Patterico's Pontifications

6/22/2014

On Not Being Like Men

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:38 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Untitled-1

Can we talk for a moment about how stupid women can be? This is a photo of Jeremy Meeks. Last week, the Stockton Police Department released a mug shot of him on its Facebook page. His photo, along with several others, was posted on behalf of Stockton area law enforcement agencies to help deal with a spike in shootings and robberies in the area. Jeremy Meeks was arrested on felony weapons charges.

When his photo was posted, it immediately went viral. Women went gaga for his chiseled cheekbones, lush lying lips and come-hither criminal eyes. According to some reports, within a short period of time there were more than 33,000 “likes” on Facebook and it now has more than 88,000 several days after the posting.

A sampling of the comments left on the Facebook page were as follows:

“OMG, this man makes women from the world entire to scream!”

“Is it illegal to be that sexy?”

“he can assault me any day”

“He can kidnap me anyday… Hold me against my will lol,”

“oh la la! Bad Boy Bad Boy they’re gonna come for you! I can just see 100′s of women running and screaming after him! Maybe the next Calvin Klein underwear commercial? Briefs-definitely briefs.”

And then they get really ridiculous.

Huffpo writer Jen M.L. had to talk herself off the ledge of lust upon viewing his photo – this after knowing full well that he was a criminal:

I clicked the link and I immediately fell down into the deep blue wells that are Jeremy Meeks’ eyes. Be strong, Jen! I thought. This guy is a dangerous felon, and it’s not just his chiseled cheekbones that make him wanted.

I wasn’t the only one seduced by Jeremy’s soft, full lips.

She then uh, works through the turmoil of finding such a bad boy so attractive:

Jeremy Meeks is a convicted felon who was arrested on felony weapons charges. He had a gun illegally. Sure, even the thought of him holding his gun is kind of hot. But then I imagine him holding it sideways and saying “Sayonara!” before he blows my head off! This guy is no good. He’s a REAL bad boy, not like the ones you read about in your books.

(The writer does go on to make the point that a few days afterward, the memorial service of Stockton police officer Scott Hewell was posted about on the Stockton Police Department Facebook page as well, and the 399 “likes” fell way short of the now 88,000 “likes” on Jeremy Meeks photo.)

At Jezebel, writer Erin Gloria Ryan, breathlessly began her article:

Jeremy Meeks, the hOt CoNvIcT whose mug shot went viral yesterday because on one hand, violent crime is bad, but on the other, OMG THOSE CRYSTAL CLEAR EERILY HOLLOW BLUE EYES, has finally broken his silence and spoken. And, like many hot people facing possible prison terms, he doesn’t really care much that people think he’s attractive. He just wants to get out of jail.

It’s madness. We’ve been driven mad with lust by the image of this symmetrical maybe-reformed felon.

Further, Jeremy Meeks’ mother set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for his legal defense. And, not surprisingly, given the reaction to his mug shot, has raised $3,879 raised by 199 people in 2 days. Although there is no way of accurately assessing the gender of contributors, I think it’s a fairly safe guess to say that the majority were women.

With that, I’m happy to see that women continue to rise of above their baser drives unlike the neanderthal, objectifying, sexualizing, women-hating men of the world. Progress!

–Dana

UPDATE: This Meeks’ meme is just getting out of hand. You just never know who will show up next on #FreeJeremyMeeks, #HottieThug, and #FelonCrushFriday…

Untitled-1

–Dana

212 Responses to “On Not Being Like Men”

  1. rape.

    culture.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Dana, you should post that meme that has the dude’s mug shot and says:

    STEALS YOUR HEART

    [picture]

    AND YOUR DVD PLAYER

    I love that one.

    Patterico (c5d14d)

  3. The same phenomena that pushes women into being pen pals with and then possibly marrying an imprisoned killer like Ted Bundy or a Menendez brother.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. STEALS YOUR HEART

    [picture]

    AND YOUR DVD PLAYER

    Ugh. There must be limits on Stupid!

    Dana (fe2228)

  5. Mr. feets beat me to it.

    Not another word, ladies.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  6. he’d be a whole lot better looking with 3 or 4 230 grain JHPs in his chest cavity, courtesy of a 1911A1.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  7. I bet they didn’t have the same reaction to Pajama Boy. Not that Pajama Boy cared.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  8. By way of analogy I could take a discussion of my secret-codeword dog-whistle racism a lot more seriously if I weren’t dealing with some black chick who fell for the baby blues of every klansman they ran across.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  9. Ugh, this business is too nasty to even think about on such a beautiful day. What is wrong with these sick women? His blue eyes are not “hollow” as someone described them. That description is too benign. His eyes look cruel. They look dead.

    elissa (f40916)

  10. You want to know the real implications of this “hero worship”? A nurse from back East (as I recall, Baltimore) called in to the Michael Savage program. She said a large number (I believe she said majority) of live births in her hospital are to white women and black men. It appears that a stable white mail is entirely too tame for a white woman who is willing to get pregnant. This probably isn’t very easy to check from available statistics, given the privacy rules.

    docduke (d3c5ab)

  11. Red, 1200 grains of shovel will suffice.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  12. yeah, but range time is range time…

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  13. Elissa @9, men have a reputation for not thinking with the big brain, if you know what I mean. It has been my experience that women are just as capable of screwing up their lives. One of the selling points for women in the mlitary is that they caused less trouble. No. Just different trouble, by and large.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  14. But red, ammo is expensive.

    I can use my shovel multiple times without reloading.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  15. I’ve added an update.

    Dana (6875fb)

  16. are they having some kind of pouting contest?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  17. she wins

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. “If I had married Cameron Diaz and we’d had a son, he’d look like Jeremy.”

    - Barack Hussein Obama

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. Isn’t thug culture cool?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  20. I was briefly acquainted with a woman who liked to sleep with guys fresh out of prison. Because of the enthusiasm.

    I have no idea why she needed to tell me this. I barely knew her.

    What, do I look trustworthy?

    Steve57 (334088)

  21. OKaaaay. Enthusiasm is usually not an issue with guys.

    elissa (f40916)

  22. Dana, looking at the opening, do you write promo’s for “Bodice Rippers”?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  23. From the sounds of the mother, teh rotten apple didn’t ooze down her leg and puddle too far from the tree.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. 23- Bad Col…..Go to your room, no dessert for you tonight.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  25. Sometimes I disgust even me…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  26. Can we talk for a moment about how stupid women can be?

    I’m curious what the philosophical orientation of such women is.

    If there were a sheet of paper placed before them containing photos of various well-known public figures, including that of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr, Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart, with the question that, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being very negative feelings, 3 being neutral, to 5 being very positive feelings) what is your gut reaction to each photograph, it would be interesting to see which way the overall direction would end up.

    I have a hunch about that, although I’m prepared to be surprised too.

    Mark (246552)

  27. … but then, I remember, hey!… wait a minute… I’M not teh guyw/$900K bail!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. I’m sorry to burden everyone with the information.Imagine how I felt when I heard it the first time.

    Steve57 (334088)

  29. What she didn’t want to say, Steve, is how and where.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  30. Christoph is in moderation (because he’s banned) arguing that this guy had a constitutional right to possess firearms. Wrong. Convicted felons like him have no such constitutional right.

    Patterico (a2fd5b)

  31. …this symmetrical maybe-reformed felon.

    Assuming he’s serious about that, a start would be to get the visible tattoos removed.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (e817d3)

  32. She also wondered why she wasn’t married.

    No. She was serious. All the good men were taken.

    Steve57 (334088)

  33. Christoph?
    I’m surprised he’s still alive.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  34. Mark- you do understand that this thread is basically about raw sexual attraction and the bad choices that often result, not about political preferences or philosophical orientration, right? I mean what’re Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton doing on your list? Geez.

    elissa (f40916)

  35. @ askeptic,

    Dana, looking at the opening, do you write promo’s for “Bodice Rippers”?

    Heh. I don’t, not that it wouldn’t be pretty easy to do, but you know, at the end of the day, personal dignity is one of the few things we actually have control over. And I don’t want to lose mine.

