Jimmy's got a gun

Liberals wrote the law banning private gun ownership in D.C.— something about the 2nd amendment not being an individual right, but a, “collective one.” So why is Sen. Jim Webb (D) carrying a loaded weapon everywhere he goes?

WASHINGTON, March 26 — A close aide to Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, was arrested on Monday and jailed after trying to take a loaded handgun into a Senate office building, officials said.

The aide, identified by Mr. Webb’s office as Phillip Thompson, 45, had a semiautomatic, 9 millimeter pistol and two magazines that were discovered after he put his bag through an X-ray machine at an entrance to the Russell Senate Office Building, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the United States Capitol Police. Mr. Thompson faces felony charges of carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

Another Congressional official briefed on the case said the aide had told the authorities that Mr. Webb gave him the pistol while being dropped at the airport and that he inadvertently took it to the Capitol complex. ~nytimes.com


Ouch. This brings up a few questions. Not the least of which is why does Democrat Jim Webb think he is above Federal Law? It is because of his arrogance and malfeasance that his aide is now facing felony charges-- (he shouldn't be). Jimm Webb had the power to ensure that his aide didn't go to jail. But instead of trying to change the law Jim Webb apparently just felt that the law didn't apply to him or his staff. Laws like this only apply to the common people. The lowly plebs of D.C. are not accorded the same right to self protection as Mr. Webb.

Perhaps Mr. Webb never received his belief system handbook from the leftist high command. Because if he had he would know that this was supposed to be, "the most ethical congress ever." Felonies aren't usually counted in the ethical column, are they? Unless they are felonies committed in resistance to unlawful and unconstitutional laws. Perhaps?

Just recently the dastartly (and obviously right-leaning) U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the liberal D.C. gun ban --but unfortunately for Webb's aide it is still in effect while liberals appeal the decision which would restore 2nd amendment rights to the common people.

(CNSNews.com) - The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday overturned the city's extensive gun ban, giving gun rights advocates a major victory in their long battle over the restrictions.

Six D.C. residents brought the suit against the city arguing that the gun ban, which in practice prohibited the possession of a functioning firearm, violated their Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." A district court dismissed the claim, ruling that the Second Amendment did not apply to individual citizens.

The Court of Appeals on Friday reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Second Amendment does apply to individual citizens. ~cnsnews.com


Instead of rejoicing in this decision, the left expressed dismay. They would rather not have courts affirming the constitutional rights of everyday citizens by, "negating the democratically expressed will of the people."

And herein lies the rub. This is what embodies the leftist definition of both democracy and the constitution. Democracy is, by definition, when the people endorse their liberal policies, even if it contradicts the constitution. Apparently Democracy is a collective right-- not an individual one.

Opponents of gun rights expressed disappointment and anger over the decision.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued a statement calling the decision "judicial activism at its worst."

"By disregarding nearly 70 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted 30 years ago and still strongly supports," Helmke said. ~cnsnews.com


But there is another factor to consider in this whole curffufle. What kind of Democrat is Jim Webb? Obviously not a Ted Kennedy liberal-- and not a Reagan Conservative either. Still, he is a conservative Democrat in many ways. In fact, I have no doubt that were he a Republican he would be demonized as the worst kind of extremist by the same people who praise him now.

I point this out simply to illustrate the plain fact that Democrats re-gained congress precisely because of conservative Democratic candidates like him in many conservative leaning districts all over the country.

This fact presents the Democratic party with a dilemna. The leadership is made up of hard core liberals. How will they placate their core left supporters and still win elections without alienting conservative leaning democrats and moderates?

The case in point is a perfect example. Gun control has been a hallmark issue of the left for years. Is it important enough to continue fighting for or will Democrats let it lie, saying little or nothing on the issue, hoping to retain the support of gun owners and rural voters in western and southern states?

More importantly, will Jim Webb himself heroically stand up for the rights of everyday americans to own and carry concealed weapons? We already know that he believes he has a right to do so-- even in Washington D.C., under the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

Will he champion the rights of all Americans or will he knuckle under to the liberal base and practice his own version of liberal hypocrisy?

Posted by Eric Simonson at March 27, 2007 2:30 PM
Comments
Comment #213955
This brings up a few questions. Not the least of which is why does Democrat Jim Webb think he is above Federal Law?

Nice try, where is your evidence that Webb thinks he is “above federal law”? The aide apparently made a mistake, and even if he (for some bizarre reason) intentionally went through a metal detector with guns, he isn’t Jim Webb.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 27, 2007 2:44 PM
Comment #213956

Besides being beat out by a Liberal poster, the logical faults in your article are astounding. How it’s possible to stand, much less walk, without stepping on one’s own tounge would have been subject to years of study under the repuglican pork banner of ID nonscience.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 27, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #213957

The answer to the question posed in your first paragraph “why is Webb carrying a weapon everywhere he goes?” if he is a liberal member of the Democratic party, is simply that Jim Webb is not a liberal democrat. Also Jim Webb was not carrying the weapon, his aide was, so obviously he doesn’t carry a weapon, “everywhere he goes”.
I notice that fox news led off with this story last night. It’s just another attempt to make something out of nothing.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 27, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #213961

You guys go into defend, derail and excuse mode way to quick. Eric said Webb was a Conservative Democrat.

Now, do you think the liberal Democrats in control will ignore the people who voted for these Conservative Dems and help give the Dem party control over the House and Senate?
OR
Do you think they will start respecting the Constitution and the people who voted for their rights?
Will the liberal Dems go overboard as they did in the 90’s and push people back to the Republican party again?
OR
Will they say little or nothing on the issue?

Eric
I think Webb actually is a 2nd Amendment supporter and is nothing like pelosi, boxer, kennedy or even moore and odonnel. You know, the ones who want gun control for the common folks but not for them, the elite.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #213965

Eric and kctim,

I think you guys are overestimating how important gun control is to Democrats and the left. The last seven years of Republican mismanagement have turned it into a pretty minor issue.

It will be interesting to see how you guys cope with Rudy Giuliani’s stance on gun control. He claims that he reduced crime in New York by getting handguns off of the street. Will the GOP stand for that kind of heresy?

