Rosie O'Donnell Book Giveaway

[Nutzo]

What passes for gun control in this country will never work, all it does is disarm the law-abiding people. You can pass all the laws you want, even make all guns illegal, but it won't work.

Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they are criminals !!!!!!!

Criminals using guns is the real problem, and real gun control law would only 0effect the criminals, and not the law-abiding.

My solution, Use a gun in the commission of a crime & you get an automatic 20 years. If you shoot anyone in the commission of a crime, automatic death penalty.

You shoot an armed criminal in self defense, you get a $$$$ reward (not sued as you get today).

 

[TAsunder]

I am not advocating gun control or even stating an opinion on gun rights. I'm only saying that it's sad that so many people don't even know what the second amendment truly means. I hear so many people say that such and such infringes on their such and such amendment rights. Why do people say those things if they haven't even read the bill of rights? I get the feeling you are debating a different subject than I am. I'm debating this: you don't have a second amendment right to defend yourself, although you do have that right.

It's just amazing how many anandtech posters display a completely judgemental and uninformed opinion.

 

[Bob/NYC]

Try and form an armed militia and drill on your property-legal?

"..militia necessary to the security of a free state" -2nd ammendment ...for defense.

..for Self defense...

 

[TAsunder]

The security of a state is not the same as the security of an individual, nor is it the same as self-defense.

 

[Bob/NYC]

No, but all state residents, being part of the undefined militia once under offence/attack is defending a militia member. There is no forced group membership, so the "lone" militia is under attack. ...if I use the militia only right, hypothesis.

When you defend your property, you are defending the state and to be successful, you must defend yourself.

 

[TAsunder]

Well, I guess all I can say to that strange idea is that court cases do not support it, nor do I believe any supreme court decision ever will interpret the second amendment so loosely / incorrectly (nor have they ever done so). Currently the right to bear arms can be removed in many circumstances, so at least for now, you do not even have the right to bear arms always, and you definitely are not given the right to defend yourself with a gun by the second amendment by current laws / interpretation. So until your battle with the supreme court proves victorious, you'll have to settle for the interpretation I've proposed, which is the current legal standard.

 

[Dogcatcher]

TAsunder, You say to look at cases that were decided in court in the last 10 years or so. How about going and looking up the writings of our founding fathers. They interpreted what it meant in newspaper articles and the such. They gave the right of the "people" to bare arms. The militia they had in that day was not a national guard that was controled by the government, it was the people who were defending their freedom against a government.

 

[ABErickson]

It's my understanding that Rosie (no guns) O'Donnell actually has an armed body guard. Is that the definition of a hypocrite or what?

 

[Shaftatplanetquake]

I would like for Fat Rosie O' Donnel to take her book and take her fat @ss, and leave this country, never return, and never be spoken of again.

Hmmm.. any other Howard Stern fans on this board? He declared her real name to be Fat Rosie O' Donnel a good while back...

 

[Ranger X]

Well the name sure fits.

 

[ProppaT]

Ranger, you must be proud of yourself

Not everyone can create a philosophical arguement on the constitution by pointing out a free book by the fat lady.

 

[TCool]

I like Rosie, I'm not attracted to her, but I like her personality. Not sure why so many here are flaming her. (probably gun supporters)

But then again I don't agree with a lot of people who post here, so perhaps our personalities are that different.

 

[TCool]

After reading more posts here, jeez, you guys sure have a hate for her. Funny thing is she will be far more popular than you ever will be. And from reading here, she sure has a nicer personality than many here.

This is a womens book anyways, so I doubt it would interest many here.

 

[TAsunder]

Many of the founding fathers were in favor of slavery as well. This doesn't mean we should respect their wishes. The thing about the US system of government is that it is dynamic and changes with the times. People needed guns to protect the nation back then, to form a Militia if you will. We still have the right to keep guns for that purpose now (most of us do, anyway). The second amendment does not, however, give us the right to have a gun for other reasons. That is up to the states.

If the founding fathers had wanted us to have the right to bear arms regardless of reason, they would not have worded the amendment in that manner. No other amendments that I see have any "explanations" attached, which would lead one to logically assume that this one has a reason for it.

