Patterico's Pontifications

8/31/2019

Next Up: Fox Business Host Lying About Trump Lying

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:55 am



[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week I wrote about Trump 2020 campaign spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany lying about Trump lying. On the heels of McEnany’s comments, and clearly evidencing that he didn’t get the memo that Fox News doesn’t work for Trump, the network’s business host, Stuart Varney, humiliated himself on air when he too denied that Trump lies. Peak irony: he was called out on his lie by lying Joe Walsh:

During a heated interview with Republican presidential candidate Joe Walsh, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said he does not believe President Trump has lied to the country.

The former GOP congressman told Varney on Friday that Trump “lies virtually every time he opens his mouth,” prompting Varney to ask Walsh to give him an example.

“I will give you an example just from yesterday and even his staff, Stuart, admitted that he lied this week when he said there were high-level phone calls between the United States and China. Trump said that repeatedly. His staff came out yesterday and admittedly, admitted that the president of the United States lied to the world to manipulate the markets. I have a problem with that,” Walsh said.

“That’s not a lie. Let’s not get technical,” Varney replied. “If the man said, and he did, that high-level talks had been held with China, that is not a lie. They were held with China.”

“Stuart, he said there were high-level phone calls with Chinese officials. His staff admitted that was not true, that he lied in order to manipulate the market,” Walsh said.

Walsh then asked Varney if he believes Trump has ever lied.

“He exaggerates and spins,” he replied.

“Okay. Do you believe he’s ever told the American people a lie?” Walsh asked, to which Varney gave a curt “No.”

Varney then turned the tables on Walsh at the end of their conversation (not seen in the video), and asked Walsh whether he lied when he claimed that President Obama was a Muslim. Walsh was forced to admit that it was a lie, and added that he’s apologized for it.

Not seeing a lot of daylight between Trump and Walsh, two peas in a pod. All of which makes me wonder why Republicans would look to Walsh as their savior in 2020, because if you loathe and revile one lying bigot, why would you promote another lying bigot?

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

123 Responses to “Next Up: Fox Business Host Lying About Trump Lying”

  1. Happy Saturday!

    Dana (fdf131)

  2. Hello? Do “Low level” Chinese officials talk to the POTUS? No. IRC, Trump said the Vice-Premier of China called him. that’s not “Low level” unless you think the VP of the USA is “low Level”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  3. Walsh is a con-man. He says whatever is necessary to get him the maximum donations/Air Time/power.
    One day he’s a moderate Republican. Then he’s Tea Party. Then he’s the “Crazy” Right wing Talk show host calling Obama names. Now, he’s the Never-Trumper speaking “truth to power”. He’s be supporting Bernie Sanders tomorrow, if it paid more $$$.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  4. Walsh is a con-man.

    In the interest of equality-opportunity condemnation, don’t stop with Walsh.

    Dana (fdf131)

  5. Dana, please name a politician you trust to tell the truth.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  6. Walsh advocated for arming kindergarteners…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. And Trump lies all the time. He’s a politician.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  8. Well cohen did put one off on him, but did he complain.

    It doesnt seem that this nascent opposition has a clue, you would they would have learned somsthing from the last cycle

    Narciso (66a0fa)

  9. He’s also textbook Mens Rights tool…if he burns through his scant Kristol quarters, he’s gonna be back in family court real quick.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Walsh-Settles-Ex-Wife-Child-Support-148111465.html

    urbanleftbehind (d01544)

  10. Walsh is desperate for face time; Fox Business is desperate to fill air time, particularly on a Friday before the long, Labor Day holiday weekend– one of cable TeeVee’s deadest zones. Only a hurricane– or heaven forbid, another terror incident, could attract eyeballs.

    They got ‘the gathering storm.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. Then theres the fact his campaign manager was incomunicado for 10 days
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/the-week-in-pictures-labor-day-edition.php

    Narciso (66a0fa)

  12. And shep is just desperate, one avoids his riund of vapors whenever possible.

    Narciso (66a0fa)

  13. I can’t decide who has less credibility, Varney or Walsh. Probably Varney, who basically said that Trump doesn’t lie. At least there’s some redemption in Walsh, not that I’ll ever vote for the hack.

    Paul Montagu (a50184)

  14. It’s interesting you mention some redemption with regard to Walsh, Paul Montague. I’ve been thinking about that, and of course, if he is sincere in his repentance and contrition, then good for him. But the fact remains that, he only apologized after his decision to run, and he clearly knew he had to apologize (at the very least) if anyone like Kristol, etc. were to support him. It’s just that that is such an opportunistic move on Walsh’s part that it reinforces the urge in me to distrust him about well, anything.

    Dana (fdf131)

  15. I would score a big fat zero in a game of Robin Leach, Stuart Varney or Nigel Farage?

    urbanleftbehind (d01544)

  16. Alas, redemption eludes him… https://mobile.twitter.com/sachabaroncohen/status/1166586299136008192

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. “And Trump lies all the time. He’s a politician.”

    Drain the swamp!

    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  18. Calamari’s on special!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. 17. It’s so cute that you seem to think it matters who we put in there. Wrong, but cute.

