[FoRK] Fwd: Rand Paul: Obama Just Banned 1 Million Firearms

Damien Morton dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Mon Aug 6 00:55:10 PDT 2012

You think the Economist reads FoRK? Or Scalia?


"The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with
private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more
likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens
lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no
correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun
ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic
countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully
resisted due to widespread gun ownership."

"When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in
military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more
common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or
outside aid. "


WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that
cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply
to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that
can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.... My starting point and my ending point will
be...  the understood limitations the society had at the time. They
had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne, so
we'll see as to what those limitations are as applied to modern

Muskets bitch.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM,  <mdw at martinwills.com> wrote:
> Back in the Dec. 7th, 1997 when he made that quote, that's what they made.
>  I was with a Orange County PD when the riots broke out and rode a 4 man
> cruiser with riot gear and shotguns for 12 hr x 4 days back then. It was
> right on, and a lot of my friends asked if I had any 'extra' firearms they
> could borrow.
> Regards,
> Martin
>> Lost credibility for me when he mentioned police officers in California
>> making 35k a year.
>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3446569/see-average-police-firefighter.html
>>> California police officers made, on average, $92,976, including
>>> overtime, incentive pay and payouts upon retirement during 2010,
>>> according to a Bee analysis of data from the state controller's office.
>>> Firefighters and engineers earned, on average, $113,882. Average pay for
>>> police captains across the state was $147,940; for fire captains, it was
>>> $141,525.
>> Use this database to see the average pay for firefighters, police officers
>> and their supervisors in nearly every California city and county. Updated
>> Feb. 14 with 2010 data.
>> Read more here:
>> http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3446569/see-average-police-firefighter.html#storylink=cpy
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2012 10:40 AM, Bill Stoddard wrot
>>>> Take a step back and consider, for a moment, that what you think is the
>>>> 'reality' of gun owners and gun ownership may not, in fact, be
>>>> accurate.
>>> I just can't let go the Charlton Heston quote from 1995.  I still think
>>> the first and second amendments are working just fine.
>>> Greg
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997461/posts
>>> My favorite Amendments: appreciation - First and Second Amendments to
>>> the Constitution
>>> Charlton Heston THIS may surprise you, but I'm not the only man in
>>> Hollywood with an appreciation for the Second Amendment. There are
>>> numbers of gun owners -- collectors, hunters, sport shooters -- in the
>>> film community, plus many more who keep firearms for protection. I
>>> suspect, in fact, that there are more filmmakers who are closet gun
>>> enthusiasts than closet homosexuals. Steven Spielberg has one of the
>>> finest gun collections in California, but never refers to it, and never
>>> shoots publicly. Can you imagine the most famous filmmaker in town
>>> worried about his reputation?
>>> Still, many people in the film community oppose firearms, some quite
>>> virulently. During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, a good many of these
>>> folk suffered a change of heart. As smoke from burning buildings smudged
>>> the skyline and the TV news showed looters smashing windows, laughing as
>>> they carted off boom boxes and booze, I got a few phone calls from
>>> firmly anti-gun friends in clear conflict. 'Umm, Chuck, you have quite a
>>> few . . . ah, guns, don't you?'
>>> 'Indeed.'
>>> 'Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one, but they
>>> have this waiting period . . .'
>>> 'Yeah, I know. I remember you voted for that. Do you know how to use a
>>> shotgun?'
>>> 'No, I thought maybe you could teach me. This is getting a little
>>> scary.'
>>> 'I noticed. It does that sometimes. I could teach you, but not in an
>>> hour. You might shoot yourself instead of the bad guys. The Marines are
>>> coming up from Pendleton; that'll end it. When it does, go buy yourself
>>> a good shotgun and take some lessons.'
>>> My friend writer-director John Milius got more calls than I did. His
>>> answer was more forthright: 'Sorry. They're all being used.'
>>> Public opinion on this issue seems to be shifting, in view of rising
>>> violence. No police force can guarantee always to protect all citizens,
>>> nor are the police legally responsible for failing to do so. Besides, it
>>> seems to me ethically questionable to expect a policeman earning $35,000
>>> a year to risk his life to protect you if you accept no responsibility
>>> for protecting yourself.
>>> Unlike some people, I support the First Amendment as vigorously as I do
>>> the Second. Indeed, the whole Bill of Rights is a wonderfully unique
