Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-17-2008, 8:47 PM
rayra rayra is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Democrat Caroline Kennedy, expert on the Constitution

Here's the presumptive nominee to replace HIllary Clinton as Junior Senator from New York.

Quote:
In the news reports of Caroline Kennedy's aspirations to be a Senator, the talking heads have noted that her qualifications include being a "Constitutional lawyer" who "wrote a book about Constitutional law."

I happen to have that book: In Our Defense, The Bill of Rights in Action, by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, William Morrow & Co., NY, 1991. Here is what the Constitutional scholars Alderman and Kennedy had to say about the Second Amendment, on page 100:

<Under the controlling authority of the only Supreme Court case to address the scope of the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, the court concluded that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.">

The quotation marks are theirs; this is supposed to be a direct quote from the opinion in U.S. v. Miller. Those words do not appear anywhere in the opinion. Nor is it a paraphrase; nothing even remotely like those words appears in the opinion. The word "handgun" does not appear in the opinion.

Alderman and Kennedy got the opinion wrong, and they used quotation marks around words that were not quotations. What is your opinion? Intentional deception, just making up crap out of thin air a la Bellesiles? Or egregiously bad scholarship? (How hard is it to check the opinion to see if the quotation is accurate, especially a short opinion like Miller?)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-17-2008, 8:54 PM
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,133
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Here's the presumptive nominee to replace HIllary Clinton as Junior Senator from New York.
Typical.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2008, 9:01 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,315
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm guessing in the near future there will be two Kennedys in the US Senate and one of them won't be Ted.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2008, 9:09 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,170
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Once again, it comes back to the question of whether the politician is lying or stupid.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2008, 9:16 PM
Synergy's Avatar
Synergy Synergy is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The good part of California!
Posts: 14,307
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Once again, it comes back to the question of whether the politician is lying or stupid.
Both! You cant fix stupid, so they just keep lying!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2008, 9:16 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,167
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Lying or stupid doesn't matter. Since she is Kennedy royalty chances are good she'll be given the empty throne.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2008, 9:19 PM
fairfaxjim's Avatar
fairfaxjim fairfaxjim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fairfax, CA
Posts: 2,147
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Once again, it comes back to the question of whether the politician is lying or stupid.
Most of them are too stupid (or arrogant or both) to know that they lying. They actually believe their own BS. That is how they know so much better than we do what is best for us.

BTW - Obama's great wave of change has sure brought back a lot of old familiar names.
__________________
"As soon as we burn 'em," Chinn said, "more come in."
Ignatius Chinn, a FORMER veteran firearms agent.
CONTRA COSTA TIMES 03/04/2008

"please guys please no ridiculous offers....Im a girl, not an idiot" Mistisa242
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-17-2008, 11:21 PM
otalps's Avatar
otalps otalps is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,770
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Wasn't/Isn't Obama supposed to be some kind of "Constitutional lawyer" as well? I think it's a new term the press has come up with for leftist idiot that mentions the 2nd amendment in a sentence.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-18-2008, 1:08 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Again with calling evil politicians stupid. They are not stupid. They are smart enough to realize that acting stupid en masse will let them get away with treason.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-18-2008, 8:53 AM
dixieD's Avatar
dixieD dixieD is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Antioch, Kalifornistan
Posts: 2,654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Again with calling evil politicians stupid. They are not stupid. They are smart enough to realize that acting stupid en masse will let them get away with treason.
I think that since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written for Americans and meant to be understood by the People, and the language is so plainly obvious in meaning and intent that that the term constitutional lawyer when used by a democant is in fact a code word for individual open to subverting the constitution.

I know this isn't really fair as we have constitutional lawyers on the our side of the issue, but they are certainly in the minority.
__________________
As Einstein has shown that it takes infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, Obama AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE will demonstrate that it takes infinite money to attain utopia

Last edited by dixieD; 12-18-2008 at 8:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-18-2008, 9:11 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 19,105
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Once again, it comes back to the question of whether the politician is lying or stupid.
in this day and age i would say both.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-18-2008, 9:19 AM
Gator Monroe Gator Monroe is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oak Run Ca.
Posts: 6,436
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

She is not and has never been a Politician ...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-18-2008, 11:06 AM
AaronHorrocks's Avatar
AaronHorrocks AaronHorrocks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,946
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by otalps View Post
Wasn't/Isn't Obama supposed to be some kind of "Constitutional lawyer" as well? I think it's a new term the press has come up with for leftist idiot that mentions the 2nd amendment in a sentence.