    Gryph (08c844)

  20. @10. Postscript: ugh. Apparently heaven didn’t forbid; cable TeeVee jackpot; Cat 4 hurricane and now–

    breaking- CNN reports active shooter[s]- possible two separate vehicles, Odessa/Midlands, West Texas area; gold Toyota & hijacked U.S. Mail truck involved; initial reports- 1 dead, 10 injured; report stated truck was driving by shopping centers and opening fire on shoppers.

    ‘How many time do you have to be smacked across the head w/a 4X4 to learn it hurts?’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. What’s the matter with Texas?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. silly rabbit, they won’t lie down, to our betters,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Not a lot of pop in my Facebook world or on the news sites, DC, maybe the larger populace is like eff those futhermuckers.

    urbanleftbehind (d01544)

  24. @21. And where were all those ‘good guys with guns’ to stop it?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. @26. Law enforcement stopped him. The proverbial ‘good guys with guns’ in the mind of ‘Wayne’s World’ were no where to be seen in ‘open carry’ Texas as this fella careened willy-nilly popping off shots at folks on his spree for close to an hour. Latest report- 21 injured; 5 dead.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. 28… there are incidents all over the US where the “good guys” carrying foil robberies, etc., and save lives. What’s the reason for your sarcasm?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  27. It’s a Kitty Genovese world everywhere, I guess, DCSCA. You can only rely on yourself.

    Come on! You said it yourself. This guy was a drive-by careening nilly willy. He would be blocks away before bystanders realized someone near them had been shot. And trust me on this, it is never a good idea to fire a gun down a road, no matter where you are, unless you are absolutely certain of both your target and your bullets’ backstop.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. Although I suppose that if your bullets went through his rear window and out his windshield, and killed the school bus driver in front of him, the resulting crash might stop him. But how could you be sure that you would hit the school bus driver and not one of the kids?

    nk (dbc370)

  29. Probably someone somewhere has run off a robber by racking a shotgun shell, but for the most part it’s hearsay and mythology. When we have actual evidence, what almost always has happened is that a professionally trained person has stopped the armed bad guy. Almost no one who isn’t a professional trains enough to be able to react properly in these situations. Adrenaline, fear, and panic don’t tend to lead to clear thinking (or good aim).

    Nic (896fdf)

  30. Once you get a Tumpkin to admit that words Trump said were not accurate you get one of a few responses
    -It’s not a lie its spin/marketing/whatever
    -I don’t care at least he’s fighting.
    -So and so is worse.
    -So and so i no better.
    -Whatabout….
    -All politicians lie so stop being mean to the one I love.
    -He’s better than Hillary.

    Pathetic

    time123 (d54166)

  31. No, Mr. Aragua. The hearsay and mythology is the anti-gunners’ narrative that you are not in a better position to defend yourself and others if you are armed. Thankfully, common sense and the history of the world keeps most people from buying into it.

    Now, if you’re talking about schools, you might have something. But it’s my experience that only the vice-principals are that mean.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. Nuh uh plus an ad hominem is not a convincing rebuttal. If you are properly trained and you practice you might be in a better position to defend yourself. Otherwise, not really. You have to make the actions automatic or you can’t take action in a situation where you life is in danger because generally our brains suck in those situations. Your best defense is whatever you’ve trained at and practiced, be it knife, gun, or a flathand to the nose. A baseball player with a bat would be more effective than a gun novice with a gun.

    (and I did see the goalposts move there, don’t think I didn’t)

    Nic (896fdf)

  33. “Pathetic”
    time123 (d54166) — 8/31/2019 @ 5:36 pm

    It’s best not to max out your outrage.

    If Trump’s lies were to lead to thousands dead in a bogus war, or to spy on an opposition campaign, you’ll need some room for further indignation.

    Munroe (33bad0)

  34. Who is moving the goalposts, if not anti-gunners who want people to believe that unless you qualify as the President’s bodyguard, you should not be allowed to carry a gun? Like I said, common sense and the history of the world are against you.

    BTW, what was the ad hom?

    nk (dbc370)

  35. PS I know I will never convince you. We’re just talking.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. You are moving the goalposts. Good guy with gun will stop bad guy -> good guy with gun in better position to stop bad guy.

    Also my saying “you need to be trained and in practice to do any good” to your (implied, “you said”) THEY MUST QUALIFY TO BE THE PRESIDENT’S BODYGUARD TO CARRY A GUN OMG!

    Ad hominem is the argumentative strategy of attacking the person you are talking to instead of rebutting their actual argument.

    You want to argue that untrained, terrified people make excellent defensive decisions and are good shots, go for it, but I don’t think you’ll find any evidence.

    (I don’t want to take away your gun, but the cultural myth that any random good person gun-novice just needs a gun to protect themselves is wrong and dangerous.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  37. (pressed submit too soon,) so the ad hominem attack you made was to assume that I am anti-gun and you called me a communist.

    Nic (896fdf)

  38. @30. A ‘good guy with a gun’ Texan not give chase– with horsepower or on horseback???