>>> instrument.
>>> Though in recent years the Bill of Rights has often been cited to
>>> justify various federal intrusions into individual rights, its original
>>> intent and prime purpose was to protect, in every Article, the rights of
>>> citizens against the intrusion of their government. There's no other
>>> governmental codicil in the world like it. I'm a fan.
>>> Now consider the First Amendment. Two years ago I won my most
>>> significant victory in the public sector since the civil-rights marches
>>> in the early Sixties -- and then we were following Dr. King. This was
>>> just me versus Time Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in
>>> the world.
>>> I got a call from Tony Makris, my guru on matters relating to
>>> Washington. 'Chuck, you ever hear of a rap performer named Ice-T?'
>>> 'No, why would I? I remember some rock critic saying, 'Rap is made by
>>> people who can't sing, can't play an instrument, and can't write lyrics.
>>> It's vocal graffiti!' I believe I can sign that.'
>>> 'I think you ought to hear these lyrics. They've teed off just about
>>> every policeman in the country, but Time Warner's stonewalling them
>>> because it's a hit record, and the press is tiptoeing around because the
>>> guy's black.'
>>> Tony was right. The lyrics (aside from being badly written) were an
>>> obscene ode to the killing of policemen. Along with a handful of others,
>>> I did a press conference about it, and Warner backed down to the extent
>>> of changing the album title from Cop Killer to Body Count, without
>>> removing the song. They were also sending out demo CDs in cute little
>>> black body bags. (The corporate counterculture at work.) The press was
>>> very cautious on the issue. My civil-rights credentials dating back to
>>> 1961 protected me from the accusations of racism that would otherwise
>>> have been hurled. I was told that Ice-T himself threatened to kill me.
>>> He didn't, though.
>>> Then we found that Time Warner had a stockholders' meeting scheduled in
>>> Beverly Hills. I happened to hold several hundred shares of Time Warner
>>> stock (I've since sold it). This meant I could attend the meeting.
>>> There was the usual gaggle of media outside the auditorium. Inside were
>>> perhaps a thousand shareholders. I doubt that any of them had ever heard
>>> a rap album, though this material is an enormously profitable cash cow
>>> for Time Warner. Of course that was the whole problem. As someone
>>> trenchantly observed, 'It's not the money . . . it's the money.'
>>> By this time President Bush, police across the country, members of
>>> Congress, and major religious and media figures had condemned Body
>>> Count. Ice-T had weighed in with the comment, 'I ain't never killed no
>>> cop . . . I felt like it a lot.'
>>> Even at this point, the chairman - CEO of Time Warner, Gerald Levin,
>>> could have said -- no doubt with perfect honesty -- 'Look, I don't read
>>> rap lyrics. If some clown in the record division screwed up, we can fix
>>> it.' Instead, he chose to defend the album in terms of the First
>>> Amendment, which was ridiculous. Ice-T, in search of his 15 minutes of
>>> fame, certainly could have performed his work publicly -- but Warner had
>>> no obligation, constitutional or otherwise, to pay him to do so. Its
>>> motivation was not the Bill of Rights, but simple corporate greed.
>>> I had the floor for perhaps only eight or ten minutes, but it was
>>> enough. I spoke briefly and quietly to the meeting, then simply read, in
>>> full, the lyrics of 'Cop Killer,' which almost no one in the room had
>>> heard or seen, they being too offensive for the media to quote.
>>> Unhappily, I can't quote them here, since Time Warner would almost
>>> surely refuse permission, and my editors are also reluctant to print
>>> what is basically racist filth. I'll simply say that the lyrics begin
>>> with 'F--- the police . . .' and go on from there.
>>> 'Mr. Levin,' I said. 'Jews and homosexuals are also sometimes attacked,
>>> though of course not as often as police officers. Let me ask you: If
>>> this piece were titled, 'Fag Killer,' or if the lyrics went, 'Die, die,
>>> die, kike, die!' would you still peddle it? It's often been said that if
>>> Adolf Hitler came back with a dynamite treatment for a film, every
>>> studio in town would be after it. Would Warner be among them?'
>>> The room was death-still. I gave them one more dose, a few lines from
>>> another cut on the CD, less notorious but even more disgusting. In this
>>> 'song,' Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year-old nieces of the
>>> next Vice President of the United States.
>>> I left the room in an echoing silence, then repeated much of what I'd
>>> said inside to the media. One or two journalists said, 'You know, we
>>> can't run that.'
>>> 'Yeah, I know,' I said. 'But Warner is selling it.' A week or so later,
>>> the company pulled the album, pretending that Ice-T had asked them to. A
>>> month after that, they terminated his contract.
>>> I asked the women's organization NOW to join me in condemning the album,
>>> in view of the vicious lyrics about sodomizing little girls. It never
>>> did. I've never understood why. Perhaps NOW didn't want to attack a
>>> black man.
>>> Still, I'm proud of what I did, though now I'll surely never be offered
>>> another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time. On the other
>>> hand, I doubt I'll get a traffic ticket very soon.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FoRK mailing list
>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list