Boise News

There are at least eight Democratic Senators who will in all probability vote against any new ban on semi-automatics. They are Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA). Newcomer Mark Begich from Alaska also appears to be friendly to our Second Amendment rights, but more concrete information is needed.

Assuming that Al Franken wins the recount against Norm Coleman in MN, that leaves you with 59 Democrats in the Senate, at least nine of which have no desire to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase guns. Some of them do support other gun-control measures, but in the case of a reauthorized semi-auto ban, its future seems somewhat uncertain no matter how much pressure Obama and Biden may bring to bear.

Still, the price of freedom remains eternal vigilance.

Bill, the one thing you should really be worried about is if some mental case tries to one-up the lunatic from Virginia Tech last year. It is after these mass killings that the pressure for restrictive gun legislation gains the most traction.

With the current violation of the Posse Comitatus, I plan to keep my guns REGARDLESS of what happens in Congress. You see, when the government breaks the law, there IS no law. When the government ignores the law, I'll simply ignore the law too. Bushie is planning to station U.S. military troops in this country with the specific purpose of putting down any civil unrest. Well, that's against the law. Whach'ya'gonna'do when the come for YOU? I know what I'm gonna do.

It's all about parity. The citizens of this country have the absolute RIGHT to defend themselves against their own government should that become necessary. But I would go further. Not just the right, but the duty. THAT'S why we need our guns. When the government starts shooting at us for our own good, all bets are off. I pity the poor fellas in uniform that are "just following orders". Not a good idea to follow illegal orders in THIS country. That just might get you killed.

Congress needs to stop this nonsense immediately. NO army troops can be allowed for law enforcement in this country. PERIOD! If Congress won't stop it, the armed citizens of the country will via the second amendment.

It didn't take long for the nut comments to start coming out, did it (yes Larry, I'm talking about you).

Bill, a couple more minor thoughts to make you nervous on your bet.

"First and foremost, the overriding issue for the Dems is preserving power...not a single one wants to give up their power..."

That seems to make sense alright, however, history proves otherwise. The pent up frustration of 8 years will in fact result in just the opposite of what you hope. It's what keeps the pendulum swinging.

"Second, the Democrats have a long list of massive messes to clean up...There will be no time in Congress or the White House for gun legislation, nor should there be..."

Hmmm...that's a bit like arguing with the cop who just gave you a speeding ticket that there are more important crimes he should be attending to. That argument never has, and never will, work.

But, good luck with your bet. I hope you win.

I'm with you on my concerns and hopes that Obama meant it when he said he believed in our right to be armed. He is a constitutional scholar. Still that question worried me too. Like what the.... ? He got a lot of votes that will turn on him if he tries to take away basic gun ownership. I believe more should be having concealed weapon permits. Well trained citizens who are armed have already been helpful in some of the nutcase shootings we have. I know it's a risk if the gun owners aren't trained but that is what concealed weapon laws should make sure of.

Why are my comments nutty, adrian? Are you even FAMILIAR with what is currently happening in regards to Posse Comitatus and the stationing of Army troops in this country? I'm guessin' that you don't even know what Posse Comitatus is or you wouldn't make a fool of yourself. And do you REALLY believe that it's a good idea to have Army troops engaged in law enforcement duties in this country? I don't. Again, adrian, IT'S ILLEGAL! And when the govt. ignores the law, there is no law.

The idea that we can use our guns to defend ourselves against our own military is nuts and more militia thinking than realistic. Our protection against what happened under the Bush administration is to elect new leaders and they better do differently or keep electing new. To me guns are for our own protection from home invasions and from predators if we live in rural areas and have livestock

I am tired of hearing about all the fatal shootings during robberies and breakins - as well as the accidental shootings by family members and friends of gun-owners. On the other hand, far smaller is the number of cases where a gun in the house was actually accessible and used in the proper manner to provide some protection.

Bill, I think it's safe to infer you supported Mr. Obama, and are now indulging in a bit of 'whistling past the grave yard' in your bet (or hope?) that his adminstration doesn't really mean what it says about additional gun controls. You remind of a wealthy friend who none-the-less wholeheartedly supported Mr. Obama as well. When asked why she didn't have any concerns about his campaign pledge to raise taxes on her income bracket, her response was, "It'll never happen -- the Republicans in Congress will stop him!" You're both hoping the 'adults' in Washington will prevail.