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 27, 2007 3:36 PM
Comment #213967

Woody-

Excellent point about Giuliani. Kind of supports my hypothesis that not only liberals think we should draw the line somewhere between hunting weapons and nuclear arms.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #213971

Woody
If that is the case, then winning should be no problem for the Dems in 08 no matter what gun laws they pass. How many do you think they pass?

The Dems could have won the last two Pres. elections if they didn’t have such a hardline stance against a Constitutional right.

RG’s being anti 2nd Amendment means I will not vote for him. Not very hard to cope with at all really.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #213974

Woody,

I inferred that since the main stream media felt confident enough to report that it was in fact Webb’s gun, locked and loaded, “showing America how we roll…” that he obviously carries it around with him often.

But perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Jimmy isn’t the guy I thought he might be. Today he sort of expressed his 5th amendment right not to incriminate himself. Perhaps his aide is to be thrown under the gun control bus?

QUESTION: Do you, Senator, feel that you are above Washington, D.C.’s gun law?

WEBB: I’m not going to comment in any level in terms of how I provide for my own security.
~corner.nationalreview.com

Apparently he is disowning the weapon by extension his aide as well?

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jim Webb today called the events leading to the arrest of a top aide on a handgun charge “enormously unfortunate” and declined to say whether the weapon was Webb’s own.

“This is one of those very unfortunate situations where completely inadvertently, he took the weapon into the Senate yesterday,” Webb told reporters, referring to Thompson.

“I did not give the weapon” to Thompson, Webb said. And Webb, D-Va., said he would not discuss the specifics of the case involving Thompson, who was due to be arraigned later today. Some news accounts have said Thompson told police the weapon was Webb’s, but Webb would not address that issue. ~timesdispatch.com

Posted by: esimonson at March 27, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #213978

2nd Amendment created to ensure states right to arm themselves from a strong federal government. Fear of a Federal Government replacing England was the reason for the 2nd ammendment, not an individuals right to carry concealed weapons. Also, Washington DC is the federal government. There is no reason the 2nd ammendment applies to D.C., why does the 2nd amendment need to be applied to protect the Federal Government from itself? Don’t get to excited about this ruling. The vote was 2-1, and the government still has to right to regulate guns.

Posted by: sassyathiest at March 27, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #213980
If that is the case, then winning should be no problem for the Dems in 08 no matter what gun laws they pass. How many do you think they pass?

Honestly? Zero. Even if they got a bill through the Senate, Bush would have to sign it.

Eric,

I think you are using what Jack calls “the liberal method” here. You still haven’t explained to me how Webb violated any federal laws.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 27, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #213990

sassyathiest

“2nd Amendment created to ensure states right to arm themselves from a strong federal government. Fear of a Federal Government”

no thats false. the bill of rights refers to individuals. these rights the founders believed all humans were endowed with by thier creator, what ever that might mean to you. the const. does not grant these rights it only aknowleges them an protects them. they were not given by the gov’t. therefore they are not the gov’ts. to take away.

“Washington DC is the federal government. There is no reason the 2nd ammendment applies to D.C.”

so by your logic none of the other const. protections would apply to the people of DC either. the federal and state gov’ts have no rights only powers granted to them by the const. those not specificly granted to the fed. gov’t. are reserved for the states.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #213992

woody


“It will be interesting to see how you guys cope with Rudy Giuliani’s stance on gun control. He claims that he reduced crime in New York “

gotta side with kctim, just won’t vote for him, it’s that simple. yeah it worked so well that bloomberg constantly whines about it. guess only the criminals have guns now. ironic how the places with the stictest gun control laws seem to have a bigger problem with violent crime, just look at DC, now thats a shinning example of public saftey.

BTW, i’m not going to pass judgement on webb, i’ll wait for the facts to come out.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #214004

I hope this guy gets off, because it’s most likely this was a misunderstanding, but I think the common sense quotient on this complaint is through the floor.

First, your surprise that Webb would carry a gun indicates just how stereotypical your views of Democrats are.

Second, the Second Amendment does not trump security concerns. A little common sense here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #214005
2nd Amendment created to ensure states right to arm themselves from a strong federal government.

This has to be one of the most asinine arguments I’ve every read, as well as being completely ignorant of US history, the reasons for the bill of rights and the use of the constitution.

You should also read the 9th and 10th amendments real closely, you might see that us ‘citizens’ are guaranteed way more rights than are specifically written down in that document, the it only lists what the Federal government was allowed to do, not what the citizens were allowed to do.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #214007

S. D.
I’m not surprised at anyone who wants to carry a gun. But the fact remains that he had a gun WITHOUT the proper permits. And tell me Stephen would you have said the same thing about HOPE THIS GUY GETS OFF, if he were a republican. Second question does Webb have the proper permits? If not he is brakeing the LAW.

Posted by: KAP at March 27, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #214012

Oh, my goodness…both the red and the blue “blogs” on Yahoo have been so boring…since we no longer have the capacity to react by postings to news stories, all we’ve been fed by these blogs is a bunch of pap…how about commenting on the firing of the prosecutors, the Iraq war timeline, the FBI admitting they’ve screwed up royally yet having the audacity to say “Trust us!”…there’s so much out there to discuss…why is the wimpiness factor at an all time high on these blogs????

Posted by: Lynne at March 27, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #214016

stephen

“Second, the Second Amendment does not trump security concerns. A little common sense here.”

does the 1st amendment not trump security concerns? how about the 5th?

“they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #214020

DBS-

You are so right! Gun control is all a bunch of BS. If we ever get a government with any balls they’ll repeal all these fascist gun laws and we will finally be able to get the nukes our founding fathers had always intended us to carry.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #214026
Perhaps Mr. Webb never received his belief system handbook from the leftist high command.

I guess Barbara Streisand is slackin’ off on the job. March Madness? I wonder what her bracket looks like…

Posted by: American Pundit at March 27, 2007 8:07 PM
Comment #214027

I don’t know, AP, it sounds like this is more out of the Rosie O’Donnell playbook to me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #214030

jrb

” You are so right! Gun control is all a bunch of BS. If we ever get a government with any balls they’ll repeal all these fascist gun laws and we will finally be able to get the nukes our founding fathers had always intended us to carry.”

HUH?

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #214032

dbs,

jrb is trying to be ‘ironic’. Whether he succeeded or not, or just appears to be swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, is left to the reader I suppose.