 

[Shaftatplanetquake]

Yep, I fell the same way. Ol' fatty doesn't have a valid argument for any subject. She sure has arguments, but every one of them blatantly agree with the masses of idiots who just like to say "me too!". I do not own a gun, never have never will. I have never been hunting, never have never will. I don't have an opinion on placing restrictions on law abiding citizens. I do think the laws should be far more harsh to those that commit crimes while wielding a gun. I feel that Fat Rosie is a complete moron who found popularity out of sheer luck.. I cannot see how people care enough to give her a tv show and actually sit down and listen to her. Doesn't make sense... Try to give her 5 minutes of your time and then go over what you have just witnessed... Regardless of how stupid you are, you will find that you agree with me. These people that are her fans are not only stupid, they are not objectional enough. They don't listen to what they are being told, they hear what they are being told and don't think anything of what they have heard. They leave any showing of Ol' Fatty's wisdom and come away thinking, "You know what, she's right!".. Even though they really don't have an opinion on the subject, they truly do believe that they have one. The only explanation I can come up for why people do this for Fatty and no other people (that I can think of at this moment) is... bear in mind I am not at all religeous... that he/she/it is satan himself. You heard it from me first.. OK, now I'm going to find god because I have obviously already chosen my side in the war...

 

[Ranger X]

It's her damn talk show. She wasn't really known until that ... I remember when she used to do stand-up. I didn't find her funny and I STILL don't find her funny. I'm not biased against her just because she's who she is but because she isn't funny. I don't find Letterman very funny either.

 

[garyz]

Let us not forgot that in the 18th Century, the militia consisted of "the whole people."

If any individual has a right to his/her life, then a corollary to this right must be that this individual has a right to defend that life.

A person that feels that individual does not have a right to self defense are stating that individual does not own their life. I feel sorry for the folks that feel that they are property of the state.

 

[Heifetz]

<Rant>

Its not that shes not just not funny, but shes ANNOYING AS HELL. Everything that comes out of her mouth is blah blah blah blah. I mean for god sakes, she thinks she knows everything and is so talent at everything....like singing broadway tunes.

I don't understand how someone so annoying, fat, ugly and egotistical as her can possibily be on TV and make money doing it. Nevermind the fact that no man on earth will screw her, as she has to adopt kids (no offense to those who adopt). I just feel sorry for the kids though, to have a mom/dad/animal such as her.


</Rant>

 

[AndrewR]

I swear that I have never read more convoluted logic in this thread than anywhere on Anandtech since coming here back in the summer of '99.

So I have the freedom of speech, but I just can't exercise it because it doesn't say that specifically? ROFL. That's rich. Thanks for the laugh.

Just a note, it's the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Not the right to KEEP and KEEP arms, or the right to BEAR and BEAR arms. I'd say the first takes care of possession while the second takes care of use.

Here's an interesting quote from an ACLU member who writes about the 2nd Amendment:

<< He [Professor Tribe] does note, however, that &quot;the debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states' rights,&quot; but he argues that the presence of the preamble to the Amendment, as well as the qualifying phrase &quot;'well regulated' makes any invocation of the Amendment as a restriction on state or local gun control measures extremely problematic.&quot; >>


Notice that the first part is historical record regarding the approval of the 2nd Amendment, while the second part is prefaced with &quot;he argues&quot;. Fact vs. opinion.

Here is the article, which is fascinating: The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Get ready for a surprise -- the embarrassment is for people arguing AGAINST the 2nd Amendment, not the reverse, and the author is a liberal law professor and published in the decidedly liberal Yale Law Review. Excellent article on the 2nd Amendment which debunks much of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as not being applicable to individual gun ownership.

If you are going to critisize anything without reading the entire essay, STFU. Read, learn, and argue with coherence, or go away.

As a note, the actual document has three commas in the Second Amendment, not one. Check Here (warning, large image). You can barely discern the three commas in the text, but they are there.

 

[RoadRuner]

WEWP
WEWP
pull over
dat ass too fat!

 

[TAsunder]

I'm not sure if you are saying bear arms means shoot them or just use them. To bear means to carry, and to bear arms typically means to carry arms or serve as a soldier. If you really want to define bear as use, I guess I am bearing my keyboard now, and I bear my car all the way to work every day. Keep means to retain possession of. For more help on this matter, check Dictionary.Com or M-W.com.

Anyway, hypothesis and theory aside (which I am not proposing), the current interpretation of the second amendment does not afford you the right to defend yourself from an intruder in your home with a sawed off shotgun, and does allow states to remove your right. Whether this will remain true in the future or not has yet to be seen.

What we as joe schmoes think of the amendment is somewhat meaningless if we don't take case law into account, which there is very little of but which supports a stricter interpretation.