The claim was he was a "Constitutional Law Professor"
The fact is he was a "Guest Speaker" one day in a classroon.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Are there any times when you don't have a loaded firearm within reach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I support violence against communists.
The United States once fought and killed communists abroad. Domestically, persons suspect of being a communist faced interrogation, juries, and having their careers and lives destroyed.

Today, they walk among us. They’re on the television, they write for the newspapers, they have infiltrated the schools, the political system, and law enforcement. They call themselves Liberals.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-18-2008, 1:41 PM
tombinghamthegreat's Avatar
tombinghamthegreat tombinghamthegreat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,785
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

U.S. v. Miller did not even address the 2nd amendment issue nor mentioned handguns.....another idiot....
__________________
"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." Ron Paul
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by forumguy View Post
The same way they enforce all the rest of the BS laws. Only criminals are exempt, while the honest obey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Sometimes I think the function of Calguns is half to refute bad info from gunshops and half to refute bad info from DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-18-2008, 2:21 PM
cadurand cadurand is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sadly, it's not the politicians who are stupid.

I think they know exactly what they are doing.

It's the voters who aren't paying attention. I won't call us stupid since there are all kinds of people included in "the voters" but the politicians say what they think the voters want to hear. I have liberal relatives who say Obama isn't against people owning handguns because "He said he supports the 2nd Amendment."

Don't look at his actions, just what his website says.

The politicians know most people are never going to validate their statements. If they do get caught in a lie it's after the fact. Their erroneous statements are still out there forever. Especially with the internet, nothing really goes away.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-18-2008, 2:36 PM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Back in the late 80s when I first got on the Internet there was a .sig that I particularly liked. I don't know if I have the wording exactly right but it goes something like this:

"Never attribute to malice that which can reasonably attributed to ignorance."

I am quite convinced that this is excellent advice when dealing with 99% of the population.

I am quite convinced that politicians fall into the other 1%
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-18-2008, 2:54 PM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT View Post
"Never attribute to malice that which can reasonably attributed to ignorance."
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Hanlon's Razor: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-18-2008, 3:12 PM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

I was close, thanks for clarifying.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-18-2008, 3:15 PM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Here's the presumptive nominee to replace HIllary Clinton as Junior Senator from New York.
Quote:
In the news reports of Caroline Kennedy's aspirations to be a Senator, the talking heads have noted that her qualifications include being a "Constitutional lawyer" who "wrote a book about Constitutional law."

I happen to have that book: In Our Defense, The Bill of Rights in Action, by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, William Morrow & Co., NY, 1991. Here is what the Constitutional scholars Alderman and Kennedy had to say about the Second Amendment, on page 100:

<Under the controlling authority of the only Supreme Court case to address the scope of the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller, the court concluded that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.">

The quotation marks are theirs; this is supposed to be a direct quote from the opinion in U.S. v. Miller. Those words do not appear anywhere in the opinion. Nor is it a paraphrase; nothing even remotely like those words appears in the opinion. The word "handgun" does not appear in the opinion.

Alderman and Kennedy got the opinion wrong, and they used quotation marks around words that were not quotations. What is your opinion? Intentional deception, just making up crap out of thin air a la Bellesiles? Or egregiously bad scholarship? (How hard is it to check the opinion to see if the quotation is accurate, especially a short opinion like Miller?)
Actually, whoever you quoted here (hard to know since there is no citation) got it wrong. Kennedy and Alderman are not quoting from the Miller decision, they're quoting from the Seventh Circuit's decision in the Morton Grove case. Plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the name Kennedy, but this is not one of them.

For anyone who is interested, you can go to Amazon and use the "Look Inside" feature and read it yourself. Search for Miller and pick the page 100 link from the search results.
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-18-2008, 3:31 PM
sb_pete sb_pete is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"Constitutional lawyer" in media speak seems to = "person with law degree who has written something or worked on a case involving the US constitution." Hardly a guarantor of expertise .
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-18-2008, 3:37 PM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,020
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

She has zero experience to be Senator and she is being called on it.

The only experience she has is having "Kennedy" as her last name and being chauffeured around in a limousine.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-18-2008, 5:43 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,053
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbgaynor View Post
Actually, whoever you quoted here (hard to know since there is no citation) got it wrong. Kennedy and Alderman are not quoting from the Miller decision, they're quoting from the Seventh Circuit's decision in the Morton Grove case. Plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the name Kennedy, but this is not one of them.