I think the point was ‘of course they wrote the law allowing us to have guns when we only had single shot rifles.’ Which may be true but should require a new amendment to change to amendment instead of just rewriting it to fit the needs of those in power as that is definitely NOT what the purpose of the constitution was for…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #214037

dbs-
So, you do want people to carry guns into the capitol building?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 27, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #214039

DBS, Rhinehold-

While I am very pro gun, my basic point was that the second amendment affects security considerations in a way that the first and fifth do not. That is, unlike an individual’s rights to speech, assembly, or self incrimination, one’s right to obtain and bear arms has implications which were unforeseen when this amendment was written. For instance, how easy would it be for our “enemies” to create that mushroom cloud over NYC if we all had the right to buy nukes? Thus, it is, I think, apparent to all that a line must be drawn somewhere. Exactly where that line is, of course, should be up for rational debate.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 8:46 PM
Comment #214040

DBS-

Also, if you read your quote there closely you will note it says “essential liberty.”

And, BTW, I have long been a big fan of that quote.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #214048

Eric,

“This fact presents the Democratic party with a dilemna. The leadership is made up of hard core liberals. How will they placate their core left supporters and still win elections without alienting conservative leaning democrats and moderates?”

Although it is true that the Dems had a split in idealogy between the “Old Establishment” Conservatives and the Liberals since the DNC Convention of 1968, it is also true that Republicans also have a major split in idealogy.

The Republicans are divided into two camps, the free market libertarians who want as little gov’t interference as possible, and the religious right, who want gov’t intervention in matters of abortion and gay marriage.

It is quite sad on how you seem to characterize people based on their party; just as there are conservative Democrats, so are there liberal Republicans.

Although it may be shocking to many, but MODERATES DO EXIST!!!

Posted by: greenstuff at March 27, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #214058

rhinehold

“I think the point was ‘of course they wrote the law allowing us to have guns when we only had single shot rifles.’”

this is very true. however i believe the founders were intelligent men, and being so knew technology would progress, and firearms would become more and more advanced over time. i think the main point of the 2nd amendment was that the people of this country would always a collective advantage over the gov’t., and therefore could never be enslaved by the very gov’t they created. i think this amendment is as important today as it ever was.

stephen

“So, you do want people to carry guns into the capitol building?”

no, but your statement was broad, and i adressed it as such.i believe this is what you said.

“Second, the Second Amendment does not trump security concerns”

jrb

“essential liberty.”

definitly a topic for debate.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #214060

dbs,

“ironic how the places with the stictest gun control laws seem to have a bigger problem with violent crime, just look at DC, now thats a shinning example of public saftey.”

Umm…you silly gooose, it’s the other way around. The violent crime causes stricter gun laws, not stricter gun laws cause violent crime…isn’t it common sense?

Then again…common sense…hmmm…

Mutual destruction does not mean safety people, don’t we ever study the Cold War?

Posted by: greenstuff at March 27, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #214063

DBS-

I agree, would love to have it sometime.

Additionally, with respect to your response to Rhinehold, I agree with all but the fact that our founders foresaw the technological leap in weaponry. Hence my previous post re: nukes.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #214072

greenstuff

“Umm…you silly gooose, it’s the other way around. The violent crime causes stricter gun laws, not stricter gun laws cause violent crime…isn’t it common sense?”

no actually it isn’t. gun control only affects those who abide by the laws, which by nature criminals do not. therefore when you disarm the good guys only the bad guys have guns. when the good guys are disarmed the bad guys are then emboldened by the fact that thier victims will not be able to fight back. this is especially true of women, who are at an extreme disadvantage against a much larger attacker.

read JOHN LOTTS book THE BIAS AGAINST GUNS, WHY ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU”VE HEARD ABOUT GUN CONTROL IS WRONG. also MORE GUNS LESS CRIME. both exellent reads.

also remember- god created all men different, sam colt made them equal.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #214094

The NRA has to be considered the most successful lobby in history, since not even Democrats dare cross them anymore and any Democrat anywhere who gets a good rating from them will trumpet the fact all over their campaign literature.

Good for them. It was marvelous to see how the Democrats pulled their bill granting DC voting when Republicans successfully linked it to restoring DC handgun rights.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 27, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #214096

dbs,
well stated

Posted by: dolan at March 28, 2007 12:05 AM
Comment #214130

I’m not a big gun control fan, but will somebody answer me this: we go through an extensive process to license people to operate cars, trucks, and larger vehicles, because we know that people, themselves and others, can get killed more often if these folks don’t know how to drive.

Yet when we’re dealing with a weapon whose primary function is the delivery of lethal force, folks are outraged that anybody would want to get any kind of consistent licensing or background check going, always citing this “Nazis will come to your door and take your guns.” defense for that. And what about when the law is simply about delaying the person’s receipt of the gun?

The gun lobby has gotten as absolutist as the rest of the conservative agenda. There has to be a point where common sense wins out over ideology.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #214136

“Yet when we’re dealing with a weapon whose primary function is the delivery of lethal force, folks are outraged that anybody would want to get any kind of consistent licensing or background check going, always citing this “Nazis will come to your door and take your guns.” defense for that. And what about when the law is simply about delaying the person’s receipt of the gun?”

All of the things you mentioned are privilages and not rights. Privilages are granted and can be regulated. The RIGHT to bear arms is a RIGHT and therefore cannot be regulated.

I’ve never used the defense of “Nazis will come” I think the constitution should be defense enough.

To delay my purchase of a weapon would result in regulation.

Posted by: tomd at March 28, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #214152

tomd,

Rights are not immune to regulation. For example, people have the right to peacably assemble but the government can regulate the time, place, and manner. I’m sure an expert could come up with more examples.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 28, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #214156

Then why the uproar over regulating our privacy some so that our govt can intercept terrorists communications whenever they need too?

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #214159

Before the advent of the Bush administration I personally felt no need to own a weapon. Their efforts to change the rules to protect themselves seems to me to be a little too authoritarian and perhaps indicates the need to be able to protect myself from a government out of control. I do not feel threatened at this point but I have given the matter thought. Before Bush it would have been a non issue, period.

Posted by: ILdem at March 28, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #214161

That may be good news for the 2nd Amendment then ILdem. Many of us didn’t start getting that very idea until clintons reign.
If you guys are starting to think that way too, maybe we can our 2nd Amendment right back some day.