    Dana (fe2228)

  36. Boys don’t get the joke.

    SarahW (267b14)

  37. Fruit bait.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. @ Mark,

    I’m curious what the philosophical orientation of such women is.

    You’re assuming they even have a political orientation. Or at least one that they’ve thought through.

    Also, if the discussion is as elissa states, about raw sexual attraction and the resulting bad choices, I don’t see how political orientation comes into it. My guess is that these sorts of women simply react: physically and emotionally to what’s before them. I don’t think they’re taking the time to assess a political anything.

    Heck, even conservative women can see the charisma and magnetism of Bill Clinton or George Clooney or Brad Pitt, etc. (I should probably post visual evidence of the latter, following Patterico’s professional example in such matters).

    Dana (fe2228)

  39. the other night people were here and one of them pulled out their phone with pics that show that this one mugshot is kind of an aberration

    it takes a lot of luck or work for face tattoo boy to pull of the odd photogenic snap was the idea

    and I kinda thought well

    I think that’s rather generally true of almost everybody even jared padelecki

    pretty hurts, people

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  40. I went through traffic school with chick who pegged he needle on her Camaro. She insisted
    she couldn’t know how fast she was going because her speedo stopped working one her limits
    were surpassed.

    Steve57 (334088)

  41. It does have a bit of truth to it, doesn’t it Steve?
    I mean, the question “Do you know how fast you were going” requires a somewhat specific answer.
    If the speedo was maxed-out at 85 (as many GM cars were during the days of the Double-Nickel), it is impossible to give a precise answer.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  42. That was her position.

    Steve57 (334088)

  43. to pull *off* the odd photogenic snap i mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  44. i went through traffic school years ago, back when you still had to attend in person, with people who thought it was alright to speed, but who also said that they wouldn’t let others past if they wanted to drive faster than they were, because they were driving fast enough.

    there’s an awful lot of stupid people out there…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  45. She stuck to her guns. There’s that.

    Steve57 (334088)

  46. Yet one more reason to repeal the 19th Amendment.

    gahrie (a05ed4)

  47. Reminds me of the North Korean villian from Die Another Day.

    But I’m puzzled. It says the guy was picked up on weapons charges. In California that could be anybody who took steps not to be a victim. It doesn’t say he was convicted of anything.

    NC tattooed on his neck, stands for Northern California, and it’s pretty common. Maybe not on the neck, but. I see a lot of latinos with that same tattoo.

    Is it guilty until proven innocent? Or the other way around? I forget.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  48. i once knocked an unholy amount off a speeding ticket.

    the cop asked why I took off like I did and I told him.

    I didn’t see him.

    Steve57 (334088)

  49. I think it was Carlin that said anyone driving slower than you is a moron, and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac.

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  50. i drive slow and as little as possible for to avoid the LAPD

    and i’m white

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  51. i once knocked an unholy amount off a speeding ticket.

    the cop asked why I took off like I did and I told him.

    I didn’t see him.
    Steve57 (334088) — 6/22/2014 @ 5:20 pm

    A guy gets pulled over for speeding at 11:00 AM.

    The police officer says, “I’ve been waiting all morning for you!”

    The man replies, “I got here as soon as I could, officer.”

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  52. In Boston, ship-stain has a gaggle of bimbos that want to set him free because of his rolling stones cover.
    Sickening.

    mg (31009b)

  53. i drive slow and as little as possible for to avoid the LAPD

    and i’m white
    happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/22/2014 @ 5:38 pm

    Doesn’t matter what color you are. They are some crazy motherfugders? Louisiana was worse. And during Mardi Gras they deputized the civilians, creating the “Citizen’s Patrol”. My first day of college the RA told us if we got in any trouble to just show them our Tulane ID. Needless to say, that was some bad advice. I managed not to get hurt, but others were not so lucky.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  54. Police officer.

    “Do You know why I pulled you over?

    Me.

    “Because I was was the easiest one to catch.”

    Steve57 (334088)

  55. Louisiana outside of New Orleans is more better except for a lot but not all of the roads are congested with big boys driving big trucks cause of the economy isn’t at all bad and you can never have enough roads in swamplands.

    But I check this site for jobs every so often.

    They hardly ever have any positions in Louisiana though, much less something I’m a good fit for.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  56. Steve Wright joke.
    Officer: You were going 80 miles an hour.
    Wright; I wasn’t planning to be out that long.

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  57. Ugh. There must be limits on Stupid!

    Dana (fe2228) — 6/22/2014 @ 1:50 pm

    **HuffPo writer**:

    “Nope! Haven’t finished plumbing that well yet!”

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  58. I mean what’re Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton doing on your list? Geez.

    Elissa, to determine the visceral, gut reaction that a person (ie, the women who are getting weak-kneed over a scroungebag) will have towards public figures they’ve heard or read about. Simply put, to gauge whether X or Y percentage feel the warm fuzzies for or resentment towards either a rightist (Rush) or a leftist (Hillary). I could have added the name of Sarah Palin to that list, but I wanted to keep it 50/50 between well-known people of the left and right.

    I don’t see how political orientation comes into it.

    Dana, just mere curiosity about what a hypothetical test would or wouldn’t reveal about the nature of the women twittering positively about a blue-eyed, mixed-race felon, certainly if they know the full history of his background.

    If many of the respondents are apolitical, then the test range presumably would show mostly “3s” for all the photos on the sheet.

    Mark (246552)

  59. well there was a similar boomlet for the L.L, Cool J lookalike LAPD mass shooter, for a while,

    narciso (3fec35)

  60. I got out of a ticket once by engaging the officer in a theoretical analysis of the double yellow rule and the double-double yellow rule, and various exceptions. He finally just said…gotta go.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  61. If there is a “War on Women,” then maybe they can decide which side they prefer and let us know. Falling for the felon dreamboat sends a mixed message.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  62. Note the tear drop tat alongside his left eye. I believe that means something in the criminal community. Think people.

    Bill M (906260)

  63. I dunno – Meeks looks a little gay to me. Maybe he’s bi, considering he’s a convicted felon

    Tom (e52bee)

  64. iirc, each drop represents a dead “homie”…

    as for the bi thing, i have it on good authority, having been temp medical staff at a CYA facility, that jail sex doesn’t count in the criminal mind.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  65. Note the tear drop tat alongside his left eye. I believe that means something in the criminal community. Think people.

    Yeah, doesn’t that mean he ate cookies in bed and left crumbs!

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  66. as for the bi thing, i have it on good authority, having been temp medical staff at a CYA facility, that jail sex doesn’t count in the criminal mind.

    I heard that their foreplay consists of showing each other where the horse bit them.

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  67. It looks like he’s married and he’s got a kid. But that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t provide a little “rough trade” for a C-note in West Hollywood if he needed money. A lot of these lowlifes sell their bodies and claim they’re “not gay because they do the masculine part”.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. Patricia,

    Wouldn’t crying have expedited things?!

    Dana (6875fb)

  69. Mark @ 58,

    So are you saying you do need photographic evidence??? Because I can provide it if you do. No problem!

    Dana (6875fb)

  70. round these parts, I hear it’s one tear for five years.

    I’ve heard of someone who got off because they were taking physics. The class covered the equation for deceleration when skidding, and they measured the skid marks and showed up at court with a paper showing the math. Said that given the length of the skids, they couldn’t have been going as fast as the officer said, “and here’s the math”. The judge glanced at the papers and dismissed the ticket.
    (IIRC, their math made some assumptions about the max speed being what they were traveling at when the skid started, which was not necessarily accurate. THe judge didn’t want to check the math, though.)

    Ibidem (34e45a)

  71. 60. I got out of a ticket once by engaging the officer in a theoretical analysis of the double yellow rule and the double-double yellow rule, and various exceptions. He finally just said…gotta go.

    Patricia (5fc097) — 6/22/2014 @ 6:51 pm

    Or, you’re just smokin’ hot.

    Steve57 (334088)

  72. When surveyed, 7 out 10 women who self-identified as liberal when asked to rate President Obama on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest rated his performance as “dreamy.”