Nuts, rain? I don't think it's "nuts" at all to maintain that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is a wonderful system of checks and balances against abuses by our nation's own military and government. Why is it nuts specifically? Are you a trained member of the military? The notion that the military is invulnerable is simply mistaken. I think that it's maybe YOU who is nuts for not wanting an armed citizenry. I deal with "gun nuts" all the time, and they are some of the most responsible citizens I know. They're good, honest, decent people.

I as a liberal Democrat that Obama doesn't step in the steaming pile that gun control is. It's done nothing but lose Democrats elections. The Assault Weapons Ban especially lost Congress in 1996, Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004.

I also have a concealed carry permit, as well as a semi-auto version of the AK-47. It is less powerful than most hunting rifles and only fires one shot per trigger pull just like a hunting rifle.

Semi-auto rifles with military styling (also called "assault weapons" by the misguided) are used in less than 1.8% of all murders (Kleck).

Secondly, it is already legal in the United States for any law-abiding citizen to buy and use machineguns, mortars, RPGs, tanks, 105mm howitzers, artillery, AA cannons, gatling guns, grenades, silencers, armored personnel carriers, and cruise missiles. Yes, really. There are several hundred thousand of these types of weapons in the US (they're called Title II weapons), and not one legal citizen-owned Title II weapon has ever been used in any crime since 1934 when they started keeping track of them. On the other hand, the only crime shown to have been committed with a legally owned machinegun was a murder committed by a police officer. Machineguns and semi-auto rifles with military styling are not a public safety threat in the US and never have been. Restricting them makes zero sense and is unconstitutional. Period.

Third, if you do not know the difference between a true assault rifle and an "assault weapon" as defined in the 1994 law, you are absolutely unqualified to promulgate any sort of position at all on any gun control law whatsoever. That goes for every poster in this thread. In the age of Google, it is completely inexcusable to not know even the most basic facts about firearms.

Fourth, I as a liberal know that gun control as a whole is racist, anti-progressive, sexist, classist, intolerant, and anti-gay. I as a liberal Democrat will have none of it, nor will I vote for anyone who espouses it.

Obama's support of gun control was in fact the *last* of several reasons I didn't vote for him - his support of the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and opposition to gay marriage were far more worrisome to me.

That said, I fully expect several executive orders which Obama does not need Congress to implement:
-Bans of all imported ammunition
-Bans on all imported gun parts
-Directives to stretch the "sporting use" clause to include far more firearms.

Owning tanks is perfectly legal. Many hobbyists in the United States own surplus Sherman tanks and make their own high explosive armor piercing rounds for them, perfectly legally of course. When was the last episode of "tank violence" committed with a legally owned tank and main gun?

Child accidental deaths by firearm are extraordinarily rare. According to the CDC, there were 75 accidental firearm deaths in the entire US for children 0-14 in 2005. In contrast, 2,210 children died in motor vehicle accidents. Again, attempting to argue that rights should be restricted to save children from accidental firearm death is a complete non-starter rooted in moral panic rather than a desire to save children.

Legal yes, braun. But you failed to mention that one must be a class III dealer to own such weapons as full auto, etc. The average citizen cannot unless they become a class III dealer. Even concealed carry can be tricky to get. I know, I have one of those too. Had to nearly wrestle the sheriff though to get it. He had a little puke underling that didn't like my record. I got that straightened out quick enough.

Larry,

Perhaps in your state you need to be a dealer. In most other states, you only need to submit $200 for a tax stamp and background check with your police chief's signature. No federal dealer license is required to own a machinegun.

Meh-whatever:
In interviews with prisoners in Florida (you know, actual prisoners instead of your theoreticals), their #1 fear was encountering an armed citizen. They feared an armed citizen more than cops, incidentally. Universally, they said that even if they had a gun, they would avoid armed citizens and go after unarmed ones. Criminals, even armed ones, do not want to die and do not pick on the armed.

This, of course, is why criminals pick areas in which the law-abiding are forbidden from being armed - like restaurants, malls, and churches in some states - to kill and rob people.

Secondly, where do you get these violent thoughts? Perhaps you need counseling for such terrible fantasies. (shudder)

Are there actually still people out there who believe the Obama administration is further to the left than Clinton's?

It has been accurately stated that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President since Theodore Roosevelt; but those people appear to have missed Nixon's Southern Strategy completely. They seem to have have missed that the basis of Republicanism is precisely what propped up Jim Crow from 1876 to 1966.
They seem to still believe our nation cares for any citizens other than those who are actually corporations.

In any event I suspect most old-fashioned Democrats will see Mr. Obama as considerably to the left of Everett Dirksen.

Larry Kralj seems to be one of those few remaining patriots who lean toward the old freeman belief that an armed citizenry can stand between an oppressive government--or an invading force of Islamic miscreants.
But Larry is not all that far removed from Tito's Partisans. I suspect there is in him a lot of familial pride.
And nobody would confuse him with a Republican!

Rain, et. al. -

I'm not a "sore loser", as I voted for a third party candidate as I have for years. I simply pointed out the letter of the "Law" versus what our supposed "constitutional scholar" is doing. Biden, I must add, was not appointed, but elected, therefore his presence in the executive branch is not a violation of Article One, Section six of the Constitution.

The "will of the people" is not something we should necessarily champion. Bush managed to manipulate the will of the people into the murderous wars we are in, as did Hitler. "Will" can be easily manipulated through sight, sense, and sound - like "sound bites".

Excessive respect for the "will of the people" disabuses the concept of constitutional law. The "people" can easily become of mob mentality by whatever stimulus, planned or incidental. That is the reason we should respect the Constitution and its moderating influence and literally disrespect those who act in willful violation of it.

I too am a gun owner, live thirty miles from the nearest town, and have no intention of ceding my God-Given rights, "Inalienable rights" to those perhaps bothered by my earlier reference, to any man or government. This government was designed to protect those rights, and when it has changed sufficiently from its mandate that it chooses to violate said rights, it has lost its legitimacy.

I grieve for the loss of innocent lives caused by improper handling of guns, as well as the lives of those who are murdered by others using whatever weapon they chose.

I also grieve for the 150,000-250,000 people who die in this country every year due to medical "errors". I grieve for the shortening and/or loss of our lives and those of our children due to environmental pollutants, genetically modified foods, adulterated food in general, degraded water quality, microwave radiation from both cell phones and cell towers, e.m.f.'s around High Tension Transmission Lines that create cancer clusters, the actions of Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex.

These though, are quiet deaths - deaths that never make a headline or the 10:00 news. They are slow and insidious, always behind a closed door, and exposure on a wide scale threatens the powers that be, the "Establishment" as a whole.

"If it bleeds, it leads", and gunshot wounds fit right into Don Henley's commentary in "Dirty Laundry". "Is the head dead yet?"

But when the same honorable Doctor interviewed about the horrors of "gun violence", which is "people violence", kills a patient a month later by giving her the wrong prescription, well, we just don't hear about that one. And the real cause of death isn't in her medical chart. It's not incompetence or involuntary manslaughter, it's an "adverse reaction". Like an "exit wound" without a perpetrator.

And Mehmnet, most criminals are flat-out stupid. But, after prosecution and incarceration, in interview after interview they will flat out repeat over and over that they pick their "victims" based on perceived vulnerability. If the B&E;types believe a home is occupied and the homeowner is armed, well, they leave and look for your house.

Exit wounds, baby - exit wounds.

Meh-whichever,

A 14 year old kid got shot unintentionally, one of about 75 children 0-14 in the US each year, or slightly less than the amount that are accidentally poisoned.

810 died from drowning, 2,110 in car accidents, and 441 in fires. It seems that many much more deaths of children could be prevented by teaching kids to swim and installing smoke detectors.

If a gun-ban advocate tells you that firearms should be controlled more closely to prevent child deaths, ask them first how many children they have taught to swim, how many child safety seats have they donated to needy charities, and how many smoke detectors they have installed in low-income housing. If the answer is zero to any, I would say that they care less about saving children and more about banning guns for their own reasons. And they lied to you too, because they knew that whatever reasons they really hold to be true wouldn't stand rational scrutiny
. Wouldn't you say?

I would.

The American people didn't vote guns in this election, that's all I can say. Yes, the NRA lost quite a few races. Americans had other issues to vote on that they considered more important. The NRA simply couldn't fight the fact that the Republicans got us into 2 wars, destroyed the economy, and are spending trillions to bail out bankers. The election losses are not an indication of the weakness of the NRA, it is an indication of the weakness of Republicans.

My husband was a long time member of NRA who quit it over a constant drumbeat in their magazine about protecting the right to own assault rifles. There are many gun owners who don't like the idea of going to a mall and finding someone there with an assault rifle shooting. Yes it doesn't happen all the time but it's happened too often. The NRA might do better by defending the right to basic gun ownership and not letting themselves be seen as a defender of militias.

And yes, I have read the above posts and understand the venom this all inspires but being a member of the NRA is a choice. If there was even some control over who can buy assault level rifles, it might not be so worrisome to some like me but I have been out in the woods, heard someone using one in 'target' practice and I have no idea who they are or what their intentions would be toward me. I avoid them. I know they shoot up things for the fun of it. Yes, I know it's not most assault rifle owners but maybe if there was more control over who could get them, there'd be more support for their ownership-- although I still personally don't see any reason for an ordinary citizen to own one. Despite the talk above, our military has way more fire power and no militia group can really stand against them.

And it might yet be there will be a political battle to maintain gun ownership period someday. We should be united and we never will be while some want to own and use a grenade launcher if they so designate.

Buy lots of ammunition and guns now. then see what happens.

Rain, et.al. -

The part of Article One, Section Six to which I refer is worded as follows:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created."

The "emoluments", i.e., "pay aspects" follow in said Section, but are not germane.

Ms. Clinton still had time remaining to serve in her term to which she had been elected by her constituents. Resigning from her seat does not change her circumstance in relationship to her obvious Constitutional ineligibility for the position of Secretary of State. Words matter, or at least they should.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is regularly discarded for either convenience or simply as an exercise of raw power. Note that I never referred to the Document as sacred, nor did I ever infer that we should return to it in its original form with but the first ten amendments. Remember, with no first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified.

I argued that the "Law of the Land" is that Constitution. "Rain" correctly pointed out that it has been amended a number of times, and that is the process that should be employed rather than simply ignoring its provisions. Following the dictums and the procedures for amending it prevent emotionally-driven and ill-considered measures from becoming law before such proposals can be intellectually vetted properly.

It is indeed unfortunate that our legislators and executive branch have chosen for decades to pretty well ignore the Constitution. Congress has not declared "war" since 1941, yet we have found ourselves embroiled in one after another. Congress itself has basically abdicated any real role since the mid-1930's. They are Constitutionally charged with submitting the budget, but even that is now done by the executive branch. Where is our newly-elected "constitution scholar" on that small multi-trillion dollar issue?

Senator Frank Church of Idaho is most remembered for his tireless efforts regarding wilderness protection. Though it is well he is championed for such, I would encourage the readers to look up the results of the "Church Committee" he headed after Watergate. Read every word, and you will be a different person upon completion.

The good Senator pointed out that "the United States has been under a declared national emergency every year since 1933..."

Nothing has changed since he penned those words in the mid-1970's, and as the Senator pointed out, every President every year has declared a "national emergency" over any issue they so desire. Such has continued to this day. The effect of these declarations is continued rule of the country by the Executive Branch, which partially explains why Congress is basically an emasculated entity which cannot effectively provide the "checks and balances" as envisioned by our founders.

"Executive Orders" and "Signing Statements" are how we are now governed. This has gone on for so long, there is no institutional memory left in Congress to recognize it, let alone attempt to correct it. And the citizenry? Well, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

This election was not a "gun issue election". This election was the revulsion and repudiation of the policies and actions of the worst and most incompetent President (maybe Lincoln was worse) in the country's history, as well as the almost wholly corrupt Republican members of the House and Senate. Never before have we seen a party in such absolute disgrace. Corruption, war, the economy, torture, loss of international standing - loss was almost inevitable.

Bill Schneider is correct in hoping that Obama leaves the gun issue alone. Though many states turned "Blue" this last election cycle, the margins of victory were very slight in a number of states. Obama doesn't have a great deal of room to maneuver on many issues of real importance, as we are heading towards almost certain national bankruptcy and likely depression. And then there is the matter of those two little undeclared, thus unconstitutional wars we've gotten ourselves into.

Perhaps after two-three years trying to solve the likely insolvable, Obama will realize that there's nothing wrong with being a one-term President. That's the time to bring up guns as a political issue, because it will guarantee his rapid exit from the political stage. Then he can hand off the Bush disaster that he gets labeled with to some other power-hungry narcissist, either party will do, and he can go make ten million a year on a speaking tour like Bill Clinton has.

Mehmet:

"yes - but the fact remains, when a gun goes off, for the most part, it's because a person has deliberately fired the trigger."

Whoops, you screwed up in your jump and dodge. We were and have always been talking about accidents. Now you've lost that argument and are moving on to intentional acts. Go peddle your silliness somewhere else, no one's listening to you here.

"My husband was a long time member of NRA who quit it over a constant drumbeat in their magazine about protecting the right to own assault rifles."

Again, people that don't know the difference between FULL AUTO assault rifles and SEMI-AUTO rifles with military styling have no business being in this debate. Watch this video, educate yourself, and then perhaps return with new knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

The 2nd amendment explicitly protects individual ownership of militia weapons. This does not mean hunting rifles, this means semi-auto rifles with military styling. Period.

I don't know why that question was in Obama's questionnaire. Clearly he has a right to not hire gun owners but it doesn't really tell you if that would disqualify you. perhaps it would. It was a worrisome addition.

I heard a constitutional scholar discuss the Hillary problem tonight. It is a $10,000 addition to the salary of Secretary of State and what she had to do with it was to allow those changes to happen, not that she voted for it. It's crazy that it would exempt any current senator or Representative from serving in the Cabinet. A shame if it stood because it would mean no DC experience except as lobbyist currently. Lobbyists are the last people we want in there-- in my opinion.

Since this has been ignored before or worked around by lowering the salary of the appointee, this is all about keeping Hillary out. If he had appointed McCain secretary of state, we'd not likely be even hearing about it. It's the right wing fringe who brings up such things including the Obama birth certificate.

How can it be offensive to not have to hire someone when they are making a choice regarding guns. I don't know that Obama is letting it be a factor. I didn't like the question myself but it's not the same to have a gun or support gun ownership as to be black or gay. It's a behavior and a choice. I have one. I defend the right to have them. As I said, I have a concealed weapon permit also but the idea that someone would have to hire me or even come to my home if guns bothered them, I can't see how that is bigotry.

How egoistic of you.

Of course guns are meant to stop human size targets effectively - otherwise they wouldn't be so good for 135lb women to use against 240lb rapists.

Read up on the "Battle of Athens" for an answer to your question.

Well if they are meant to do damage to human targets, then they need to be regulated - DUH!!!

The shoot out in Palm Desert was the precise opposite of civilization; and reflects the ultimate of second amendment populism.

Lucas,

You are half right. I should have followed the word "created" with the following - ..., and then inserted a quotation mark to end the quote. My apologies.

Let us then continue then parsing that section of the Constitution. The comma after the word "created" is then followed by the word "or", which is surely indicative of a separate argument only connected to the first phrase if in fact the qualifications in the first are met, but then subsequently undone by the further qualifications established in the second phrase. Parsed correctly. Go back to fourth grade.

I may well have failed to punctuate my argument correctly, but apparently you do not understand what a comma means, as well as the word "or". Such is far more tragic than an error in punctuation.

You then continue on to justify extra-constitutional appointments (an actions?) by president-elect's and/or presidents by by arguing that since Nixon, Taft, et. al. did so, that repeating the violation of law is therefore justified. What is this argument? Situation ethics and moral relativism? "He did, therefore I can too?" If your wife or girlfriend screws around on you sexually, does that grant you license to do the same? No. It grants you the moral and ethical right to end the relationship and search for a partner worthy of trust. Otherwise, you have endorsed the philosophically erroneous idea that "two wrongs make a right".

My concern is that if the President-elect is going to make it up as he goes along as Bush and his predecessors have done, we are in for greater and greater trouble, whether the issue is guns or butter. I pointed out clearly that the historical record shows that each and every President from 1933 to this date, regardless of party affiliation, has declared a "National Emergency"on a yearly basis, which gives them near dictatorial powers. I assume you would prefer "checks and balances" on each branch and a government which acts lawfully?

These concerns are not "off topic". We have a nascent police state emerging in the U.S., and the current president has deployed troops in this country for the first time since 1878. NORTHCOM intends to increase the deployment from the current number to over 20,000. The initial deployment and the proposed increase were approved by Defense Secretary Gates, and the president-elect has chosen him to remain in the cabinet.

This past Tuesday, a city councilman in St Louis told residents in the district he represents to go arm themselves because the police weren't getting the job done, and with a collapsing economy, crime was going to only get worse. I might add, he was African-American. If you are curious about whether or not the police even have an obligation to come to your aid or defense, look up "Castle Rock v. Gonzales" to satiate your thirsty intellect.
They do not. You are on your own.

We have a government that reads your e-mails, private correspondence, can tap your phone with no consequence, makes you virtually strip at airports, can look in your bank account at any time, and can arrest you for carrying "too much cash", and seize such without consequence. The "Patriot Act" allows them to enter your home without a warrant. We now have a "Homeland Security" apparatus which resembles the East German Stasi more and more - one that encourages neighbor to snitch on neighbor and children on their parents.

We have a government that refuses to regulate economic sectors that are rife with corruption, some of which are directly causal of our current and future economic dilemma. From that economic sector come the financial wizards through the revolving door that rotates between Wall Street and Treasury. The fox and the hen house. We have a government that has spent us into economic slavery. The government is so full of former high-level employees of businesses you can no longer find the line between business and government, whether it is in finance, commerce, energy, or the military-industrial complex. Neither party objects in practice - they simply take the money from the lobbyists and "business" goes on as usual.

Denying the obvious does not make such any less real.

Then there are the "common criminals" that most of us in this discussion keep some sort of weaponry to protect ourselves from. Referring back to the African-American gentleman from St. Louis who told his constituents to arm themselves - a worsening economy creates crime. Whether the current circumstances are an accident of history or we are about to become unwitting and unwilling players in the implementation of the "Hegelian Dialectic" is unknown. What is quite real is that desperate times cause desperate measures and acts to be taken by people.

What is also quite real is how that which is unfolding in front of us is a mirror image of what Naomi Klein wrote about in her book, "Shock Doctrine". In numerous speeches and interviews she has given in the last several months, her opinion is that what is occurring in the U.S. economically, with the predictable social upheaval and fallout, is no accident. It is "Disaster Capitalism" designed to further empower the uber-wealthy and privatize government - a planned event, and she argues that high-level members of the financial and political class support such economic trauma. It's success requires the destruction of government as we know it, as well as the destruction of the middle class. We shall see, whether we like it or not.

Stay armed or get armed. Train yourselves properly and be responsible. Always be the best part of what is human. Most importantly, we must understand that despite our political differences, we are all in this together, regardless of what happens. I believe we are entering into a period that James Kunstler refers to as "The Long Emergency", and the world as we have known it is going to go away and shall never return. "Localism" and dependence of each other is going to be our only chance of success.

"Treat your neighbor as yourself" goes the saying. Tis' a sensible proposition. Let us do so.

Sorry, John N, you don't get it. Let me break it down for you (and I am not even a native speaker of English).

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;"

You claim that the Constitution says the following:

"No Senator shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States".

Now why did they add the phrase "which shall have been created" to the end of this? Just because they wanted to confuse the American people? No, this is because the phrase "during such time" refers to both the "which shall have been created" and the "shall have been increased" parts. I would actually put another comma after "increased", but comma rules in English are not as strict as in some other languages, and were probably even less standardized at the time the Constitution was written.

So if the office has existed for a long time and the salary has not increased during the time for which the Senator was elected, there is no problem. I know of no legal scholar who disagrees with this, independently of political orientation. If you think otherwise, please provide a reference.

In Hillary's case the situation is more complicated because the salary has actually increased. If you re-read my comment (and please pay attention to the actual language, not your interpretation of it), I never claimed that it was OK to appoint her and revert the salary increase, I just pointed out that it has been done before, four times. You can google "Saxbe Fix" if you want more information. I don't think the circumstances of Hillary's appointment violate the spirit of the Ineligibility Clause (to prevent corruption), but if some people think it violates the letter of the Law, they should file suit and let the Supreme Court decide. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous waste of time and money, but your mileage may vary...

Mehmet, you really show that you have no grasp of history. Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Vietnam war? Where a rag tag group of people defeated the mighty US Army? Or perhaps you have heard of Afghanistan, where another group of rag tag people defeated the mighty Soviet Army?

Rain, you are just as uninformed as Mehmet, no wonder we are at this point in US history. With people like you voting we get the government you deserve. The unfortunate part of it all is you drag the rest of us down with you, then you will expect and demand we pull your sorry behinds out of the mess you created in the first place.

Perhaps both of feel that since we should only be "allowed" the weapons available at the time the Constitution was written, we also should go back to horses, quill pens and candle light. Wake up, you are being hornswoggled and you don't even know it!

I said I was not going to read more here; but since I did, I can't let that go. I did not say we should only be allowed muskets or cannons or whatever a well armed person might have back in the late 1700s. It was an example of saying what the Constitution might have then allowed then wouldn't necessarily make sense today. It is why it's been amended.

I am as informed about guns as I need to be to vote and luckily for me that original document got amended to allow me to do just that. It does not take knowing how to fire an assault rifle to know that I don't want them in the hands of the wrong people nor can I see the logic of letting them be in the hands of just anybody who has the money. If gun owners continue defending the right to the farthest to the right thinkers, we will all lose our right to be armed-- legally.

I don't have to have read the National Rifle magazine to know putting an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old child was nuts! Just because I don't read the gun magazines does not mean I don't know what is going on in terms of crime.

Reading the put downs in here including by the author is why you don't get any real discourse. I know a lot of people who want to see all guns taken away. I wrote quite a few things in here that indicate I am not one of them but you read my last comment saying that the right to go armed (from the Constitution) should not automatically include the right to have an assault rifle or an Uzi and jump on that. I am sorry i read any of this (and it'll be the last type of debate I will read in here given the mentality that only an agenda); but I will be voting and if I thought the average gun owner was like some I read in this debate, I would be voting to take away guns-- not that those law-abiding types would turn theirs in anyway.

Rain,

How many children have been killed accidentally by a legally owned machinegun in the last 50 years? I would wager that the 8-year old you refer to is the only one. Therefore, how many smoke detectors have you donated your time to install in childrens' bedrooms? How many children have you taught to swim? If the only 8-year old killed accidentally with a legal automatic weapon in the last 50+ years is your basis for proposing new laws to restrict gun ownership further, you clearly don't really care about reducing accidental deaths of children in the least.

If you think that military-styled semiautomatic weapons are a large component of crime (0.18% of all violent crimes involved a semi-auto firearm with military styling, and 1.8% of murders involved this type) then once again you do not have even the most basic idea about firearms, and really shouldn't be in this debate at all.

The people involved in the 8 year old's death have been prosecuted and will serve time, just like they would have if he died when they had handed the kid a can of gasoline plus matches and told him to go play in the yard. In fact, this negligent parent probably would have done such a thing eventually, but you wouldn't be calling for gasoline to be banned.

Again. Rain, you have no idea about firearm technology, firearm law, or firearms use in crime. You don't truly care about reducing child deaths in the least, and really should take your blighted, bigoted, narrowminded, intolerant opinion elsewhere.

Lucas -

I cannot believe the temerity and arrogance you displayed, criticizing me for a punctuation error during a quote, when in your latest post you misquoted me completely by leaving out a word I clearly included in the quote in reference - "Representative". Punctuation errors are one thing. Leaving out entire words are quite another matter. Back to fourth grade again, there Lucas?

I am quite aware of the "Saxbe Fix", which was and remains legally wrong. The "spirit of the law", as you so refer to it, has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. What does the law read, Lucas? Does it have a written caveat that states "In case of ..., just ignore the wording"?

Your argument is that a sitting Senator or Representative can be appointed simply because it has happened in the past and emoluments are the only prohibition, yet provide no legal opinion to support your assertion. You then toss in the "Saxbe Fix" which has been utilized as a quasi-legal end around the wording in last phrase in Article One, Section Six.

Perhaps the opinion of a legal scholar may be of some interest to you. Let us begin with the wording - "No Senator or Representative shall ...". The position was "created" by the Constitution itself. Period. How long this position has been "created" is irrelevant. The wording is an absolute prohibition, period. Further grammatical construction includes the argument regarding "emoluments" with the word "or" preceeding it, and preceeding the word "or" exists a comma, after the wording that clearly argues that Senators or Representatives are prohibited from being appointed during the mandated time of their term of office. Period.

Law Professor and Constitutional expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis Michael Paulsen states his opinion on this subject as follows: "The context of the rule here is broader than its purpose. And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule." - MSNBC According to the Professor, I have read and understood the wording as constructed.

Lucas, I'm certain you are well meaning, but have cited nothing to support your assertions except prior violations of the Law by the Executive Branch, complete with quasi-legal "fixes" to make wrong acts appear right, as well as grossly misquoting me after castigating me for a minor punctuation error while quoting the clause in question.

I have now provided both you and the other readers a direct quote from a Law Professor and recognized Constitutional expert on this matter. The wording is specific, and both the wording and comma placements have been well understood by myself as well as the Law Professor mentioned above. I can see that you are still struggling with E.S.L., "English as a Second Language", as well as the apparent inability to engage in critical thinking and analysis.

It's all right. You are forgiven. No doubt you are another hapless victim of our collapsing public education system. "Black is white", "War is peace", and the President can do damn well whatever he or she pleases, because he or she can be "The Decider Guy" or "Gal" as the case may be. unfortunately, this sort of pathetic argument is what passes for intellect in this country every day. Orwell rolls in his grave.

Just keep on making it up as you go along, whistling loudly as you walk through the graveyard.

Well, there's the rosy, optimistic view, anyway.

But I for one am really looking forward to those foot riots. I never saw one, and I am ready.

The Viet Cong was equipped by the Soviets, and the US had no idea of how to fight a war in a jungle.

The Afghans had been invincible with or without guns because of the terrain.

Are you a former Viet Vet who still has too much Agent Orange on the brain?

I don't know why you keep comparing guns to containers of gasoline or houses lacking fire alarms. Guns are weapons, that's their only purpose, therefore they need to be regulated much more tightly than gasoline or fire alarms. For that matter, if something is a means of defense, why not advocate the same for grenades and other explosives - after all, if one is properly trained, grenade accidents would be unlikely, right??

As I was submitting my comment I noticed yet again that Newwest has a Comment Policy.

"Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest"

Here is a neat idea, when you are getting ready to press the "Submit Your Comment" button, look up about 3-4 inches on the screen and read the Comment Policy, will your submittion meet the policy standard?

I think the problem is you have college-educated readers mixing with blue-collar working class types. That's always a problem: the intellects are at a loggerhead. How could they possibly meet? (Despite their eventual affinities. Yet another quirky fact of life in the Gallatin Valley)

Well, the gates are coming down. Big time. The Blixeths have managed to pull of the grandest pyramid scheme since Social Security. Now the richies are crying "Foul" when all they were was just greedy and stupid.

Hey - take it easy. That's what makes this country great: blue collars, red necks and white shoes.

Isn't that the guy whose wife made love to a trumpet and then had to testify about it in court? Or is Sonny the lady? Then who was Klaus?
Thanks to Dominic Dunne, I got the skinny on it. But the details, other than the trumpet, are foggy.

Schneider: correct me if I am wrong. I thought AG designee Eric Holder was Clinton AG Janet Reno's #1 person on the ground at Waco during the whole of the Branch Davidian fiasco. Were those kids killed there shot or just incinerated alive? Whose guns and tanks, weapons not available to the "militia, " were those that tore into the buildings? Not that the place was booby trapped, and the inhabitants, willing or not, were placed in jeopardy and their lives taken by the way the dominoes fell. But I thought we were once a country looking for peaceful ways to end controversy and to bring wayward folks into the corral of legal protection willing or not. Somehow my confidence in BHO's appointments of warmed over Clintonians is waning as their numbers grow.

The radical lefty anti-gun stuff is there, was elected, and is not going away no matter what the Supreme Court decides. If you haven't noticed lately, the left agrees with the courts when they decide their way, and ignores them when they do not. It is not Bushiites alone who seem to not want to follow the letter and spirit of the law. And we will have to be vigilant in the new administration that they are not making their own laws as they see fit, Constitution or no. But make no mistake, no matter who is the President, their ego and idea of mandate due to their election will be ever present. This particular President elect is anti-gun, to his core. And he has support in the Congress.

So in this Sooooooooooooo concerned with qualifications for higher office, this soooooooooooooooo anti Sarah Palin media world, (the very same lady who showed up in Georgia to campaign and fill the auditoriums for Senator elect Chambliss), this soooooooooooooooo very, very concerned about qual-ee-fee-cations for office press, is now all gaga over the prospect of Caroline Schlossberg (nee Kennedy) replacing Hillary Clinton as junior senator from New Yawk ??? Gimmeee a break, already!!!! Social soirees, birthright, genetic connection to the senate seat once occupied by her martyred Uncle Carpetbag Bobbie, keeping a Kennedy in the Senate as her Uncle Teddie addresses his mortality as a malignant tumor host, and not a word about qual-eeee-feeeee-cate- shuns???? Hold on, Knute!!! Me thinks there is some high level hypocrisy afoot here. If the woman is Democrat Royalty by birth, has never been elected to dogcatcher, and the celebrity and sentimental Camelot remembrances from a time not real to anyone under 50 are