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #214176

Lets just abolish the guns.
Less murder, less violence.
You OK with that or is this post just a political attack?

Posted by: ksec at March 28, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #214182

“Lets just abolish the guns.
Less murder, less violence.
You OK with that or is this post just a political attack?”

No, and no it’s not a political attack

Posted by: tomd at March 28, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #214187

Kctim

That may be good news for the 2nd Amendment then ILdem. Many of us didn’t start getting that very idea until clintons reign.
If you guys are starting to think that way too, maybe we can our 2nd Amendment right back some day.

Personally the gun issue is and has been a non issue with me for a while now. Of course common sense says there is a need for some regulation to insure that gun owners are properly trained and that the person buying is not a hysterical nutcase hoping to blow his wifes brains out because she is cheating on him, or vice versa. I do not feel it is necesary or in the best interests of anyone for individuals to be packing concealed weapons in public. There are just too many short fused hot heads out there waiting for the slightest excuse to detonate. Of course regulation won’t stop all from packing but it greatly reduces the numbers and unnecesary deaths just because a wacko job happened to have a weapon handy at the time. Most gun owners are respectable and responsible individuals who own them for target practice or hunting. It is that small percentage who aren’t responsible gun owners that make a degree of regulation necesary.

Posted by: ILdem at March 28, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #214188

Yet when we’re dealing with an abortion whose primary function is the delivery of lethal force, folks are outraged that anybody would want to get any kind of consistent licensing or background check going…

Posted by: Don at March 28, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #214189

Don,

Not really. I don’t know anyone on the pro-choice side that is opposed to making sure that people performing abortions are licensed medical professionals. In fact, part of the reason given to support legal abortion is to make sure that the medical procedure is safe and regulated.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #214190

Dang ILdem, I really thought the left was actually coming around to respecting the Constitution again.
But, if you will give me moment of your time, here is something to think about:

You say taking away your 2nd Amendment right is a non-issue with you. You believe the actions of a few “hot heads” warrants govt intrusion of our privacy and regulating our 2nd Amendment right. By allowing govt regulation of a right, we essentially turn it into a priviledge.

Others say violating their 4th Amendment right is a non-issue to them. They believe the actions of a few radical terrorists, warrants govt intrusion on our right to privacy.

Would you support a law which said govt could listen freely in on our communications in order to keep us safe?
I have nothing to hide, so my right to privacy on this matter really has been a non-issue with me.

You see, its not just about guns. It is about our rights.
In the 90’s, the 2nd Amendment was not an issue with most on the left. They allowed it to be further violated and they paid for it at the polls.
More currently, the 4th Amendment was not an issue with most on the right. They allowed it to be further violated and they paid for it at the polls.

Should we the people, allow special interests groups and govt, to use fear to take away our rights one at a time, only caring when its a right that is important to us?
Or should we the people fight to keep all of our rights intact?

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #214191

Congress exempted itself from the D.C. gun law. Also, Webb has a Va. concealed carry permit (according to him). If Webb had been carrying the bag it wouldn’t have been searched since Congress exempted itself from security regulations, too.

Posted by: traveller at March 28, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #214192

Apparently, the Supreme Court, an entity created in the Constitution, does not agree that the 2nd Amendment created an unrestricted right to bear arms. They have ruled many, many times to uphold restrictions on various types of weaponry (arms). If there were a constitutional question in current or proposed gun laws why then doesn’t the NRA fund the effort and take the matter to the Supreme Court?
I can give you an example that illustrates the answer to this question. Years ago I owned stock in a company that was in the pest control business (Rollins Inc.). I received an annual report one year that sadly informed me that profits were down sharply, largely because the termites had failed to swarm in the Southeast as much as they have in the past. It hit me then, like a ton of bricks! The last thing this pest company wanted was to get rid of pests!! If they did, they wouldn’t have a business.
So it is with the NRA. The last thing they want is a resolution, pro or con, to the issue of restrictions on gun ownership: if, whether, how much restriction to have? If there were a series of decisions by the highest court that either fixed absolute right to own or absolute right of government to regulate as they pleased, there would be no NRA. We couldn’t have that!!

Posted by: charles Ross at March 28, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #214199

traveller

“Congress exempted itself from the D.C. gun law”

how nice that they should have the ability to defend themselves, but the residents of DC are defenseless. guess congressmen, and senators are more deserving of the right to defend themselves, then us peasants.

Posted by: dbs at March 28, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #214202

woody

“Rights are not immune to regulation. For example, people have the right to peacably assemble but the government can regulate the time, place, and manner. I’m sure an expert could come up with more examples.”

don’t know that i really agree with this either. rights are not granted by gov’t therefore they cannot be taken away. when the gov’t can regulate them they stop being rights, and become privilages.

Posted by: dbs at March 28, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #214205

I understand that gun-control laws help keep kids from getting ahold of guns, but criminals are the ones that win when we have gun-control laws.

Our forefathers had guns. Why shouldn’t we?

Posted by: stubborn conservative at March 28, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #214213

stubborn conservative

“I understand that gun-control laws help keep kids from getting ahold of guns,”

don’t kid yourself. responsible gun owners that are parents, teach kids safety and respsct for guns. thats what keeps kids from playing with guns. ie the NRA eddie eagle program, which teaches kids what to do if they find a gun, or one of thier friends is touching a gun.{ stop, don’t touch , leave the area, tell an adult}. don’t no why most schools refuse to teach this.

Posted by: dbs at March 28, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #214228
Apparently, the Supreme Court, an entity created in the Constitution, does not agree that the 2nd Amendment created an unrestricted right to bear arms. They have ruled many, many times to uphold restrictions on various types of weaponry (arms).

I’m not sure I agree at all with this statement. When was the last time the Supreme Court agreed to hear a 2nd amendment rights case?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 28, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #214232

How do criminals win when we have gun control laws? Any citizen with a clean background can go purchase a handgun legally if they feel a need to protect themselves.

Thank God a convited felon cannot just walk into the local gunshop and purchase a few handguns unchecked!

Posted by: Tim in NY at March 28, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #214240

kctm and all
We agree. The Dems have weakened themselves with anti gun stances. It is less of an issue now and there are a growing number of us 2nd amendment dems around. I understand wanting to fight crime but that is not the way to do it,obviously,or CD would have a low murder rate by now. Personally I think us leftest should be armed to the teeth.I doubt that the new Dem congress will try to pass much on gun control.