    This job approval rating, which was not a survey option, was surpassed only by liberal men in terms of epressed lust.

    Steve57 (334088)

  73. Patricia (5fc097) — 6/22/2014 @ 6:51 pm

    And what were you wearing as you engaged in this (one-sided) metaphysical conversation?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  74. Or, you’re just smokin’ hot.

    Steve57, why do you, in typical white patriarchal fashion, seek to diminish Patricia’s intellectual prowess?? Can’t she just be way smarter than a police officer???? Stop the oppression!

    Dana (6875fb)

  75. Not that you’re not smokin’ hot, Patricia. :)

    Dana (6875fb)

  76. My wife, who is smoking hot, was actually approached once at a gas station by a motorcyclist who asked if she would give him $5 for gas. She politely declined. He rhen asked her out to dinner! What a catch, huh?

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  77. This is what we get for giving them the vote.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  78. Teh teardrop signifies the moment in time when the miscreant decided to disregard Father Flanagan’s advice and instead took the criminal path.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. I am conflicted about what to think about a guy who hit on a woman after asking her for gas money.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  80. Perhaps the solicitation was a qualifying question?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  81. I see, just checking to see if she was a woman of means…

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  82. Dana must be in an extremely good mood, as there are no Flying Jimmy Choo’s tonight after several snarky comments about the sisterhood.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  83. Gazzer (6a76d0) — 6/22/2014 @ 8:49 pm

    Or discernment, she declined and then he asked her to dinner.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  84. I dunno. It just seems the way they wrote it up on the Stockton police website, laying out the facts it reads that Meeks was visiting at a house that the police were fixing to raid. He drove off, was pulled over, and the police found a single bullet in the ashtray of his car. They used that as pretext to search Meeks trunk where they found an unregistered .45 Army.

    I call that bad luck more than a crime. If you’re traveling in California where are you supposed to stash weapons? In your trunk, right? The guy was doing everything the way you’re supposed to.

    Reminds me of the joke about Paul Reubens getting arrested for jerking off at the porno theatre. Next his house in L.A. got raided. The cops were looking for porno at his house.

    The joke was is anywhere safe for Paul Reubins to masturbate?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  85. 81.I see, just checking to see if she was a woman of means…

    Gazzer (6a76d0) — 6/22/2014 @ 8:49 pm

    I don’t date women unless their credit is good for a bottle of MD 20/20.

    Steve57 (334088)

  86. It’s like the old groucho Marx joke. I would never sink so low as to join a club that would have me as a member.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  87. He also asked if his son could go into the pool up to his waist as he was only half-Jewish. Had to Google MD 20/20.

    Gazzer (6a76d0)

  88. Dana must be in an extremely good mood, as there are no Flying Jimmy Choo’s tonight after several snarky comments about the sisterhood.

    So where is daley, anyway?

    (askeptic, I can’t push back too much because I’m hanging my head in shame at the demonstrated idiocy of the sisterhood.)

    Dana (fe2228)

  89. i drive slow and as little as possible for to avoid the LAPD

    and i’m white

    happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/22/2014 @ 5:38 pm

    I don’t think you have to worry about the LAPD, it’s the sheriffs department that hands out the most tickets.

    Back on topic. What is wrong with some women?

    Tanny O'Haley (137712)

  90. The Italians called their WWII version of a SEAL delivery vehicle the Maiale. The pig. I am not buying any of it.

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  91. If Meeks was a convicted felon at the time of that traffic stop (or even worse, on parole), he should have known that he was forbidden to possess a firearm, and also forbidden to possess ammunition for a firearm. As a felon on parole, he has virtually no 4th-A rights, so I presume the inspection of the ashtray was proper, giving reasonable suspicion to search the trunk. If the magazine was inserted into the pistol (I assume from the above description we’re talking about a Mdl-1911), even though it was in a “locked container” (the trunk), it was per se a violation as it was not “unloaded” – which would have been another charge on top of the ‘felon in possession’ that he already had (twice).

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  92. I have to stick up for the ladies. How many times have men made fools of themselves over some young thing that was no good?

    Steve57 (c9c4e5)

  93. And more than a few of them were “some young thing that was no good”…

    BfC (8661e2)

  94. I have to stick up for the ladies. How many times have men made fools of themselves over some young thing that was no good?
    Steve57 (c9c4e5) — 6/23/2014 @ 12:49 am

    Yeah, but how many guys have to worry about ending up in a shallow grave alongside the interstate?

    Hadoop (f7d5ba)

  95. Yeah, but how many guys have to worry about ending up in a shallow grave alongside the interstate?

    considering that in California over 80% of homicide victims are male, I’d say all of them.

    askeptic (8ecc78) you make a point of saying Meeks is a convicted felon but skip over the fact that his crime was theft, (he didn’t beat somebody up for their pocket watch) and he paid his debt to society. Plea bargained away his rights forever, because he didn’t have money for a lawyer. Does that sound like justice to you?

    And how is it any part of right to tack $1,000,000 dollars bail on this guy?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  96. If the chick has it in for you odds are she’s winding up with the insurance money.

    Steve57 (334088)

  97. So does this guy have a modeling job or agent around the corner, ready to cash in on all this drool and lift him out of the ghettos once and for all? If not, somebody’s not doing something right.

    Chris (0ba377)

  98. Dana, do me a favor. Put up new post so this fruit bait’s face is not the first thing I see when I click Patterico’s. One day of it was enough.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. @70- There is something missing in that story. I’m guessing its the fact that the citation came as a result of a collision; skid marks (“tire friction marks”) don’t often come from a simple roadway speeding ticket. And it would not be the first time that an investigator used the relatively simple equation for “skid to stop” when the more complicated process of “skid to impact” was called for. Also, very few STEM graduates go on to law school, let alone beyond that to the judiciary.

    My apologies for going all “nerd” over this.

    @96- those excuses for bad behavior are getting pretty shop-worn about now….

    Gramps, the original (29ecf6)

  100. Yup. Any time you see, “Oh, this conviction don’t amount to much” just remember that Al Capone only was found guilty of tax evasion.

    nk (dbc370)

  101. So are you saying you do need photographic evidence??? Because I can provide it if you do. No problem!

    Dana, you mean how you personally respond — viscerally — to the photo of that scroungebag and how you’d also rate all the people in a hypothetical test that gauges a person’s innate political orientation? Yes, I’d be curious how you square one with the other.

    Mark (246552)

  102. Maybe you can get a federal grant for your brilliant hypothetical “test” using old politician’s pictures to gauge a possible connection to any person’s (man or woman) immediate visceral sexual reaction to internet photos of total strangers, Mark. They’ve certainly given grants to projects of equal idiocy in the past.

    elissa (0ce366)

  103. ==I have to stick up for the ladies. How many times have men made fools of themselves over some young thing that was no good? Steve57 (c9c4e5) —/23/2014 @ 12:49 am==

    Ah, at last kernel of truth and insight peeks out. Well done, sir.

    elissa (0ce366)

  104. LOL. I did use the yellow line discussion on the recommendation of a man!

    The patriarchy wins again. Darn those patriarchs.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  105. We can at least find out what women like on their book covers. https://play.google.com/store/search?q=cowboy&c=books&hl=en

    nk (dbc370)

  106. papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/23/2014 @ 4:14 am

    Please show me the Life Contract that guarantees that “life is fair”.
    What about a cop who is saddled with a bogus felony perjury conviction that forfeits his firearms rights forever? Is Mark Fuhrman a threat to society? I seriously doubt it, yet he’s a convicted felon.
    Under the law, a felony is a felony, as is a Dishonorable Discharge from the military.
    I doubt that Meeks is some unknowing waif caught up in the system.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  107. elissa (0ce366) — 6/23/2014 @ 8:49 am

    We like the ‘bad’ ones too.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  108. ==nk (dbc370) — 6/23/2014 @ 9:35 am==

    Nicely presented for consideration, nk. I’m not completely sure if it’s the hats or the six packs, though.

    Well, upon deeper personal reflection I liked Reagan– so it must be the hats.

    elissa (988c6d)

  109. Remember in 2008, the big story was how did the anti gay marriage Prop 8 pass in Democrat infested California?

    Then it was revealed that the deciding factor was the negro vote. The thing I noticed was the demographic breakdown of that election. A huge proportion by a factor of 10:1 were the number of black women voting versus black men.

    All hands were on deck. Huge turn out of blacks to vote for Obama, but so few black men. How to explain that?

    Unless you believe that there are actually ten black women for every black man in California, it means that the vast majority of black men have had their voting rights stripped from them, along with the right to self defence, freedom of association, like Mr. Meeks here. Felony plea bargains used as institutional racism, without ever seeing the inside of a court.
    Against the State of California we are all unknowing waifs if, when, God forbid, it’s arbitrary and capricious power is focused on us.

    Is there such a thing as a class action discrimination lawsuit versus a State’s whole Justice Deptment?

    I’d love to see that headline. “California Justice Department condemned as racist in federal court.”

    Maybe they could rescend our two Senators and plethora of representatives (the logical extention of voting rights denied to felons policy).

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  110. Christoph is in moderation (because he’s banned) arguing that this guy had a constitutional right to possess firearms. Wrong. Convicted felons like him have no such constitutional right.

    Question: Where in the constitution does it actually say that? Felons don’t lose their first amendment rights, or their 3rd-10th amendment rights, so what is the constitutional basis for the current practise of treating the 2nd amendment differently? Is it based on the militia clause, and an unspoken assumption that felons are not in the militia?

    Note that voting is not a constitutional right.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  111. I got out of a ticket by allowing the officer to search my car and me for drugs. I knew I didn’t have any, but he seemed convinced that he would find something, and went over the car fairly thoroughly. When at last he had to give up, he let me off the ticket. Which was the only reason I consented to the search in the first place. I don’t understand why anyone would ever consent to a search if they had something they didn’t want found. I also don’t understand why anyone would ever consent to a search even if they didn’t have anything to hide, without a reason such as I had on that occasion.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  112. It is in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA-68), and is predated by restrictions in state laws and possibly even constitutions (I’ll let the researchers confirm or debunk that) that GCA used as background (of course, one of the more infamous background sources for GCA-68 were the Nazi-era gun-control laws that Senator Dodd used in writing GCA-68 – No, not Chris Dodd, his father).

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  113. It is in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA-68),

    This is why I asked about a constitutional basis. The GCA of ’68 can’t override the 2A, and was passed at a time when it was generally assumed that the 2A was written in invisible ink or something.

    and is predated by restrictions in state laws and possibly even constitutions

    Irrelevant. The US constitution, including the 2A, is the supreme law of the land.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  114. 112. I got out of a ticket by allowing the officer to search my car and me for drugs. I knew I didn’t have any, but he seemed convinced that he would find something, and went over the car fairly thoroughly. When at last he had to give up…

    Milhouse (b95258) — 6/23/2014 @ 1:46 pm

    The saying, “cops only frame guilty men” comes o ind.

    I wouldn’t consent to a search even though I’m entirely clean.

    Steve57 (334088)

  115. I wouldn’t consent to a search even though I’m entirely clean.

    Even to get out of a ticket?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  116. never consent to a search.

    if nothing else, they might plant something on you, or find something you didn’t even know was in the car.

    you don’t consent to searches and you don’t answer questions without talking to a lawyer first, no matter HOW innocent you believe you are.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  117. You’re elevating the risk that the cop might be corrupt, and might decide for some unknown reason to frame me, against the certainty that if I didn’t consent to the search I was going to get a ticket. I had been speeding, he had me dead to rights on that. The only way I could see to get out of it was to consent to the search, and hope that when he didn’t find anything he’d feel like he owed me something and let me off. Which is what did happen.

    I mean, if for some reason he wanted to frame me he had no reason to ask for a search. He could just drop a bag and claim it was in plain sight. Or claim I’d consented to the search; whom would a judge beleive, me or him? I assume he asked because he was honest and didn’t intend to frame me, and thus wouldn’t plant anything either.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  118. Milhouse, all I can say is that in my hometown the cops encouraged people to let the know when they where going to be out of town. Theoretically so they could watch your house.

    Invariably they’d use the information to rob you while you were gone.

    That, and helping a young lady with three kids repack her car when a Tejas State Trooper dumped all of her crap on the side of the road, leaving her standing here crying, just because he could intimidate her into consenting to a search, has resulted in my default position no longer being cooperation.

    Steve57 (334088)

  119. Milhouse, you’re quite free to file a Federal lawsuit against the provisions of GCA-68 anytime you wish. Until you get SCOTUS to overturn it, it is the law of the land, and judges are quite loath to hand deadly weapons, or the rights to them, to convicted felons.
    Then, we can talk about “Lautenberg” which takes 2-A rights from those who have only misdemeanor convictions, whether violent or not.
    But, all that being said, be my guest in marching down to that Federal District Court and challenging the law …. you do have ‘standing’ do you not?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  120. BTW, with widespread electronic monitoring of the actions of LE now available, the next time you are stopped for a traffic infraction, just whip out that smart-phone, start recording/videoing and uploading to the cloud, and then inform the officer of what is transpiring.
    Somehow, I doubt whether he will offer you a pass on the ticket if you consent to a search that he has no probable cause, and/or reasonable suspicion, to support. I doubt if he’ll even bring it up.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  121. I had been speeding, he had me dead to rights on that.

    I’d have eaten the ticket.

    Lest anyone think I have a bad ‘tude towards LEOs, I’m acting on their advice. You run across the rare bad one and you are hosed.

    The first thing a PBA rep will tell an officer under investigation is, “Don’t talk to the cops.”

    Steve57 (334088)

  122. 121. … just whip out that smart-phone, start recording/videoing and uploading to the cloud, and then inform the officer of what is transpiring.

    askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/23/2014 @ 3:18 pm

    There is a certain amount of satisfaction in letting the cops wait for the lawsuit to find out.

    Steve57 (334088)

  123. Milhouse, you’re quite free to file a Federal lawsuit against the provisions of GCA-68 anytime you wish.

    I have no need to challenge it. Patterico claimed that convicted felons have no constitutional right to possess firearms. I asked where in the constitution it said that, and what is the constitutional basis for the current practise. Did you not notice the italics on “constitutional”? GCA-68 is not a constitutional basis.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  124. Until you get SCOTUS to overturn it, it is the law of the land

    No, it is not. The constitution is the law of the land, and any statute that contradicts it is not a law. The fact that courts will pretend otherwise doesn’t change anything.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  125. Somehow, I doubt whether he will offer you a pass on the ticket if you consent to a search that he has no probable cause, and/or reasonable suspicion, to support. I doubt if he’ll even bring it up.

    No, he’ll just give you the ticket and be on his way. How does that benefit you? Or he’ll arrest you for recording him, not having heard of the recent legal developments in that area. And break your phone.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  126. 126. …And break your phone.
    Milhouse (b95258) — 6/23/2014 @ 3:53 pm

    Yeah, that’s another thing.

    It’s a state law in Tejas that you have to tell a cop, should one pull you over, that you have a CCW. And let him or her take control of your weapon.

    In theory and for the most part in practice I have no problem with this. But there’s a Richard Head two towns over who will dismantle it and give it back in tiny pieces. He’s one of those types who thinks only cops should carry.

    Steve57 (334088)

  127. papertiger,

    For voting, felons are barred while incarcerated or on parole, in California, not permanently. For gun possession, even if California relaxed its law there’s still the federal law as askeptic pointed out.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. I had been speeding, he had me dead to rights on that.

    I’d have eaten the ticket.

    You really think the risk is that high? You yourself wrote that “run across the rare bad one and you are hosed”. In other words, the bad ones are rare. I myself wouldn’t be that confident that they’re all that rare. But so long as the individual cop in question is more likely than not to be honest-ish, it seems to me that consenting to the search, and risking trouble from it, is better than the certainty of a speeding ticket. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  129. Yes the probability is low but the risk of damage is too high.