    Wayne would be ashamed– both John and LaPierre! 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. @29. You asked ‘what’s with Texas’– the ‘Yes, but’ argument wears thin, given the body count of dead an injured in El Paso and more today in Odessa. Wayne’s ‘good guys with guns’ pitch is loaded with blanks; no stopping power twice this month in the same state.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. DCSCA brought up “good guy with gun will stop bad guy”, not me. Read my responses to him again. I patiently explained why that was not possible in Midland. One might even say that I agreed with him: “It’s a Kitty Genovese world everywhere, I guess, DCSCA. You can only rely on yourself.”

    You want to argue that untrained, terrified people make excellent defensive decisions and are good shots, go for it, but I don’t think you’ll find any evidence.

    No, I don’t want to argue that, and I have not.

    (I don’t want to take away your gun, but the cultural myth that any random good person gun-novice just needs a gun to protect themselves is wrong and dangerous.)

    I don’t want to argue any part of that, either.

    Ad hominem is the argumentative strategy of attacking the person you are talking to instead of rebutting their actual argument.

    I know. What was it?
    — “Mr. Aragua”? I remembered you joking that your parents had named you Nicaragua.
    — Are you a vice-principal? That was humor to go with the clip from Blazing Saddles.
    — “anti-gunners’ narrative”? At worst, that’s not an ad hominem, it’s a generalization, and even then it applies to you only if you want it to. You don’t need to be an anti-gunner to recite their narrative.

    You know what, reaching the end of this comment, I got a tad annoyed. You do sound like the vice-principals I used to know. But I am not a sophomore who will deferentially allow himself to be bullsh!tted or browbeaten.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. Just saw your 40, I was typing while you were posting it, but I have already addressed it.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. Pathetic”
    time123 (d54166) — 8/31/2019 @ 5:36 pm

    It’s best not to max out your outrage.

    If Trump’s lies were to lead to thousands dead in a bogus war, or to spy on an opposition campaign, you’ll need some room for further indignation.

    Munroe (33bad0) — 8/31/2019 @ 6:11 pm

    Good advice generally, but mis-applied here. It’s not outrage. It’s contempt.

    But thank you for the additional example of ‘whatabout’. You’re good at that, but may want to consider being good at something else as well.

    time123 (d54166)

  43. @43 I couldn’t figure out Aragua, so I googled it. Apparently it’s a place in Venezuela and we all know what’s been going on there. Unfortunately there’s been a lot of “you’re a venezuelan” implying communist on this board recently, so I thought that was what you were referencing.

    I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti-propaganda (including both pro and anti gun propaganda). Reality is what it is.

    Due to internet paranoia, I can’t confirm or deny my actual job title, but I am in the general realm of school administration.

    I did get a little intense, I admit. I also do not like being browbeaten and far too often I have been in a discussion that became what a terrible person I was for not believing in whatever the NRA myth of the day was.

    Nic (896fdf)

  44. @43. nk, that’s been the LaPierre NRA sales pitch– and twice this month in an ‘open carry’ state, festooned w/firearms, it has turned out to be a ‘hollow point’ w/no ‘stopping power’ when it would have really counted.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. 46. I hope I’m not responding out-of-turn here Nic, but I should probably clarify something here. I’m as staunch a supporter of the 2nd amendment as you will ever find. In broad terms, I believe in the NRA’s mission to preserve the government’s official recognition of the inherent right to keep and bear arms. That said, I am not an NRA member and probably never will be due to some fundamental philosophical differences between that particular organization and myself. They are one of the largest pro-2nd amendment groups in terms of membership, but there are actually smaller groups out there that align more closely with my thoughts on the matter than the NRA does.

    Gryph (08c844)

  46. 47. The NRA sales pitch is, “It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.” That is true. I have never heard any pro-2nd amendment individual argue “A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun every time.” That is an unfair twisting of the argument.

    Gryph (08c844)

  47. @48 I think the intentions of the NRA used to be good, but they’ve taken on too much of a lobbying role for the gun industry IMO (at least there is a LOT of money flowing from the gun industry to the NRA and then on to Congress) and lobbyists are almost always purveyors of, um, highly slanted information to support their cause.

    My personal opinion on guns is that they are a tool that needs to be treated with respect and used properly. I don’t have a ton of patience with any of the various mythologies that have sprung up in gun OR anti-gun culture. (FFS people, it’s not going to leap out of the gun safe and shoot people by itself, you don’t have to be afraid to be in the same house.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  48. @49. Unfair? Hardly; it’s spot on; it’s the real world, not a mere sales pitch to woo membership and peddle weaponry.

    Do a body count of the dead and wounded in both El Paso and Odessa, Texas this month alone and that should tell you when it truly mattered, in a proud, ‘open carry’ state full of firearms, the sales pitch drew blanks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. 51. Okay. So do you think police should be allowed to have guns? Where were the police to stop these shootings? How do you square the circle of politicians having armed bodyguards while they clamp down on my ability to defend myself? Awfully elitist for a country that’s not supposed to have titles of nobility, don’t you think?