Posted by: BillS at March 28, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #214244

dbs-
That’s sophistry. Rights can be legislated. Rights can be encoded into law. Without government, no right can be ensured or enforced.

Besides, he’s right. There are traditional exceptions to the first amendment. First, speech that is used to commit a crime is not covered. The famous “fire in the theatre” example for one thing. Telling somebody that you’ll pay them to kill your wife is another.

You can’t express yourself by holding an impromptu rock concert in the middle of the street at One AM in a suburb.

You also can’t defame somebody knowing that what you say is false or misleading. You are not allowed to co-opt a person’s likeness or portray their actions in a false light, even if it was positive! It goes on.

Truth is, no right applies absolutely.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #214250

Rhinehold, its been a long time since the supremes ruled on a second amendment case. I just googled the issue and a case came up from 1939 (Miller vs somebody) The Supreme court has consistently ruled that individuals do not have a right in the constitution to own weapons. Only acting as a member of a militia, a well regulated militia does the constitution guarantee this right. And who regulates the militia? Congress.
If all that were not true then why do we have federal, state and local gun laws? Why has the NRA stopped backing court cases that could provide definitive rulings? why do pest control companies always let a few bugs live?????

Posted by: charles Ross at March 29, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #214252
How do criminals win when we have gun control laws? Any citizen with a clean background can go purchase a handgun legally if they feel a need to protect themselves.

If this were the case I think most people wouldn’t have a problem with our gun control laws.

Posted by: rhinehold at March 29, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #214282

Charles
“The last thing they (the NRA) want is a resolution, pro or con, to the issue of restrictions on gun ownership”

I totally agree Charles. When it comes to money, they are no different than the NAACP, NEA or any other organization that gets its money from contributions.

BillS
“It is less of an issue now and there are a growing number of us 2nd amendment dems around”

That is what the Dem party failed to realize when it moved far left Bill. I really hope they have seen how wrong they were and will stop.

It has been less of an issue simply because there hasn’t been any publicized major attempts to get rid of it lately.

Aside from the far left or far right posters on here, we speak of Dems and Reps working together on here alot, which would be a good thing for our country.
But, simply getting people like pelosi and kennedy to work with people like Skelton and Webb would help our country alot too. It would also help the Dem party in more ways than one.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #214286

kctim

You say taking away your 2nd Amendment right is a non-issue with you. You believe the actions of a few “hot heads” warrants govt intrusion of our privacy and regulating our 2nd Amendment right. By allowing govt regulation of a right, we essentially turn it into a priviledge.

As I see it Tim regulation does not make it a priviledge. You still have the right to gun ownership providing you meet certain criteria necesary to ensure the safety of others. If we want to define further we could say that it is a right which we are afforded the priviledge to participate in providing we meet the criteria. I do not claim to be a constitutional whiz. However I do recall reading in a past thread on this sight that our founding fathers also expressed concerns that our bill of rights should be revisited from time to time and necesary amendmants made to more adequately reflect the current needs of the population. You and I both can own weapons providing we are responsible citizens with no questionable past. I do not think we should be so concerned with the regulation itself so much as with just how restrictive those regulations may become. There is a line between common sense control and absolute control which imo should not be crossed.

Would you support a law which said govt could listen freely in on our communications in order to keep us safe?
I have nothing to hide, so my right to privacy on this matter really has been a non-issue with me.

No I would not. That is, not without good cause. There should be an oversight body which insures that gov’t is not and does not evolve to the point that they are using this tool without good cause. I to have nothing to hide but the fact that the intent of a simple joke could be misinterpreted by big brother listening in, could lead to big and unecesary problems for anyone. I do not want to have to be careful of what I say, no matter how innocent, for fear of repurcussion. Freedom of speech is a necesary and valuable right which requires great care in how it is manipulated.

Should we the people, allow special interests groups and govt, to use fear to take away our rights one at a time, only caring when its a right that is important to us?
Or should we the people fight to keep all of our rights intact?

We most definately should fight to keep our rights intact. Realizing of course that those rights may need to be tweaked from time to time. It is the extent and intent of the tweaking that should be closely monitored and questioned to insure that it is in the best interests of all and that we still retain the basic intent of that right.

I personally see special interests groups and their money wielding lobbyists as one of the biggest threats to our rights. It is the wealth and power that these groups promise our legislators that corrupts and tends to put our rights at risk by way of rotten legislation. I am a proponet of open forum lobbying with all meetings recorded and open to the public for all to see.

Posted by: ILdem at March 29, 2007 10:22 AM
Comment #214291

ILdem
“Freedom of speech is a necesary and valuable right which requires great care in how it is manipulated”

That is the entire point my friend.
You obviously feel strongly about keeping your freedom of speech and privacy, as do I.
But when we start picking and choosing which rights are worth fighting for, we become a weaker voice and end up losing rights.

Lets say 50 million Dems are fighting for their right to privacy while 50 million Reps don’t fight for it because they think its ok to give some of it up to “feel” safer.
And then we get 50 million Reps fighting for their right to bear arms while 50 million Dems don’t fight for it because they think its ok to give some of it up to “feel” safer.
As the past has proven, govt hears but does not really listen.
Now, lets say the people fight together for ALL of our rights and that we have at least 100 million people fighting. Not only would govt hear us but they would have to also listen.

Strength in numbers my friend and unless we agree to protect and defend ALL of our rights, we must settle for the further erosion of those rights.

“regulation does not make it a priviledge. You still have the right to gun ownership providing you meet certain criteria necesary to ensure the safety of others”

So maybe a permission slip should be required before we use a form of communication?
You would also still have the right to freedom of speech providing you meet certain criteria necessary to ensure the safety of others, but only after govt checks to make sure you are not planning on blowing up a bomb or hi-jacking any planes.

That is why I fight for all of our rights ILdem.
By picking and choosing, we divide ourselves and make govt stronger.