    Steve57 (334088)

  130. “…I asked where in the constitution it said that…”

    I’m sure some high-priced, white-shoe lawyer could make a case that the authority lies in Art-I, Sec-8(16):
    “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority to training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

    Followed by Congress’ definition of who comprises the Militia in the various Militia Acts.
    I would think that Congress would not be happy having a Militia – either Organized or Unorganized – comprised of Felons; and would therefore not look favorably on felons possessing weapons for any reason. If Congress wanted to restore the Rights of felons to buy, possess, and bear, arms, they have that ability by rescinding those provisions within law that restrict those actions.
    Of course, under the current interpretation of the Art-II powers of the President, He can unilaterally change whatever provisions of law that displease him – and has.
    These either don’t displease him, or he just hasn’t gotten around to it yet.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  131. I’m sure some high-priced, white-shoe lawyer could make a case that the authority lies in Art-I, Sec-8(16) [...]Followed by Congress’ definition of who comprises the Militia in the various Militia Acts.

    Except that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to members of the militia. Nobody today alleges that women, or those over 45, are not protected by the 2nd amendment. I repeat my question: convicted felons don’t lose any of their rights under any other part of the constitution; what is the constitutional basis for saying that they have no constitutional right to possess firearms?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  132. I repeat my question: convicted felons don’t lose any of their rights under any other part of the constitution; what is the constitutional basis for saying that they have no constitutional right to possess firearms?

    Try the Thirteenth Amendment.

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you are the most dangerous person in the world, maven.

    nk (dbc370)

  133. BTW, askeptic, the GCA is based on the Commerce Clause, as I remember from the case striking down the federal school zone law.

    nk (dbc370)

  134. The 13th amendment doesn’t take away any of a felon’s rights. It allows slavery as a sentence, with its length and severity subject to the 8th amendment. Once a felon’s sentence — whatever it was — is over he is no more eligible for slavery than anyone else.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  135. The Commerce clause gives Congress authority to legislate in the first place. Laws made subject to Article 1 section 8 still have to comply with the rest of the constitution. Especially the amendments, which, to whatever extent they can be construed as contradicting the original constitution, override it.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  136. Sigh. Sentence is not limited to incarceration, parole, or probation. There can be lifetime disabilities, such as loss of right to vote, registering as a sex offender, or possessing weapons. Look at Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment; search for “other crime”. My Thirteenth Amendment reference was to your bald assertion “convicted felons don’t lose any of their rights under any other part of the constitution”; I’m throwing in the lesson on the Fourteenth at no extra charge.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. Obama has the right to re-write the Constitution as he sees fit, because, well, he won the election—and he has a really cool crease in his dress slacks, according to the NY Times’ David Brooks.
    And besides, the NY Times’ Tom Friedman famously said a couple years ago that democracy is often too slow, and the smart set in China have the ability to get things done more quickly because they don’t need consent from the governed.

    Why would anyone be opposed to that ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  138. *there’s a Richard Head two towns over…

    Speaking of Richard Heads (ok it was only me) I was reflecting on the life of Reynaud de Chastillon(spelling varies).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raynald_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon

    Wikipedia doesn’t nearly do his guy justice, such was his complete and total douchebaggery. It is awe inspiring.

    Wikipedia says:

    … Raynald launched ships on the Red Sea, partly for piracy, but partly as a threat against Mecca and Medina, challenging Islam in its own holy places. His pirates ravaged villages oup and down the Red Sea, before being captured by the army of Al-Adil I only a few miles from Medina. Although Raynald’s pirates were taken to Cairo and beheaded, Raynald himself escaped to the Moab. Saladin vowed to behead Raynald himself…

    Reynald, Reynaud, whatever, didn’t just launch ships on the Red Sea. He had his dudes go into the forests of Moab, do a little timbering, test his boats on the on he Dead Sea (it’s hard o sink s*** on the Dead Sea so that’s the place to figure out if it’s time to take the training wheels off), then he dismantled the boats, loaded them onto camels and packed the 120 miles to Aqaba.

    I don’t care who you are, that’s dedication.

    Steve57 (334088)

  139. No snark. The Constitution provides the minimal protection. That’s why a six-year old can be made to register as a sex offender for urinating on the playground, a petty offense. It’s up to the people, through the democratic process, to elect sane rulers who enact sane rules. Forty-eight states allowed the carrying of firearms prior to Heller and MacDonald. That was through the legislative activity of the NRA and other RKBA groups, not the courts. Heller and MacDonald did not put them out of business — they still need to expand the minimal freedoms recognized by the courts.

    nk (dbc370)

  140. Steve, the proper phrase is “Richard Cranium”!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  141. nk, some people are just as dense as iron-wood, and cannot get their arms around “Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”, and that Congress gets to decide – absent any disparaging word downstream from the Courts – what “appropriate” legislation is.

    “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  142. Commerce!
    Yes, I remember – had to restrict the availability of Carcano’s in interstate (mail-order) commerce.
    And NFA-34 is an excise tax.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  143. The Constitution is only as good as its enforcement.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  144. They’ve certainly given grants to projects of equal idiocy in the past.

    Well, thanks, Elissa. Your compassion for compassion’s sake sends a shiver down my back.

    Mark (d0a45a)

  145. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

    The 15th Amendment doesn’t leave California with any wiggle room.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  146. 141. Steve, the proper phrase is “Richard Cranium”!
    askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/23/2014 @ 6:21 pm

    I stand corrected.

    I feel like a total sh**bird. It won’t happen again.

    Steve57 (334088)

  147. Also the 15th is the first part of the constitution I’ve read that asserts voting is a right of citizenship.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  148. It was common before the Civil War for all eligible electors regardless of naturalization to be allowed to vote, but qualifications were decided on a state-by-state, and even community-by-community basis. The 15th was enacted to try to bring some uniformity to the process, plus to slap down those un-reconstituted racists where-ever they were located that thought that Freed-Men should not have the vote, or much of anything else (but that was the province of the 14th-A).

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  149. Steve57 (334088) — 6/23/2014 @ 6:54 pm

    That’s demonstrating a proper attitude, which will be reflected within your next Performance Evaluation.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  150. It’s “previous condition of servitude”. Disparate impact on the races? That’s Holder’s argument. The disparity is entirely in the hands of the disparated. Don’t commit 90% of the crimes and you won’t be the 90% under legal disability.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. 150. That’s demonstrating a proper attitude, which will be reflected within your next Performan e Evaluation.
    askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/23/2014 @ 7:05 pm

    I got kicked in head once escaping from he helo dunker.

    I might have mentioned this but did I mention he part about he flight boots and he steel toes?

    Steve57 (334088)

  152. In case it escaped you, I didn’t drown.

    Steve57 (334088)

  153. That’s good to know Steve, before I started searching for an open vault.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  154. Christoph is in moderation (because he’s banned) arguing that this guy had a constitutional right to possess firearms. Wrong. Convicted felons like him have no such constitutional right.

    Question: Where in the constitution does it actually say that? Felons don’t lose their first amendment rights, or their 3rd-10th amendment rights, so what is the constitutional basis for the current practise of treating the 2nd amendment differently? Is it based on the militia clause, and an unspoken assumption that felons are not in the militia?

    Note that voting is not a constitutional right.

    It’s a little odd to ask me where in the Constitution it “says” that convicted felons have no constitutional right to bear arms. Where in the Constitution does it “say” that women have no constitutional right to commit post-partum infanticide? In both cases, the Constitution is silent on the matter, and no court has found that silence to confer some non-existent right.

    You could argue, of course, that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and if it doesn’t limit that right, then the right is unlimited. But other provisions are not interpreted the same way. The First Amendment is not thought to be unlimited.

    The Second Amendment does not specifically exclude felons from its purview, but the First Amendment does not specifically exclude libel from the scope of protected speech. Courts have found that “the freedom of speech” does not include the right to libel, and courts have repeatedly found, even post-Heller, that the right to bear arms does not protect felons.

    The Heller decision stated that the Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Felons are by definition not law-abiding.

    That’s not to say a state couldn’t allow a felon to bear a firearm; just that a state is not prohibited from passing a law outlawing possession of firearms by felons.

    Does that help?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  155. Judge Yokem has spoken!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  156. Does Milhouse think we can deny the right to possess firearms to murderers serving their prison terms? Or do we have to wait until violent felons are out of prison to hand them their guns? “Where in the Constitution does it say that?”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  157. I found some interesting stories about miner’s courts in the old West. I like this judge:

    JUDGE WARDLOW STEELE mounted his judicial rostrum and eased onto a split-log bench, worn slick already by frequent use. He laid his six-gun on a puncheon table before him and for several seconds contemplated it through savage blue eyes. He had not yet reached a conviction whether his clumsy court of law and justice, or gunpowder, was to be final arbiter of criminal destinies at Flat Creek. Lately he’d begun to see things as his friend Bill Hacker saw them; that is, as a slow, yet inevitable transition from Vigilante methods to orderly administration of law. But at his last two court sessions his faith had sustained jolting setbacks; his jury had acquitted a pale-eyed lobo accused of stage robbery on Emory Road and a squint-eyed coyote accused of horse stealing at Cold Spring Junction. Glib witnesses established a convincing alibi in each case, hence he could not censure his jurors. But if looks and past history meant anything, those two scoundrels should’ve been hung on general principles.

    Judge Steele gave his straw-colored mustache a couple of jerks in opposite directions. “All right, Sheriff, call court.”

    Sheriff Jerd Buckalew, tall, rawboned and pokerfaced, hammered with his .45 on an inverted cracker barrel. “Court’s now in session. Anybody disturbin’ same will find hisself tied in a knot.” A dozen hard-faced deputies standing back of him nodded in indication that Bucky’s words constituted no idle threat.

    Judge Steele delayed further action, while his eyes made a roving courtroom survey. As usual, here was a crowd of grimy, black-whiskered gold diggers and a scattering of bleary-eyed sots, cutthroats, drifters, and bums.

    He leaned over his sandbox and spat. “Skiffy, call fust case.”

    Clerk James Skiffington creaked and stretched his thin body and its ill-fitting garments upward and steadied nervous fingers on a sheet of paper. His voice was crisp and cold. “Dockney Waddell, alias Dock Waddle, alias Waddle Duck. Charge, first degree murder.”

    Judge Steele looked down to where prisoners customarily sat. His gaze rested upon a thick-necked, flat-faced, sandy-haired, insolent-eyed scoundrel who looked like he could have murdered his grandma without batting a blinker.

    “Murder, eh? You didn’t know we hang murderers in these parts, I reckon. Well, sir, you’re about to git educated. What’s your plea?”

    A tall, axe-faced character in scissor-tail coat and dirty white vest stood up. “I’m his attorney, your honor. French Demeree, from—”

    “Yeah,” snarled Judge Steele, “French Demeree from Tennessee. Are you sure you didn’t leave that state just two hops ahead of a deputy sheriff?”

    “Came west for health and fortune, if your honor please.”

    Judge Steele’s nostrils dilated. “I presume you refer to your own health; you’re not makin’ it healthy for anybody else. What’s your plea?”

    “Not guilty,” Demeree said, and sat down. “Not guilty!” Judge Steele scoffed angrily. “You mean he’s guilty, but we’ve got to prove it before we can hang him. Well, we can shore do it. Whar’s our man?”

    A chunky redhead rose with an air of assurance. “Wade Claybrook, your honor; prosecuting attorney.”

    “Humph!” Judge Steele grunted. Recent experience had inspired in him an unhealthy contempt for Wade Claybrook. “Prosecuting attorney! It’s a misnomer, if you ask me. You look like a cannon, but you go off like a popgun. Suppose, for a change, you pitch in and help us rid society of one of its obvious misfits.” He glanced down at Sheriff Buckalew. “Panel a jury, Sheriff.”

    Read the whole thing, free here: http://www.munseys.com/disknine/satcamdex.htm

    nk (dbc370)

  158. 154. 153. In case it escaped you, I didn’t drown.
    Steve57 (334088) — 6/23/2014 @ 7:44 pm

    Tha ’s good to know Steve, before I started searching for an open vault.
    askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/23/2014 @ 7:56 pm

    I know the not drowning part probably doesn’t make everybody else as happy as it makes me, bu I can live with that.

    Steve57 (334088)

  159. A fool and her money are quickly parted.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  160. Does Milhouse think we can deny the right to possess firearms to murderers serving their prison terms? Or do we have to wait until violent felons are out of prison to hand them their guns? “Where in the Constitution does it say that?”

    Imprisonment by definition involves being deprived of the right to liberty. It’s a penalty for a crime, and its length is subject to the eighth amendment. Being deprived of arms is a necessary part of imprisonment, both to keep prisoners from escaping, and because the prison is responsible for protecting prisoners from each other. Prisoners’ other constitutional freedoms are also sometimes limited by the nature of their imprisonment. They are subject to search without warrant or probable cause. Their mail is censored. Their access to books and newspapers is limited, as is their communication with the outside world. A prisoner can’t just schedule a press conference at the prison whenever he likes. But all incedental to their imprisonment. None of these apply once their sentence is over, or to people under non-custodial sentence. And even in prison all constitutional rights apply to whatever extent they are possible and practicable. Prisoners can’t be deprived of constitutional rights just because. Let alone former prisoners, or convicted felons who were never prisoners.

    Voting is not a constitutional right, as you have pointed out in the past. Therefore states are entitled to bar felons from voting, if they like. But what other constitutional right are states entitled to abrogate because someone is a felon?

    Heller speaks of “law-abiding, responsible citizens”; the second amendment doesn’t. Are you seriously claiming, for instance, that aliens have no second amendment rights?! They are protected by the 1st and the 3rd-10th, but not the 2nd?! I don’t think you meant to imply that.

    You give the example of libel, and other forms of speech that the first amendment doesn’t protect. But those are easily distinguished. The 1A protects the “freedom of speech” that already existed. Its extent is absolute — there is nobody subject to the constitution who doesn’t have it, and indeed the amendment implies that it belongs to everyone in the world, that it’s one of the inalienable rights with which all men are endowed by their Creator, and to protect which governments are formed among men. But what does that universal right consist of? It never included a right to libel people. Nobody has such a right, or ever did. The 2A equivalent would be to say that it doesn’t apply to certain kinds of weapons. For instance, in Miller the Supreme Court said it didn’t apply to weapons that have no military use. Such weapons, it said, were never included in the “arms” which the 2A says everyone has the right to keep and bear. It may have been wrong about that, but it’s not unreasonable to such limits existed at the time on this right, and are part of the definition of the right in the 2A. That’s very different from saying that a right is included in the RKBA, but that certain people may be deprived of it.

    (My first approach would be to suggest that the framers indeed intended Congress to make no law against libel either, leaving that to the states. The 14th amendment came later, of course. But that’s probably wrong, since it would have left federal territories without libel laws, and it’s not possible that the framers meant that.)

    Milhouse (b95258)

  161. But all incedental to their imprisonment

    That should have read: “But that is all incidental to their imprisonment”. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  162. Sigh. Sentence is not limited to incarceration, parole, or probation. There can be lifetime disabilities, such as loss of right to vote, registering as a sex offender, or possessing weapons. Look at Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment; search for “other crime”.

    Sigh. Try reading before answering. Voting is not a constitutional right. Loss of the vote is not part of a criminal sentence; if it were, then it would be up to the judge whether to impose it, and the judge would have to say so. Rather, states can impose or remove it at will, and can apply it retroactively, because it’s not a penalty, it’s just a change in the qualifications for voting. Just as states can extend the vote to 15-year-olds, and then change their minds and take it away again, they can extend the vote to felons or withdraw it from them as they choose.

    There is also no constitutional right not to register. States can require all sorts of registrations if they like, and not just from felons.

    The deprivation of the RKBA is not part of a sentence. Judges don’t mention it when passing sentence, and Congress imposed it retroactively on people who’d already been sentenced in ’68. Congress then imposed it retroactively on certain misdemeanants as well. If RKBA were not a constituitonal right, then I wouldn’t object. But what we’re discussing here is Patterico’s assertion that felons never had a constitutional RKBA, so Congress was free to restrict them in this way. I’d like to know the constitutional basis for that assertion.

    I’ve already addressed your spurious argument from the 13th amendment.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  163. Also the 15th is the first part of the constitution I’ve read that asserts voting is a right of citizenship.

    As Patterico has pointed out before, it makes no such assertion. It simply says that if a state creates such a right, it may not limit it by certain criteria. The 19th, 24th (with regard to federal elections), and 26th added to the list of criteria that a state may not use to limit the franchise. States remain free to limit it on other grounds, at least as far as the constitution is concerned (the Voting Rights Act is another story); that would not be the case if there were a constitutional right to vote. (States are not free to abolish the franchise altogether, not because of any amendment but because of the Republican Guarantee clause in hthe original constitution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that that clause is not justiciable, so if a state were to abolish the franchise it would be up to the President to decide whether to send in troops to force elections.)

    Milhouse (b95258)

  164. The deprivation of the RKBA is not part of a sentence. Judges don’t mention it when passing sentence

    Yes they do.

    Patterico (6b9b92)

  165. Heller speaks of “law-abiding, responsible citizens”; the second amendment doesn’t. Are you seriously claiming, for instance, that aliens have no second amendment rights?! They are protected by the 1st and the 3rd-10th, but not the 2nd?! I don’t think you meant to imply that.

    I didn’t mean to imply anything about aliens, as we were not discussing aliens. But if your argument is that the language I cited from Heller has no teeth, because of course aliens have Second Amendment rights, you might want to check that. Are you saying that Congress cannot ban illegal aliens from having arms? Because they have, in 18 USC section 922, and that statute has been upheld by at least the Fourth Circuit and Fifth Circuit in opinions that reference the very language I cited.

    Whether resident aliens have such a right post-Heller, I cannot easily find an answer, simply from an Internet search. But the language I cited is being used by the courts, yes. Courts tend to find meaning in Supreme Court decisions.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  166. Heller specifically called laws against felons possessing firearms “longstanding” and said the decision is not to be read to cast doubt on those laws.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  167. Milhouse, who is obviously very intelligent (and I mean that), is overlooking the very obvious fact that the law is whatever the State says it is.

    Milhouse: felons have no right to keep and bear arms. I know because the people keeping and bearing all the arms told me so.

    Even our Constitutional system boils down to Mao’s maxim – you just have to boil it longer.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  168. Are you saying that Congress cannot ban illegal aliens from having arms?

    I said nothing about illegal ones. Let’s address legal ones first. But if it comes down to it, if Congress can’t ban illegal aliens from speaking or worshipping as they please, or deprive them of jury trials if they are accused of crimes, or subject them to unreasonable searches, then why should it be able to ban them from having arms? But first address legal aliens, because it’s well-established that they do have all the usual constitutional rights. Are you seriously claiming that the RKBA is somehow an exception, just because Heller said so?

    Heller specifically called laws against felons possessing firearms “longstanding” and said the decision is not to be read to cast doubt on those laws.

    Heller said a lot of things that are obviously not right. Or do you subscribe to the view that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court from moment to moment says it means, i.e. that the Supreme Court has the power to unilaterally amend the constitution as it pleases? You’d think such a power would be mentioned in Article 5.

    Remember, all this is about your statement that felons don’t have a constitutional right to bear arms. I just want to know the constitutional basis for that. I already knew that the courts and legislatures behave as if it were so, but I was surprised to see you appear to agree.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  169. the very obvious fact that the law is whatever the State says it is.

    Then the state is, by definition, incapable of breaking the law. So why are we all upset about the IRS shenanigans?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  170. Do you realize that all this was caused by Jeremy Meeks tilting his face at a slight angle?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  171. “Then the state is, by definition, incapable of breaking the law. So why are we all upset about the IRS shenanigans?”

    - Milhouse

    Because we can be upset by things beyond illegality. More important things, like injustice, coercion, abuse of power, etc. But none of those things have anything to do with “the law.”

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  172. No right is absolute. Depriving illegal aliens of firearms would likely meet the overwhelming governmental interest test (although the Second Amendment seems to be subject to a balancing test). So would forbidding genital mutilation even though their religion says they have to cut off little girls’ clitorises. And there is no Fourth Amendment at the border. The Consitution is not a suicide pact or a philosophical exercise in “what would Hopalong Cassidy do?” It’s a law for the orderly establishment, preservation, and perpetuation of society, and every interpretation of each of its provisions will be to further these goals.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. 166- The courts have spoken on whether resident aliens can be disarmed by way of several state’s having laws/regulations depriving resident aliens of CCW’s being struck down as a violation of Heller.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  174. I love it when Milhouse takes J. Scalia to school on what he and the Supremes can do, and whether they got it ‘right’ when they did it.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  175. The fuss in the IRS scandal, though, is specifically about the IRS having broken the law. How could it have done so? As an arm of the state, it should be, by definition, incapable of breaking the law.

    Ditto for all the fuss about 0bama waiving laws he doesn’t like. What’s the big deal? He’s the president, the constitution says the executive power is vested in him, so the law should be whatever he says it is, no?

    And why should the USA, or any state, ever submit to being sued? You don’t like what it did? You don’t have to like it, but it can’t be illegal, because the state did it.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  176. I love it when Milhouse takes J. Scalia to school on what he and the Supremes can do, and whether they got it ‘right’ when they did it.

    J Scalia is not the dictator of the constitution. He often blatantly misinterprets it, and doesn’t give a damn. The only justice who really cares what the constitution actually says is Thomas.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  177. 166- The courts have spoken on whether resident aliens can be disarmed by way of several state’s having laws/regulations depriving resident aliens of CCW’s being struck down as a violation of Heller.

    Despite Heller having specifically limited it to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”! So I was right. That clause is not true, and is not even being taken seriously by the lower courts.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  178. Ah, but the interpretation of law is left to SCOTUS, so they get to tell us what the words written by the Congress, and endorsed by the President, means.
    And the President is charged with ‘faithfully executing’ those laws, not treating them as if they are a buffet menu.
    Leviticus was just winging on the old “Might Makes Right” meme.
    Just like you can tell a cop as he arrests you that the charge is bogus, and the DA may decline to charge – or prosecute, you still get the ride and booking.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  179. No right is absolute.

    Says who? The framers of the Bill of Rights didn’t think so. They were the same people who declared that we have inalienable rights, granted by our Creator. In the Bill of Rights they listed some of these.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  180. Ah, but the interpretation of law is left to SCOTUS, so they get to tell us what the words written by the Congress, and endorsed by the President, means.

    Only when it’s in doubt, and even then they are constrained to tell the truth. They have no right to deliberately say it means whatever they want it to, and when they do so they are ultra vires and their decision is a nullity.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  181. The Heller Syllabus says “…Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia…” (pg-1).

    Now, in the interest of argument, I do not deny that somewhere buried in the mass of legalese of the full opinion may be the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens”, but I will leave it to you to cite its location. But, I would find it unusual that if it were in the body of the opinion, it would not be used in the syllabus.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  182. 182 – more….
    And to save you some time, here’s where you can find the opinion in full.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  183. No right is absolute.

    Says who?

    Everybody who lives in the real world who can say it and make it stick.

    nk (dbc370)

  184. Honestly, are women in Western civilization past the point where neck tattoos are no longer a dealbreaker ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  185. Law which is not sword and shield, wielded by the state for its protection and for the protection of those who have adopted and share its goals (loyal citizens), is insanity.

    nk (dbc370)

  186. Now, in the interest of argument, I do not deny that somewhere buried in the mass of legalese of the full opinion may be the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens”, but I will leave it to you to cite its location. But, I would find it unusual that if it were in the body of the opinion, it would not be used in the syllabus.