    If a good guy with a gun doesn’t stop a bad guy with a gun, the answer is most certainly not to reduce the number of good guys with guns. That’s not propaganda; it’s common sense!

    Gryph (08c844)

  50. “I don’t have a ton of patience with any of the various mythologies that have sprung up in gun OR anti-gun culture.”

    Are you seriously trying to both-sides the Second Amendment?

    “Do a body count of the dead and wounded in both El Paso and Odessa, Texas this month alone and that should tell you when it truly mattered, in a proud, ‘open carry’ state full of firearms, the sales pitch drew blanks.”

    YOU SAID THAT WOMEN WHO DON’T WANT TO GET RAPED SHOULDN’T DRESS PROVOCATIVELY AND GET DRUNK ALONE…WELL, WHAT ABOUT *THIS* WOMAN WHO GOT RAPED EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN’T!!!

    Go back to your rat hole, Communist.

    Dumb Counterexample (b6d672)

  51. @53 Hi VPN guy. You need a new schtick.

    Nic (896fdf)

  52. Heh! It was not George Washington who said: “All power comes from the barrel of a gun.” It was Mao Tse-tung. And Mikhail Kalashnikov made a whole lot more people “equal” than Colonel Colt did*.

    *Ten points if you know the reference.

    nk (dbc370)

  53. “You need a new schtick.”

    No, this one works pretty well. Let me try it again:

    “Probably someone somewhere has run off a robber by racking a shotgun shell, but for the most part it’s hearsay and mythology.”

    THE NOTION THAT *ANYONE*, *ANYWHERE* HAS EVER SCARED OFF A CRIMINAL BY BRANDISHING THEIR WEAPON IS A SILLY CAPITA…I MEAN, NRA MYTH!

    The Shareblue shill checks must clear on mass shootings really quick.

    Dumb Counterexample (8de5f3)

  54. By the way, nk, this is how to silence these very obvious shills-by call them out on their very obviously wrong opening talking points and not letting them change the subject as the conversation continues…they’re not interested in having a conversation, they’re interested in getting their talking points accepted.

    “Oh, haha, I wasn’t saying that ALL gun owners are sheep, just that the NRA is bad…well I’m not saying that I’M against the Second Amendment, but really just that I don’t agree with everything the NRA does, don’t you agree with me, Fellow Conservative?”

    Victory (for them) looks like a conversation where they get to inject their talking points at every point in the thread. Defeat looks like them hearing their premises laughed at and brought up again and again when they try to go into ‘reasonable conservative’ mode.

    Dumb Counterexample (ce4f91)

  55. 57. Well then, let me say it yet again:

    “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” See that little dot just before the closing quotation mark there? It’s a period. A full stop. It symbolizes that there are no further qualifications or after-thoughts there. Insofar as the NRA agrees with this salient point, I consider them allies. I just won’t pay for a membership so they can lobby on my behalf.

    Gryph (08c844)

  56. Let’s ask Polanski why he still maintains his cachet with his fellow Thespians, and credit him for knowing what he’s talking about when he’s talking about the people he knows best, his fellow Thespians:

    “But… f[]ing, you see, and the young girls. Everyone wants to f[] young girls!”
    — Interview with Martin Amis (1979), published in Visiting Mrs Nabokov : And Other Excursions (1993), this was modified to censor the word “f[]” when quoted in “Roman Polanski: ‘Everyone else fancies little girls too'” by Michael Deacon

    They’re peas from the same pod.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. 32… here’s a good example here, Nic, I’d come across it earlier this afternoon… https://www.pilotonline.com/news/crime/vp-nw-shooter-interview-20190829-ufii37kspbd63oymnqbdgpcqga-story.html

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. @62 Good for him for being a responsible gun owner. They were very lucky that he’d put in the training to be able to do what he needed to. Going to the range a couple times a week should give you the muscle memory to shoot straight.

    Nic (896fdf)

  59. Sigh the above should be @60

    Nic (896fdf)

  60. DCSCA,

    The shooter was shooting from his vehicle and after that from a post office van he hijacked. The police stopped him by using their vehicles to corner him, then they shot him after a gunfight. It is very hard to shoot a moving target, plus no one expected the shooter to be in a mail truck. (One lady heard the report of a shooter so she followed a mail truck because she felt it would lead her to safety. But it was the shooter and she ended up in the middle of everything.)

    This was more like the DC sniper case than the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton, and it appears it was unplanned. He started shooting at the DPS troopers after they pulled over his car but before he had even come to a complete stop, and 3 of the 7 deaths were civilians on the Interstate. After that, it appears that all but one of the people he shot were standing on the street or in cars, and he shot them as he drove by. The one exception was the mail carrier he hijacked, who he executed as she begged for her life.

    I wish someone with a gun had realized what was happening and stopped this sooner. I wish the mail carrier had been armed. But he got the drop on two DPS troopers who were trained and armed. It happens.

    DRJ (15874d)

  61. Five shot dead across Chicago last night. And that’s a typical Chicago Saturday night.

    nk (9651fb)

  62. 14. Dana (fdf131) — 8/31/2019 @ 1:00 pm

    . It’s just that that is such an opportunistic move on Walsh’s part that it reinforces the urge in me to distrust him about well, anything.

    All he does is get in the way of the (very limited) possibility of a serious challenge to Donald Trump’s re-nomination (by sucking up campaign contributions, for one thing, but there’s more ways.)

    In fzct, there’s a big question in my mind as to whether he’s acting completely independently. It makes much more sense if he isn’t.

    His track record is such that if somebody was being put up to it (to prevent a more serious challenge by a neo-conservative to Trump’s renomination) Walsh would be the type of person that ringer would have to be. Weld, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  63. 64. nk (9651fb) — 9/1/2019 @ 7:14 am

    Five shot dead across Chicago last night. And that’s a typical Chicago Saturday night.

    But in separate incidents, right?

    South Bend Indiana is also suffering from an upsurge in crime, including murders. Crime is not something anyone with Mayor Pete’s ideology has any kind of thinking on. The anti-police rhetoric he’s confronted with – well, they are getting what they want.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  64. “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    That’s not teh actual quote.

    It’s

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “the people” is a collective entity, as in the 10th Amendment, ofr the phrase that begins the 177 Constitution “We, the people.”

    And if this is an individual right, why is it necessary to say “keep” in addition to “bear?”

    “The people” cam sometimes have aplural individual meaning but I don’t think it oes here. The miitia is not any male over 18, like the Congress in 1903 was lobbied by the National Guard Association into saying – it is an institution.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  65. Gryph (08c844) — 8/31/2019 @ 8:02 pm

    So do you think police should be allowed to have guns? Where were the police to stop these shootings? The police (among others) could ahve guns, but not semi-automatics or better. They’re not appropriate for defense against armed individuals.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  66. 68. And yet, isn’t it ironic that the American colonists fighting against the British actually had arms superior to the redcoats’?

    Gryph (08c844)

  67. 67. And you are willing to accept infringements on the right to keep and bear arms because of some judges’ interpretation of a plain English phrase. Noted.

    Gryph (08c844)

  68. The British muskets were designed around the tactics of the day. Massed volley fire. A British soldier was supposed to fire six shots per minute. That meant oversize bore/undersize ball for faster reloading, and large touchholes to eliminate the need for separate priming – powder from the load leaked out into the pan. Consequent sacrifice of velocity and accuracy.

    nk (9651fb)

  69. the American colonists fighting against the British actually had arms superior to the redcoats

    Most of those arms supplied by the King of France to the US Congress, and in the later stages of the conflict, accimpanied by soldiers and sailors wearing the uniform of the King of France. And cannon and heavy arms being in the possession of the local revolutionary bodies, not individuals. Often enough, like the cannon Washington used to force the British out of Boston, they were actually British military supplies seized by the American army.

    The Colonials did not win the Revolution by outfighting the British army all on their own. They won because they were fighting an imperial power whose army was operating a considerable distance from home, they were helped by a competing imperial power, and they had the sympathy of a considerable portion of the British electorate.

    Kishnevi (2f404f)

  70. 72. And they had arms superior to the British, for whatever reason.

    Gryph (08c844)

  71. 66… voting that Alfred E. Neumann lookalike in as mayor was a crime.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. @67, ““the people” is a collective entity”

    The right possessor is “the people” just as it is in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. All of which protect individual rights….with the 10th also clearly distinguishing “the States” and “the people”. If the framers chose a more general term, why should we assume that they meant the more specific term militia members?

    @67, “And if this is an individual right, why is it necessary to say “keep” in addition to “bear?””

    To “keep arms” implies ownership or possession. The members of the militia were to be “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Are we to believe that the 2A was trying to draw out a distinction between private ownership and use, and ownership and use for militia purposes? A ban on the private ownership and use of arms would undoubtedly have had a catastrophic effect on the militia being available for action.

    If the 2A is only about keeping the federal government from disarming state militias, why not state this directly as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” and avoid any confusion about keeping and bearing arms? The framers were experienced word smiths….they knew how to do this and chose not to.

    The 2A prefatory statement simply stated a principle of good government, it did not qualify the right with terms like “so long as a militia is necessary to the security of a free state” or “being necessary for” or “only when”. We should not read in qualifiers that are not there.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  73. 75. Reading in qualifiers that aren’t there is what shyster lawyers and lifetime-appointed judges do.

    Gryph (08c844)

  74. Sorry, Gryph. I love the myth of the Kentucky rifle and American frontiersman marksmanship more than apple pie and George Washington fessing up to chopping down the cherry tree, but there was a reason Revolutionary War officers ordered their men: “Do not fire until you see the white of their eyes!” Neither the arms nor the marksmanship of the bulk of Washington’s armies were much shucks beyond football-throwing range or, in the main, superior to those of the British.

    nk (dbc370)

  75. 75. AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 9/1/2019 @ 9:50 am

    If the 2A is only about keeping the federal government from disarming state militias, why not state this directly as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” and avoid any confusion about keeping and bearing arms? The framers were experienced word smiths….they knew how to do this and chose not to.

    The short answer is to include Vermont, and also not fully organized territories, like perhaps Tennessee. And also frontier areas. Or any place where something other than a recognized state functioned as a government.

    The same idea appears in the 10th amendment, where “powers”, which is surely not any form of individual rights, are retained, not just by the states, but also by “the people.”

    You’re quite correct that the whole militia clause is just simply an argument, and not a qualifier. But it still helps you interpret what it means.

    You should also take a look at the version of the 2nd amendment in the Articles of Confederation: (At least this makes the meaning what tey had in mind by arms “kept” by a “well regulated militia”.)

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

    Article VI clause 4:

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    In the second amendment, the “keeping” is in public stores, and the “bearing” is taking it out of them.

    They both need to be mentioned separately in the second amendment because there could be a right to bear arms colllectively but not to store them collectively. But for an indicidual right, “bearing” is enough since you can’t bear arms without also “keeping” them. But “the people” might have a right to bear arms without having the right to keep them.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  76. 75. AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 9/1/2019 @ 9:50 am

    In natural law philosophy, there can be other sources of authority other than the legally established ones. It was this philosophy that was used to justify the illegal replacement of the Articles of Confederation, which said, in artivle XIII:

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

    And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

    This was not done. In fact that’s maybe why the proceedings of convention i Philadelphia were done in secret. They didn’t want anyone to try to stop them. They were on;y supposed to recommend amendments to the Congress – instead they broke out of it, using as a justification:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    They provided for ratification (conventions, if 9 out of the 13 states ratified it, it becamse effective between the states that ratified it. It was not a coup.)

    The Declaration of Indepedence (1776) also speaks of “the people” in a collectve sense:

    …..That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..

    Does it mean individuals here? The same thing in the 10th amendment, and also the Second. In the 1st it may not mean everybody (like in Hong Kong today where it really is just about everybody) but we are speaking of act, that by its very nature, involves many people, and perhaps also they are sort of like pretending that whenever apetition happens, it is everybody. The 4th and 9th speaks of indivdual rights held at large.

    If the framers chose a more general term, why should we assume that they meant the more specific term militia members?

    The militia is actually a justification. It does extend past apreviously constituted militia, but it still has to be quasi-governmental or people acting together. (now the right of individuals to possess ndividual arms might be one of those rights retained)

    It was this p

    @67, “And if this is an individual right, why is it necessary to say “keep” in addition to “bear?””

    To “keep arms” implies ownership or possession. The members of the militia were to be “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Are we to believe that the 2A was trying to draw out a distinction between private ownership and use, and ownership and use for militia purposes? A ban on the private ownership and use of arms would undoubtedly have had a catastrophic effect on the militia being available for action.

    If the 2A is only about keeping the federal government from disarming state militias, why not state this directly as “Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias” and avoid any confusion about keeping and bearing arms? The framers were experienced word smiths….they knew how to do this and chose not to.

    The 2A prefatory statement simply stated a principle of good government, it did not qualify the right with terms like “so long as a militia is necessary to the security of a free state” or “being necessary for” or “only when”. We should not read in qualifiers that are not there.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  77. Sorry I didn’t delete from your post and have your words hanging on at the end of my post.

    @67, “And if this is an individual right, why is it necessary to say “keep” in addition to “bear?””

    Shorter answer:

    It is necessary to say keep precisely because the keeping was collective. Otherwise, bear includes it besides that’s the way you reer to a state or rganized body collecting weapons for use.

    A ban on private ownership was done by Governor Thomas Jefferson of Virginia in 1781 (he wanted them all for the army) I don’t think the ban was all that successful.

    @67, ““the people” is a collective entity”

    The right possessor is “the people” just as it is in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. All of which protect individual rights….with the 10th also clearly distinguishing “the States” and “the people”.

    In the 1st amendment it is “the right of the people to assemble” and maybe also to “petition” which, by its very nature, is done by more than one person.

    In the 4th amendment it is the “right” of the people – which means all of them. The 9th amendment also speaks of rights generally retained.

    The 10th amendment speaks of “powers” – which cannot be an individual right. Rather it is a word parallel to “States.”

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  78. 63. The ‘yes but’ arguement again…

    “…it happens…” -yes, twice within a month in an open-carry state festooned w/firearms. And today, more laws loosening the already liberal restrictions to same go into effect.

    The ‘good guys with guns’ pitch is a fallacy; it was clear plenty of ‘good guys’ had time to take aim— with their smartphones, and shoot video of the guy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. @73.No– they didn’t. But they did employ hit and run tactics which ‘weren’t cricket’ to the Brits. Today we call it ‘terrorism.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. 81. All I said was, that is not an argument for disarming good guys. And it’s not. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Gryph (08c844)

  81. A good guy with a gun will maybe stop a bad guy without a gun.

    Maybe even sometimes with a gun where the bad guy doesn’t want to take a chance and can retreat.

    Actually even a good guy who looks like he might have a gun on him.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  82. @83. 1. Twice this month the ‘good guys w/guns’ sales pitch has been tragically beenput to the test and shown to be a fallacy in the real-world. 2. That’s not an accurate post of the text of the 2nd Amendment, Gryph; truncating it reveals the weakness which doesn’t support your argument.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. There is a new post up about the gun shootings in Texas and Chicago this weekend, as well as Democratic response, particularly Beto’s mandatory “buyback”.

    Dana (fdf131)

  84. DCSCA @20:

    Apparently heaven didn’t forbid; cable TeeVee jackpot; Cat 4 hurricane…

    The peak of the hurricane season is August 25 through September 2nd. It’s confined really to one week.

    Re: Hurricane Dorian: My only familiarity with the name Dorian is with the story The Picture of Dorian Gray where a portrait but not the person.

    That’s what’s going on with Hurricane Dorian: The depictions on television are terrible, but in real life the hurricane so far hasn’t made much of impact. On the United States at any rate. Florida sems not to need top worry too badly as long as the hurricane stays 40 miles and not 20 miles offshore. There will be still be a storm surge, aided by the high tide of the new moon.

    The European weather projections are being relied upon by CBS because they are considered more accurate. They are more accurate because I think President Clinton deliberately tweaked U.S. hurricane warnings in the mid-1990s to make them overpredict disasters and cause evacualtions and hastily passed appropriation bills. His deeds “live after him” because this is all inside baseball.

    The hurricane is moving slowly, 2-3 mile per hour, which means it builds up intensity. It is now maybe among the 10th strongest hurrucane in te Atantic since they;ve been keeping regular track of them.

    It looks like the Bahamas will be hit, very very badly. But maybe there it also will be like the portrait of Dorian Gray. (except that in the story, when Dorian destroys the portrait, he does and suddenly looks like it.)

    If so – if it never makes landfall, Hurricane Dorian is indeed well named.

    PS It did strike a portion of the Bahamas:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/us/hurricane-dorian-updates.html

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  85. Where I live is now under a Tropical Storm Watch. That will probably becomw a Tropical Storm Warning. Meaning I will probably get TS strength winds, and certainly gale force winds, unless the storm stays well out to sea.
    I live almost exactly on the 26th parallel (about a five minute walk away, actually). The center of the storm is currently at 26.5 degrees of latitude, approximately the border between Broward [Fort Lauderdale] and Palm Beach Counties, and moving about 7mph due west. The storm is expected to start moving north sometime tomorrow. The earlier the time, and the sharper the angle, the better for Florida. But there is currently at least a slight chance the eye could come ashore in Palm Beach County and areas north of that. There is a high likelihood that at least some parts of Palm Beach County will get hurricane force winds even if the center stays offshore. And until the storm starts that turn, the threat remains.

    Kishnevi (8d3389)

  86. DCSCA,

    You are right that armed citizens did not stop either Texas shooting. However, the only “but” in my comment involved the officers, not the citizens. There were two trained, armed DPS officers who initially engaged this suspect and who let him get away, even after shooting one of them. That was unfortunate but as I said above, it happens — even to armed, trained officers.

    Community safety requires that law enforcement and citizens work as a team. We need everyone to be smart, to get appropriate training, and in some cases to be armed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  87. @91. Law enforcement did there job as fast as they could. They’re supposed to. They did so in Dayton, too, w/an incredibly fast response time, too… yet in those few seconds many were slaughtered. We can’t stop every aircraft hijacking– “it happens”– but we’ve made a decision as a society to put restrictions in place which have greatly reduced them from occurring, inconveniencing the many to protect everyone from the few. Rhetorically speaking, ‘How many times does someone have to be smacked in the head with a 4X4 to realize it hurts?’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. 91… well said, DRJ!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  89. FWIW, I think the lesson from thsee shootings is citizens need to do more target practice and more moving target practice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  90. Actually, the law enforcement response was mixed. Some did extraordinarily well and others were lacking, just like the real people they are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  91. Take care, kishnevi. I hope this storm will turn and go back out to sea.

    DRJ (15874d)

  92. Rhetorically speaking, ‘How many times does someone have to be smacked in the head with a 4X4 to realize it hurts?’

    Turn that around. This is a medium-sized city with limited law enforcement. There were so many crime scenes and victims spread out across the city that the response time was more than 20 minutes, even for places with multiple victims. Do you want citizens to be unarmed and dependent on law enforcement in those situations, DCSCA?

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. @94. You’re kidding, right? So training gun-owning ‘citizens’ to be better shooters on the move– would have made this fella maybe an even better shooter on his spree?

    Nah.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. Far out to sea, DRJ!
    Otherwise it just travels northward and hits the Carolinas.

    Kishnevi (8d3389)

  95. Yes, that’s what I meant, too, kishnevi.

    DRJ (15874d)

  96. Fox News Sunday, shortly after 10 am, said the hurricane was moving west. Also this could be a story till Friday.

    I heard from someone who lived in Florida at the time of Hurricane Andrew (which was 1992) He lived in the Keys. He went east, over the 7-mile bridge and as soon as he crossed he heard that the bridge was closed and those to the west should batten down and those on the east couldn’t go back.

    He was heading toward Miami where (I think) he said his brother lived. He said it was as if the hurricane was following him. He stayed there during the hurricane.

    I mentioned it destroyed Homestead Air Force base. He said on the way back to the Keys (the Keys were not hit) there was an overpass – Florida is flat, but that went up some figure – did he say 50 or 60 feet?) in the air.

    On both sides you could see smoke, helicopters downed.

    It was like the hand of God swept everything away.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  97. I don’t know but I doubt he was into training, DCSCA, except in his parents’ gameroom on his video games (which is a surprisingly effective training method for all sorts of hand-eye coordination skills). My guess is this traffic stop was because he was driving erratically. He might have been drunk or high, or maybe he was angry and emotionally immature. We’ll find out eventually.

    DRJ (15874d)

  98. But you can’t stop everyone from defending themselves because of a few dumb, drunk, high, immature, or evil people.

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. One explanation of why the models got the track of the storm wrong:

    On althouse one commentator said one of the planes monitoring the hurricane developed mechanical trouble and so there was no new data about the upper atmosphere (in a certain location)

    A system near the Mississippi River didn’t move as expected which caused a high pressure ridge near Florida to stay in place which pushed the hurricane north-east away from Florida.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  100. @102. Guessing on the particulars is rather moot; the commonality is always the guns and ease of use. If he was wielding a bow and arrow, things might have turned out differently for lw enforcement– and a lot of folks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. The commonality is humans, not guns.

    DRJ (15874d)

  102. No, the commonality is guns. If it was just ‘humans,’ yesterday it wouldda been a fella duking out with two pissed off traffic cops or in El Paso, a kid eventually getting punched out by an overwhelming crowd of angry shoppers.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  103. You make an interesting point about phones, though. A lot of people did risk their safety trying to film things. They did not let fear stop them. Imagine if one or more of them had had a gun.

    DRJ (15874d)

  104. @108. Which comes full circle to the ‘good guys with guns’ fallacy. But uh-oh, now some Samsung techie will invent the 8mm smartphone; 8 rounds and 8 hours of battery live w/o recharging! 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. Good guys (and gals) with guns are real, not a fallacy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  106. 11 examples.

    DRJ (15874d)

  107. @110. Again, the ‘yes, but…’ argument.

    The NRA sales pitch is a fallacy, as tragically exemplified by the two mass shootings in Texas within a month.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. Care to respond to my actual comments instead of your rewriting of them?

    DRJ (15874d)

  109. People can still try to hijack planes and even w/t layers of security we have today, some can still succeed – so what’s the point of all the billions spent on costly security, checking and rechecking, profiling people, shampoo bottles, key rings, making air travel today miserable and inconveniencing the millions of travelers who’d never think to steal a plane because of a few hijackers– maybe 500 at most– since the age of passenger flight began? Because it can’t stop it but it can reduce and deter it. We’ve decided as a society to inconvenience the many to protect everyone from the few.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. So if good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns, how is that an argument for infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms? I don’t get it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  111. @113. Did– it’s the same old ‘yes, but’ argument.

    See 114.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. @115. 1. It’s the NRA sales pitch which is the fallacy. 2. You keep moving the goal posts and truncating the 2nd Amendment to fit you pistol, Gryph; it suggests a weakness in your position.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. 111. I think a majority of these cases involved a gun against a knife, or against nothing, and.or a policeman or guard. Maybe one or two cases involved a hesitant arned person where the good guy got the drop on him.

    In number 6 what kind of weapons did the robbers have so that a gun could scare them off?

    In number 4 how did the armed guard disarm the shooter?

    Only numbers 1,3 and 4 seem to involve an active shooter. They all involved ccps or former cops or guards.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  114. 117. Okay. What am I leaving out? The preamble to the 2nd amendment is no more than an explanation. And you still have yet to answer my question: How would it solve the problem of bad guys with guns to prevent good guys from having guns? If the NRA sales pitch is a fallacy, then what *will* stop a bad guy with a gun? I know what you think of the NRA. Now I’d like an honest and straightforward answer to my question.

    Gryph (08c844)

  115. 119. Gryph (08c844) — 9/1/2019 @ 3:13 pm

    How would it solve the problem of bad guys with guns to prevent good guys from having guns? </blockquote As a byproduct of limiting the number of good guys with guns, you prevent future bad guys from getting guns, or becoming familiar with them.
    If the NRA sales pitch is a fallacy, then what *will* stop a bad guy with a gun?

    Making them difficult to get, or driving up the price.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)

  116. @110. Again, the ‘yes, but…’ argument.

    The NRA sales pitch is a fallacy, as tragically exemplified by the two mass shootings in Texas within a month.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/1/2019 @ 2:50 pm

    Stephen Willeford.

    I wonder if people tend to leave guns at home, not only because they want them to protect their families but also because it is very confusing to know where you can and can’t take guns.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. 120. That doesn’t stop bad guys from getting guns. That, my friend, is the anti-NRA fallacy.

    Gryph (08c844)

  118. 119… DCSCA thinks he can disarm them with his humor or, barring that, script line from Gilligan’s Island.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7191 secs.