Re: tweaking the Constitution. There is a process for that. If 2/3 agree that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed, I can either live with it or fight it.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 10:58 AM
Comment #214311

kctim, Although I agree with your point that all advocacy groups want, on some level, to keep the pot boiling with regard to the positions they promote, a kind of self-survival mechanism, I do think that a distinction needs to be made about where the funding comes from and what the motives are of the entities that fund these groups. (that almost sets a record for the longest sentence I have ever written!)
The Sierra Club is NOT the same as, say, the American Petroleum Institute, although both are labeled as “advocacy groups”. One is funded by individuals and entities whose prime purpose is preservation of wilderness areas. The other is funded by companies whose sole interest is in preserving their market, inventories, sales and profits. The fact that I don’t need to tell you which one is which makes my point. I have even heard the ridiculous suggestion that the goal of these Sierra Club types is just to preserve the outdoors for themselves. (It’s interesting, that this is a constant theme in arguments made by people who act out of complete selfishness: that their opposition is doing the same thing. I remember hearing this accusation about Ralph Nader from the auto companies in the 60’s: “he’s just trying to make some money from publicity” and also about Gore and his movie (largely from that idiot Inhofe) that Gore is making a lot of money from promoting the fact THE FACT! that global warming is occurring and is going to affect us all. That’s it.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 29, 2007 2:21 PM
Comment #214320

Charles
I agree that you can break down advocacy groups by where they get their money, but that does not excuse their behavior when it comes to rights.

I don’t know who Inhofe is, but gore IS making alot of money from his movie and until he quits flying around polluting the air, riding in limos and SUV’s, living in huge homes which use tons of energy and starts showing that he is serious about global warming, I’m afraid I cannot believe that he wants anything other than the money.
That doesn’t mean I believe in global warming or that I don’t believe in it either. It just means that its hard to believe that a person actually cares for something if they are not willing to practice what they preach. Kind of like taxes and helping the poor.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #214334

kctim-
How is it that people call themselves independent when they buy the Republican line so easily? The guy buys carbon offsets, and gets his power from renewable sources.

If you believe in being independent, you wouldn’t so quickly buy that kind of argument without investigating the other side.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #214335

Stephen
Does he fly? Does he ride in limos, buses or SUVs? Does he stay in large hotel rooms which use more energy? Is his entire estate run on only renewable energy? His private vehicles? Is he rich or does he give every penny he can to help stop pollution?

This is no different than those who “say” they support helping the poor but yet go home to a mansion and a seven course meal every night.

I am simply saying that its hard to believe a person is serious about what they are preaching when they themselves are unwilling to do everything they can to help what they “say” they care about.

I did not once mention his politics. You show me that he is doing everything he possible can to help “mother earth” and I will change my mind. Until then, I am going to believe what he really does about pollution is no different than what he really does about the poor and that is sit around and expect others to do it for him.

Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #214338

Stephen

Al Gore buys carbon offsets from a company he initiated. It is still the money.

Posted by: tomh at March 29, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #214340

kctim-
If you truly value the environment, and you sense that Al Gore is a hypocrite, be the better man, for crying out loud. Don’t take it is a reason for inaction. For my part, I can’t think of a way besides carbon offsets that you can reasonably expect Gore to go on a big tour to promote his movie

The argument is also an ad hominem argument that completely bypasses the question of whether Gore’s facts are correct or whether heading off global warming is a good thing or not. The question is meant to confuse the unwary, to muddy the waters for the sake of special interests who are just interested in preserving their profits. The sources of the money going to many of these research institutes for contrarian studies should be a dead giveaway of that.

The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Some again throw out an ad hominem argument, accusing scientists of playing politics to get funding, but they’ve created no credible alternative explanations, and haven’t really proven their irrelevant personal cut either.

One of the saddest things about the way the Republicans have handled governing is the way almost every issues is being treated in political, rather than real world terms. Why else would they be unable to create a credible countertheory that adequately explains what’s going on. Why do they attack the vast majority of climate scientists, and why does the Bush Administration go to such great lengths to edit out scientific results that point to it?

It’s a political argument that Gore isn’t the perfect savior of the environment. Nobody could live in our society and be like that. Why don’t you set a modest goal here: let’s develop the efficient and alternatively fueled vehicles that would allow a person to do all that touring without doing carbon offsets. Then we can talk about those who walk the walk, because a path will be there for those who chose it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #214345

tomh-
You’ve got a grammar problem here

As biased a source as CNS can be, it’s been useful in this instance.

The real way that sentence should read is Al Gore’s company buys Carbon offsets from other companies to cover all of its employees and their power useage, but do not sell those themselves. Their business is one that looks at companies and how green their businesses work.

This is the problem with arguing with conservatives nowadays. Folks pick up on these emotionally charged accusations and run with them, yet they don’t ask the questions that put everything in its proper context. In this case: Does his company actually sell offsets? No. Does it buy them? Yes. Would it profit from others buying it? Not really.

But of course, it’s very juicy to claim he’s profiteering, that he’s a big ol’ hypocrite. Plus, it’s what many conservatives want to hear. That’s the most dangerous bias of them all: your own. Stop worrying about the Mainstream media’s supposed bias, and start worrying about the personal biases that have blinded Republicans and let the party stumble into decline.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 6:45 PM
Comment #214352

stephen


” The famous “fire in the theatre” example for one thing. Telling somebody that you’ll pay them to kill your wife is another.”

understand the point you’re trying to make, but i would say these are both abuse of a right.
i can actually say or do anything i like until it does harm to someone else, as either of your examples demonstrate. causing a riot, or conspiracy to commit murder. the same holds true with the 2nd amendment. i should be able to posses any gun i choose so long as i don’t abuse that right, ie commit murder, rob a liquor store, or go out and discharge it in a way thats liable to cause death, injury, or property damage to someone else. there are already laws that cover this. it is illegal to do any of these things, so why should someone tell me what i can and cannot posses, until i have shown i’m not capable being responsable.

punish the abuse of the right, don’t infringe on the right itself.

Posted by: dbs at March 29, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #214354

stephen


“But of course, it’s very juicy to claim he’s profiteering, that he’s a big ol’ hypocrite.”

don’t no about the profiteering. to lecture others about over consumption, and then to fly around in a private jet, and have a home that uses 30 times what the average home uses, i’m guessing on that one not sure if thats the actual #, could be 20, could be 25, i think you get the point. don’t care about the trees planted, the offsets or any of that. if your gonna lecture others you need to lead by example, ie CUT BACK YOUR OWN USAGE, then come talk to me.

if your gonna talk the talk, you better walk the walk. RFK Jr. is another one of these do as i say not as i do hypocrits.