For anyone who is interested, you can go to Amazon and use the "Look Inside" feature and read it yourself. Search for Miller and pick the page 100 link from the search results.
Try as I might, I was unable to search inside the book or read any part of it on amazon. I couldn't find the feature.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-18-2008, 6:19 PM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,479
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I have a fairly good friend who was very close to John Jr and spent substantial time with them all...

His opinion of caroline, to put it kindly is, "shes not the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-18-2008, 6:47 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,053
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
I have a fairly good friend who was very close to John Jr and spent substantial time with them all...

His opinion of caroline, to put it kindly is, "shes not the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Okay, we'll just take that as gospel then.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-18-2008, 11:43 PM
dawson8r's Avatar
dawson8r dawson8r is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Carlsbad
Posts: 273
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

You know how to tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-19-2008, 12:58 AM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotgun Man View Post
Try as I might, I was unable to search inside the book or read any part of it on amazon. I couldn't find the feature.
Try this (you may need to be logged into Amazon):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0380...pt#reader-link
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-19-2008, 7:03 AM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,020
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Besides having no experience, she hasn't voted much either...

Quote:
Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next senator from New York, but her voting record is already spotty, the Daily News has found. City Board of Elections records show Kennedy has failed to vote in many elections since she registered in the city in 1988 - including votes for the Senate seat she hopes to fill and numerous Democratic faceoffs for mayor.
Records show Caroline Kennedy failed to cast her vote many times since 1988
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ailed_to_.html
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-19-2008, 7:19 AM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,271
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayra View Post
Here's the presumptive nominee to replace HIllary Clinton as Junior Senator from New York.
Maybe she's even dumber than her brother . . .
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-19-2008, 8:03 AM
RomanDad's Avatar
RomanDad RomanDad is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 92 acres of free Kentuckiana
Posts: 3,479
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotgun Man View Post
Okay, we'll just take that as gospel then.
To be unfair, the other term he used was "high functioning retarded".

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrpe View Post
Maybe she's even dumber than her brother . . .
Her brother was actually a pretty sharp guy... Remember- He hired Ann Coulter for George.

Last edited by RomanDad; 12-19-2008 at 8:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-19-2008, 8:47 AM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,271
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad View Post
To be unfair, the other term he used was "high functioning retarded".



Her brother was actually a pretty sharp guy... Remember- He hired Ann Coulter for George.
Her brother killed himself, his wife, and his sister-in-law in an act of extreme aerial stupidity.

Darwin Award
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-19-2008, 9:37 AM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,425
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Correction to the original gunlaws misquote

The original, post #1, story appears to be very similar to a gunlaws email newsletter, which was followed up soon after by this correction:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlaws
Possibly the greatest error in the history of Page Nine just occurred in the lead story on Caroline Kennedy. In relying on a usually reliable attorney -- whose anonymity is now saving his sorry butt -- I inaccurately conveyed an element of Ms. Kennedy's book, "In Our Defense, The Bill of Rights in Action" (Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, 1991, William Morrow & Co.). The attorney, whose anonymity I intend to maintain, corrects himself:

"In accusing Caroline Kennedy of shoddy scholarship, I committed shoddy scholarship.

"The quote, 'the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment,' does not appear in U.S. v. MILLER, but (absurd as it is) it does appear in QUILICI v. MORTON GROVE, which Kennedy was citing in her book. She was right, and I was wrong.

"Clearly, Kennedy is hostile to the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, but she is not guilty of making up a quote, as I alleged.

"I apologize for my unforgivable error."


The book's discussion of the right to keep and bear arms rests on an examination of the 1982 Morton Grove gun ban, an act by a small town, supported by courts, that denied its citizens rights they had always had beforehand. That lower-court episode is considered by gun-rights advocates as one of the worst blots on the Second Amendment, but Kennedy and Alderman saw it as a proper stage to examine the issue. It would be hard to characterize their position as anything but hostile to the idea that mere citizens have the right to defend themselves with sidearms. The quotation the authors hinge their discussion upon -- inaccurately attributed in my report but accurately quoted -- is completely disparaging of a citizen's right to have or use handguns (and indeed, the MILLER case makes no mention of handguns):

"Under the controlling authority of the only Supreme Court case to address the scope of the Second Amendment, U.S. v. MILLER, the court concluded that 'the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.'"


The erroneous details were published online a few hours ago. I've made every effort to correct this as swiftly as possible. I apologize for letting that slip through, and it serves as proof once again that, despite the rumors, I'm only human.

Sincerely,
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical