Detroit News Editorial shows how clueless the right is on Dean

[RedSox02]

Some right wing editor of the Detroit news writes a column on how "far-left" Howard Dean is. He calls Dean a Peacenik, and says that big Labor will turn on him because they are patriotic and more Conservative on issues like gun control.

Too bad Howard Dean is actually "Conservative on gun control".

Don't you love how the Right is blindly attacking Dean like a blindfolded kid swinging at a Pinata. They don't even have any clue where he stands on anything except for the fact that he was against the war, therefore he must be a peacenik far leftist who smokes weed at Phish concerts while eating a pint of Ben and Jerry's.

Howard Dean is not really my #1 man right now but attack pieces like this show how frightened the right is starting to get. Anyone left of John Ashcroft and Tom Delay is too far left for them.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0308/31/a17-258329.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Actually, he's NOT conservative on guns

He advocates a terrifying position on guns that allows each state to decide a CONSTITUTIONAL right. If you don't like having a right to bear arms in the Constitution, then change it. Don't let some politician let local authorities do it for you.

Imagine a DU where the 1st Amendment was treated in the same way. How would we fair in GOP country? Would we be shut down? Prosecuted? No, Dean is NOT conservative on guns. Far from it in fact.

[RedSox02]

2. Hmmm I read it differently

He did say "vermont should be able to have different gun control laws than California". I don't know if that necessarily means getting rid of the second amendment in certain states. He also has that shiny 'A' rating from the NRA.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. The NRA

When here do we pay ANY attention to the NRA? I support my right to own guns, not the fucking NRA. I lived in D.C. where my right to protect myself was SEVERELY limited. I don't want Dean's little constitutional insanity infect the rest of the U.S.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

7. Well

If your right to protect yourself is severely limited, you need to not blame Dean for allowing YOUR district to make it's own rules. You need to blame your district for making rules that don't reflect your life. Dean believes each state should make their own rules, while abiding by the federal laws already in place. It's a matter of states' rights, something I highly advocate when dealing with guns and education. Personally, I'm tired of the federal government trying to rule my life, and trying to set out national standards across a very diverse country. States should have more rights to determine their own laws. The federal government shouldn't reign supreme on every thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. If Dean becomes president

Then he could seriously help this insanity along. Actually, the federal government should reign supreme on all Constitutional issues. That is its job.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

15. the 2nd amendment

The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. Where is that not happening? I don't see why each state shouldn't be allowed a bit of freedom in interpreting what kind of arms that includes. In my area, I'd prefer not having automatic or even semi-automatic guns legal. In Vermont and other rural states, if I lived in one, I probably wouldn't mind, because there's little crime to worry about.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Have you been to D.C. recently? New York perhaps?

Then you might see my point.

[w4rma]

21. Remember the mobsters of the 1950s and their tommy guns?

Remember the drive by assassinations?

Folks in urban areas don't want to go back to those times.

However, folks in rural areas have lots of open spaces and it takes the police a good amount of time to travel to respond to a call.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Actually

Tommy guns were big in the 1920s, but I get your point. I lived in D.C., the most dangerous place you can imagine. Guess what? Handguns aren't allowed there. Funny thing though, crooks have them by the carload. Those and far worse -- automatic weapons, for example. Do they care that they are breaking the laws? Not a bit.

But onto the larger point. If you want to modify the Constitution so that we can do this, give it a shot, but be careful when the cabal comes back and tries to do the same with your other rights. In the meantime, the document applies to the WHOLE U.S., not just the areas that like specific phrases.

[w4rma]

4. Dean's position is "states' rights", the basis of the Confederacy.

That's conservative, IMHO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Not conservative, radical

That is the position of a group in rebellion, not a group that wants to uphold the Constitution.

[w4rma]

6. So you'd consider yourself a Federalist?

Centralize power in the federal government? How is that conservative? The Democratic Party has always been for the decentralization of Power. Power to the people. The Democratic Party was the Party of the Confederacy and until the 1960s was considered the more conservative Party.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Just a Democrat thank you

And someone who believes in the Constitution -- the whole thing, not just most of the amendments.

[w4rma]

10. I agree with you there.

And I think that Dean's position is precisely supportive (which I can't say for the Patriot Act/Victory Act Republicans) of the U.S. Constitution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. No, it chips away at the Constitution

It says that the Constitution can be decided locally. It can't. The rights there are rights in the ENTIRE United States. Not just where locally acceptable.

[w4rma]

12. No it doesn't. (n/t)

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Does too, lol

nt :)

[w4rma]

19. lol. Here is a detailed thread on Dean's position, btw.

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=431424

[ibegurpard]

17. It's not quite as black and white as you would like to make it seem

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


How do you define "arms?" Are bombs arms? How about chemical or biological weapons? Should I have the right to carry those?
The Second Amendment is pretty broad and is open to lots of interpretation. If you are going to try to interpret it so broadly then you should agree that I have the right to carry a bomb.

Read this:
"In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."

More:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/#annotations

edited for clarity

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Arms are firearms

Nice smokescreen though.

[ibegurpard]

20. 2nd Amendment doesn't say "firearms"...it says "arms."

If you think that's a smokescreen and you didn't bother to read the Findlaw article I posted without your sarcastic little comeback then it's pretty pointless arguing with you. If it was as cut and dried as you seem to think then there wouldn't still be all this debate about it hundreds of years later, would there?
:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. It IS cut and dried

The funny thing is though, that constitutional liberals have spent 200+ years ensuring the widest interpretation of all the amendments except this one, which they magically want to limit instead.

It doesn't work that way.

[Iverson]

13. The Detroit News is a far-right rag

They were the kind of paper that slavishy worshipped Nixon even after the Republican Party was giving up on him post-Watergate. They are virulently anti-labor and reflexively pro-business. Don't waste your time there.

[chaumont58]

22. The Detroit News was against Gore in 2000, because he....

didn't worship the piston engine. I remenber they did an editorial to that effect. They are preaching to their own choir.

[edward]

25. The real controversial statement:

"...union members are smart enough to know that jobs don't come from that far left."
Unions know they lose jobs under a republican, and gain jobs under a democrat(Clinton.)
But as has been said, the Detroit News is the idiot right wing.