T. which, despite being penned weeks ago, is suddenly quite timely again thanks to Dick's latest bout of confabulatin'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Eugene Volokh has also written several papers on the topic, and illustrates how the opening clause is not a restriction but an explanation, a justification, for the right.
But as others have mentioned, as stupid as Metcalf's column was, there should be somoe suspicion as to the motivations of the editor of G&A who I think was already on the way out. Sabotage with Metcalf as the wooden shoe.
It's one thing to go out on a limb and advocate something your core customers (IE the people who buy your product (both magazines and ads)) would look askance at.
It's another to make your argument without doing much in the way of research and come off looking like an ignorant prat who just fell off the turnip truck.
(Hey guys! This thing says well-regulated. Bet you didn't know that!)
It's yet *another* to get angry at the people who laughed at your ignorance, were offended at being talked down to, and dared to question why they're paying for the privilege of sponsoring such essays.
Arrogant and ignorant isn't exactly a winning combination.
Yep, excellent fisking right there!!!
WTF is a Dick Metcaff? I haven't read G&A in years.
MACVS2
Minor sidetrack: Wolfe cites Machiavelli's work as The Art of War. Sun Tsu wrote that. Machiavelli's work was The Prince.
Ok, I feel better now. Resume track..
Murphy's Law,
In addition to his best known work, The Prince, Machiavelli was a prolific author, and turned out material on a broad variety of topics, including Dell'Arte della Guerra. :)
My first thought when Heller was announced was "Great. Now we're gonna spend the next forty years discussing the exact definition of 'infringed'."
I have a copy of Machiavelli's Art of War. Also one of Sun Tzu's. Neither one of them stars Wesley Snipes.
Murphy's Law:
Heh - speaking as someone who has worked with Claire, she doesn't make mistakes like that. I do, but they don't get past her. Writing with Claire can make you look smarter than you are.
Agree with rickn8or: If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need any. (I know it's a broad brush. Is joke. But points out that a certain subset of the legal profession makes its living from twisting words until they scream in service of people who can't be trusted to keep their word.)
My only quibble with what Ms Wolfe wrote is that I would suggest that the erosion of what is a "reasonable" infringement on rights started earlier than WWII.
Who knew growing up that Dennis Mitchell was totally justified in giving that Wilson character so much grief...?
Well Damn. I guess you all told me. My apologies to Claire Wolfe. Clearly I need to spend a bit less time on old westerns and vintage war movies. Mea Culpa.
Even in modern times President William "Bill" Clinton had us discussing what the meaning of "is" is:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
"Infringement" was and is defined as a violation of a right, in this specific case the right to keep and bear arms, and more generally "the encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infringement
Asking what is the absolute minimum necessary to infringe the right to keep and bear arms also asks how much you can encroach and violate the right before the activity becomes infringement - a fool's game that many fools choose to play. The short answer is any or all. How many other rights defined by our Constitution are allowed to be encroached and violated without repercussion?
Ed,
What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that the Constitution is made of words. So are laws.
Everybody forgets that they're not the only monkey in the cage; this is why we have judges and lawyers.
Rickn8or, 40 years on infringed? The Scotus spent 58 years on "separate but equal".
Hey Murph, don't sweat it. Somebody does it at least once per thread here.
Re: Metcalfe - The butthurt is strong with him. As if his posterior was infringed...
"How can ...“a former faculty member of the history departments at Yale"...
I think Claire just answered her own question there. It may be possible though difficult to enter Yale, and maybe even to leave with a degree, and still be a normal human being. It is probably not possible to teach there and not be assimilated.
"Great. Now we're gonna spend the next forty years discussing the exact definition of 'infringed'."
The thing that is going to make the 'infringed' argument very short is the regulatory term 'Shall NOT'. Meaning; ugh uhg, don't go there, nope, fuggitaboutit, No Way Jose, NO. In regulatory terms the only thing that gets you out of 'Shall Not' is a VERY RARE and UNUSUAL set of circumstances that requires a waiver that is agreed to by ALL parties. Unless SCOTUS wants to turn the entire bureaucracy world on it's head they better not go down that path..... This phraseology isn't the same as Bubba Bill's meaning of 'is'.
Craig
The important thing to remember about the monkeys in the cage is that some throw pieces of banana while others are just flinging poo. Either way, be sure to duck.
The first problem with gun journals, or Fox News, or any allegedly conservative or libertarian media, is that they hire journalists. And the usual path to become a journalist:
1. Decide you want to spend your working hours sticking your nose into others business.
2. Major in journalism in college.
IOW, they start out with the mind set common to "liberals" and fascists, and then they spend 4 years in a classroom with other kids of a similar disposition, listening to a leftist professor.
Post a Comment