Posted by: dbs at March 29, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #214355

“But of course, it’s very juicy to claim he’s profiteering, that he’s a big ol’ hypocrite. Plus, it’s what many conservatives want to hear. That’s the most dangerous bias of them all: your own.”

There’s no doubt that he’s a hypocrite, and by extension so is anyone who supports his hypocrisy. We have the technology to do remote interviews and remote promotional sets, live-streaming speeches, etc. In today’s world there is not the need to fly anywhere to promote one’s agenda. It is his own feeling of superiority over others that allows him to condemn others for things he is unwilling to do himself.
The bias may be yours alone.

Posted by: Don at March 29, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #214359

I say Gore has his “facts” skewed. He claimes the oceans will rise 20 feet while others are saying 2 feet. The only one to say 20 feet is AG. There are other “facts” likewise that are skewed. The carbon offsets deal is a fraud. He starts a company that markets carbon offsets. And what are carbon offsets. It is redistribution of money to assuage the guilt of those who purchase the offsets. It has another name—a Ponzi scheme.

Posted by: tomh at March 29, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #214372

tomh-
What did I just write? His company doesn’t sell them, they buy them. Their business takes a different path.

As for the Offsets? the way I hear it, they’ve gone almost directly to wind generators and Methane capture, things like that.

As for a ponzi scheme, I don’t recall where Gore started paying dividends to anybody for money invested with him, much less use new investors to pay off the old ones.

As for inconsistencies in the level of sea level rise? Nobody can say for sure what level it will end up. However, a twenty foot rise is not inconceivable. Models show a rise of about a meter or so (still bad if you figure in the changes in the coast lines), but the historical data shows that the last time the Greenland Ice sheet really melted, the West Antarctic melted as well, dumping a huge amount of water into the seas as well. So, Al Gore is not the only one saying that’s possible.

dbs-
So, you argument is, Gore shouldn’t come talk to you until he stops travelling around. Maybe he could sail to whatever destination. But then Republicans might blame him for cutting down the trees.

Of course, this is just for the convenience of the argument. No such restrictions will be placed on oil execs or their flacks, much less all the Republican pundits and speakers who burn up their fossil fuels with absolutely no effort made to reduce their footprint.

As for Gore’s power bill, he gets his power from a company that does wind power. He can use a hundred times the power of an ordinary home, if it’s not burning fossil fuels somewhere else. I should like to point out that he owns a mansion, which means much more rooms that need heating and cooling, and greater power demands for lighting, even if he gets all flourescents. What wonderful standards you apply to Gore alone. I wonder whose power bills you don’t comment on, since you’re saving your criticism for just a guy who’s successfully persuading others to conserve and reconsider our behavior.

Don-
I wonder if you guys realize that you’re implicitly conceding the problem of energy conservation by using it as a bludgeon against Gore. You do realize that one of the big power consumers of modern times are computers. Would Gore really save all that much by doing a fearless leader jumbotron or webcast? Then I imagine Republicans would be bashing him for his impersonal campaign. You’ve done it before, so don’t say its out of the question.

So tell me, how does this logic work out: Republicans criticize Gore for using a lot of energy because he lives in a mansion with high power needs. They neglect the fact that he’s paying for wind-powered, so it’s not actively contributing to global warming. Other reports indicate he’s installing solar panels, which amounts to the same thing. Then they criticize him for the exact things that other political figures do on the road, conveniently dismissing carbon offsets (often directly contributing to developing renewables) and accusing him of a conflict of interest that does not actually exist.

Biased? I don’t think I’m the one with the problem. I think the right cannot successful critique the message, so they’re going after the messenger.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #214380

Aww leave ol Gore alone, better him running around doing this global warming thing then running for president where he could really do damage if he won!

Posted by: dolan at March 30, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #214381

Conservatives who post on this board complaining about Gore’s use of energy have to know, they HAVE to know on some level, that they are being used to spread a little distraction out there as a means to slow down a process. We are going to be paying a lot more for our energy in the very near future; and through that increased payment we are going to be using a lot less energy. We are going to be driving much smaller cars with more people in them. We are going to be going shorter distances because, over time, we will be making rational decisions to live closer to work, play and necessities. We are going to pay more for housing; we are going to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. We are going to fly less and use mass transit more. Market forces are going to compel us to behave this way. Groups that disseminate info about such things as how much Gore pays for electricity each month are funded by groups who know full well what is coming. They know that Americans are going to be paying a ton more for energy very soon and that it is going to happen one of two ways: either that money is going to be transfered to federal, state and local government through much higher taxes or to those who control the energy through the market increase in energy prices. Hence the contrived interest in Al Gore’s monthly electricity bill.
We are reaching a break point. It is a painful process that will last less than a decade or several, depending on how we approach it. If we let the market alone, without regulation or taxes, it will take a long time and be very painful. We will transfer an unbelievable amount of money to unknown people who have little or no loyalty to us.
* Today in the news the king of Saudi Arabia stated that we “were occupiers in Iraq and needed to get out”.
* On Wednesday a rumor came out late day that an Iranian gunboat had fired a shot at a U.S. warship (false). In less than a minute the price of May contract Brent went up five dollars to @ 68 a barrel.
* A news article came out about a month ago about Iran, the fourth largest supplier of oil to the West. By the year 2012 their oil exports will be half of what they are today and by 2016 they will need their entire production for domestic consumption!!
* Each year any given well not only has less oil in it but the amount of oil that they can pump out of it declines by seven to eight percent.

To tell you the truth, I don’t know why Gore bothers saying a word. What’s coming down the line is coming down the line. The winners have already won and we are in the position we are: one nervous Iranian on a gunboat away from getting a coupon in the mail, allocated to a certain vehicle license number for our ten gallons of gas good for use any time in the month issued;
and not a drop more.