    Patterico was the one who cited it, not me. He cited it to justify his statement that felons have no constitutional RKBA. And it’ specifically that statement that I questioned, and that we are now discussing.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  187. Everybody who lives in the real world who can say it and make it stick.

    In other words, might makes right. Or rather, you don’t give a damn about right, because as you’ve said before you don’t believe in rights at all. So the only thing the Nazis did wrong was lose the war.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  188. Felony, in the common law, could deprive the felon and his descendants of everything. Everything! Under our Constitution we have chosen not to visit the sins of the fathers unto the heads of the children nigh. It’s only for the lifetime of the felon. (A lifetime is enough time for anyone, I suppose.) The right to to keep and bear is founded in the common law. The common law is cited in the Constitution as the default law. Interpreting the Second Amendment in accordance with the common law is as good a way to interpret it as any.

    nk (dbc370)

  189. Ask the Canaanites better. They were the first documented genocide.

    nk (dbc370)

  190. Ask the Canaanites better. They were the first documented genocide.

    And your antisemitism comes out yet again. The only evidence that this ever happened is the Bible. Either you trust that document or you don’t. If you don’t, then you have no reason to believe it ever happened. And if you do then you know that it was just. Either way, it’s dishonest to condemn it, and the only ones who ever do are antisemites like you.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  191. I’m not the one who elevates half-baked 18th century musings of Anglo-Saxon “philosophers” into gospel. For crying out loud, Milhouse, do you think Israel would exist today if it had adopted your ideas as part of its founding charter? A Jew should know better than anyone else that the lesson of the Holocaust is that there are no natural rights, international law is a joke, and what works is a strong community that defends itself from enemies within and without.

    nk (dbc370)

  192. I’m not the one who elevates half-baked 18th century musings of Anglo-Saxon “philosophers” into gospel.

    These “half-baked musings” are the foundation of the USA. Without them the USA has no legitimacy and shouldn’t exist in the first place.

    For crying out loud, Milhouse, do you think Israel would exist today if it had adopted your ideas as part of its founding charter?

    It pretty much did.

    A Jew should know better than anyone else that the lesson of the Holocaust is that there are no natural rights, international law is a joke, and what works is a strong community that defends itself from enemies within and without.

    OMG. That is exactly what the Nazis believed. And you seem to agree, and to think that it was only losing the war that retroactively made what they did wrong. (Including what they did to the Greeks.) The lesson is the exact opposite: that rights are real, and must be respected, and states that ignore them must be brought down.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  193. What brought the Nazis down was killing them, not reading Rousseau to them.

    nk (dbc370)

  194. Rousseau was the problem that generated them in the first place. All modern socialism ultimately stems from him.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  195. And yes, those who violate people’s natural rights need to be killed, because they committed aggressoin against their victims, not just because we can kill them.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  196. the feud continueszz…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  197. A very confused philosopher.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  198. Imprisonment by definition involves being deprived of the right to liberty. It’s a penalty for a crime, and its length is subject to the eighth amendment. Being deprived of arms is a necessary part of imprisonment, both to keep prisoners from escaping, and because the prison is responsible for protecting prisoners from each other. Prisoners’ other constitutional freedoms are also sometimes limited by the nature of their imprisonment. They are subject to search without warrant or probable cause. Their mail is censored. Their access to books and newspapers is limited, as is their communication with the outside world. A prisoner can’t just schedule a press conference at the prison whenever he likes.

    So this is argument by “definition.”

    It seems to represent something of a shift from “if the Constitution doesn’t specifically limit the Second Amendment right, the Second Amendment right is not limited.” I asked: where in the Constitution does it say that prisoners can’t keep and bear arms? I think your answer is: it doesn’t, but the Second Amendment doesn’t have to specifically state a limitation in order for that limitation to exist.

    Do we agree on that? If so, then it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your “where does it say that in the Constitution??” argument.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  199. Dear nk and Milhouse,

    The Constitution says whatever I say it says. And if you don’t like it, you can go complain to my Attorney General, Eric Holder. Just be sure to take your voter-supressing racist !!!! photo I.D. with you if you expect to pass the security desk at the Department of Justice.

    Love,
    Signed,

    Barack

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  200. Perhaps it says it in the 9th and 10th-A’s, in all those words between the lines, especially “…retained by the people…” and “…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    Milhouse must love the old Soviet Constitution as it was quite specific in what everyone’s rights were, though it was a little lax in protecting them.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  201. Perhaps it says it in the 9th and 10th-A’s, in all those words between the lines, especially “…retained by the people…” and “…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    That retains rights, not abolishes them! You can’t claim that hiding somewhere in there is an exception to the rights explicitly recognised in the previous amendments!

    Milhouse (b95258)

  202. So this is argument by “definition.”

    It seems to represent something of a shift from “if the Constitution doesn’t specifically limit the Second Amendment right, the Second Amendment right is not limited.” I asked: where in the Constitution does it say that prisoners can’t keep and bear arms? I think your answer is: it doesn’t, but the Second Amendment doesn’t have to specifically state a limitation in order for that limitation to exist.

    Do we agree on that? If so, then it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of your “where does it say that in the Constitution??” argument.

    No. I think you may have misunderstood my answer.

    The constitution allows imprisonment as a form of punishment. Being disarmed is a necessary part of imprisonment. If you allow prisoners to be armed, they’ll break out. So allowing imprisonment by definition must include allowing those prisoners to be deprived of guns, just as it must include allowing them to be deprived of the keys to their cells.

    In the same way, if the eighth amendment had not banned the amputation of the tongue as a punishment, and states were free to impose such a penalty, then the first amendment would not stand in its way. Do you follow so far?

    Restricting someone’s right to be armed when they’re not imprisoned is quite a different matter; there’s nothing in their current state that requires them to be disarmed, so disarming them is a separate act, and one that would appear to violate the 2A, just as preventing them from holding a press conference at home would appear to violate the 1A.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  203. By the way, I hope I’m not coming across to you as hostile. We’re just having a civil discussion of a fairly theoretical point, since in practise felons are being disarmed, whether legally or not, and no court is likely to stop it any time soon.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  204. No. People are imprisoned because they are a danger to society. If they can be made non-dangerous, or enough less dangerous, to society by being disarmed, it’s a welcome alternative to entire deprivation of freedom behind bars. Or it should be considered so.

    nk (dbc370)

  205. I don’t think the guys in the halfway-house across the street from me are allowed to have guns. I’m pretty sure they’re not, actually. And I’ll, tell you, from what I see of the place, it’s a lot nicer than Cook County Jail or Stateville (I’ve been to both).

    nk (dbc370)

  206. Remember, when the Eighth Amendment was drafted, felony meant hanging. The penitentiary is a late-comer to Anglo-Saxon law; a Quaker invention for a gentler, kinder America that caught on.

    nk (dbc370)

  207. Milhouse: No, you’re not coming across as hostile, but something far worse, and thoroughly disagreeable.
    HAND!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  208. 207. nk (dbc370) — 6/24/2014 @ 6:42 pm

    Remember, when the Eighth Amendment was drafted, felony meant hanging. The penitentiary is a late-comer to Anglo-Saxon law; a Quaker invention for a gentler, kinder America that caught on.

    So, ISIS in Iraq is only going back to the 18th century, not the seventh? (They don’t seem to have imprisonment in their repertoire of punishments, mostly.)

    I think the Quaker invention was imprisonment in a group.

    Sammy Finkelman (9257c5)

  209. Stateville prison in Illinois dates back to the original design. Tiers of cells in a hollow cylinder with the guard tower at the axis so the prisoners could be watched all the time.

    Do you like Oscar Wilde?

    He does not sit with silent men
    Who watch him night and day;
    Who watch him when he tries to weep,
    And when he tries to pray;
    Who watch him lest himself should rob
    The prison of its prey.

    nk (dbc370)

  210. Jeremy Meeks didn’t always know the best way to pose for the camera:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/jeremy-meeks-hot-convict-old-mugshots_n_5521895.html

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7377 secs.