Posted by: Charles Ross at March 30, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #214382

Conservatives who post on this board complaining about Gore’s use of energy have to know, they HAVE to know on some level, that they are being used to spread a little distraction out there as a means to slow down a process. We are going to be paying a lot more for our energy in the very near future; and through that increased payment we are going to be using a lot less energy. We are going to be driving much smaller cars with more people in them. We are going to be going shorter distances because, over time, we will be making rational decisions to live closer to work, play and necessities. We are going to pay more for housing; we are going to be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. We are going to fly less and use mass transit more. Market forces are going to compel us to behave this way. Groups that disseminate info about such things as how much Gore pays for electricity each month are funded by groups who know full well what is coming. They know that Americans are going to be paying a ton more for energy very soon and that it is going to happen one of two ways: either that money is going to be transfered to federal, state and local government through much higher taxes or to those who control the energy through the market increase in energy prices. Hence the contrived interest in Al Gore’s monthly electricity bill.
We are reaching a break point. It is a painful process that will last less than a decade or several, depending on how we approach it. If we let the market alone, without regulation or taxes, it will take a long time and be very painful. We will transfer an unbelievable amount of money to unknown people who have little or no loyalty to us.
* Today in the news the king of Saudi Arabia stated that we “were occupiers in Iraq and needed to get out”.
* On Wednesday a rumor came out late day that an Iranian gunboat had fired a shot at a U.S. warship (false). In less than a minute the price of May contract Brent went up five dollars to @ 68 a barrel.
* A news article came out about a month ago about Iran, the fourth largest supplier of oil to the West. By the year 2012 their oil exports will be half of what they are today and by 2016 they will need their entire production for domestic consumption!!
* Each year any given well not only has less oil in it but the amount of oil that they can pump out of it declines by seven to eight percent. What does that mean? It means that each year we need to discover two and a half Iraqs just to maintain our present level of consumption!!

To tell you the truth, I don’t know why Gore bothers saying a word. What’s coming down the line is coming down the line. The winners have already won and we are in the position we are: one nervous Iranian on a gunboat away from getting a coupon in the mail, allocated to a certain vehicle license number for our ten gallons of gas good for use any time in the month issued;
and not a drop more.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 30, 2007 12:50 AM
Comment #214395

That is the difference between myself and the people like al gore Stephen.
If I say something needs to be done, I go out and do it in hopes others will follow.

And I did not make it a political argument. It is no different than a preacher who condemns abortions and works to get laws passed to stop it for everybody, but sends his own 15 year old to get one.
Hypocrisy.

I also don’t remember saying whether I believe in global warming or not, so trying to use politics to argue against it doesn’t seem to be the case either.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 9:08 AM
Comment #214397

Stephen
“No such restrictions will be placed on oil execs or their flacks, much less all the Republican pundits and speakers who burn up their fossil fuels with absolutely no effort made to reduce their footprint”

Are they the ones talking about it and profiting off of it?

Charles
“Hence the contrived interest in Al Gore’s monthly electricity bill”

My interest in gores energy use is no different than my interest on anybody else who advocates something.
As I mentioned earlier, this is no different than the rich guy who sits around and says he is worried about the poor and that somebody, meaning govt, should do something about it.
Rather than contributing his personal riches, which would alter his lifestyle, to help what he “says” he cares about, he would rather govt force everybody else to pay for his beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 9:21 AM
Comment #214410
If I say something needs to be done, I go out and do it in hopes others will follow.

The problem is that he’s doing exactly what he encourages others to do. Unfortunately, his position is being misconstrued and mischaracterized, and he is called a hypocrite because he follows his own words, not the caricature of them.

How sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #214426

Ok LB, gore is the ideal spokesman for global warming and everybody should follow his lead.
Won’t be hard for me at all.
Since using max fossil fuels to fly around the world and for driving my truck is ok, I won’t be affected by that any.
Heck, I might as well travel a whole lot more than I do now.

Since my house is probably the size of the hotels he stays in, it must be ok for me to continue to be comfortable in the summer and winter. Hello 80 degree temps during winter and 60 degree temps in summer.

But best of all, I don’t have to use my own money to help stop global warming or to help the poor.
I don’t have to alter my lifestyle to accomplish what I “say” is the right thing to do, everybody else should.

You know, following gores example may not be such a bad thing after all.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #214429

kctim,

As I said, you mischaracterize what he does and says. Makes it much easier for you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #214456

I haven’t done that at all LB.
I will live my life just as he does his, just not so comfortably.
Global warming is no longer a problem.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #214458
using max fossil fuels to fly

Actually, he flies commercially whenever possible, which is far from the “max” use of fossil fuels.

Hello 80 degree temps during winter and 60 degree temps in summer.

Do you have any support for the claim that his example is to live this wastefully? No? Really?

I didn’t think so.

That’s mischaracterization.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #214461
using max fossil fuels…for driving my truck is ok

Also, he and all of his family drive hybrids, making your claim that he uses “max fossil fuels” a lie.

You also ignore the fact that he non-hypocritically buys a carbon offset each time he travels by aircraft, as he recommends. Do I see that in your characterization? Nope.

It’s so much easier for you to attack what you want his message to be and what you want his lifestyle to be than to address the reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #214466

LB
Reality.
He flys when he travels to promote. Flying pollutes.

Can I prove he likes a comfortable temp? Nope, but most people do prefer to be comfortable don’t they. So, the pollution caused by him being comfortable in a larger area is probably close to the pollution caused by me to comfortable in my little home or $30 a night room.

He and his family all drive hybrids all of the time? Then why have I seen him getting out of limo’s and huge SUVs on TV? And when you combine that with the huge vehicles his escorts drive, I’m sure we pollute about the same.

Does you cut pollution by buying a carbon offset or by not causing pollution? Yeah, I thought so.

“It’s so much easier for you to attack what you want his message to be”

His message is that global warming is here and if we all don’t do everything we can to prevent it, it is only going to get worse.

“and what you want his lifestyle to be than to address the reality”

His lifestyle is one of a multi-millionaire. He has a huge home. Travels alot. Eats very well.
Sure, as you and Stephen have said, he does some things other of us can’t afford to do, in order to do what he thinks will help fight global warming. I do not fault him for any of that.
But lets “address the reality” as you said: Does he do everything he possibly can to help save the planet?
Well, he is a millionaire, so the answer can only be no.

Its no different than our unfair tax system LB.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #214469
He flys when he travels to promote. Flying pollutes.

So? He does so on commercial flights when possible instead of always using private jets, as he could. He also buys carbon offsets for his flights. What he does pollutes, but he does it in as non-polluting way as possible, and then makes an effort to make up for that pollution. That’s completely in line with what he recommends for others.

You seem to believe that he’s being hypocritical by not completely detaching from society, but he doesn’t say that we have to detach from society. He says that we can have a less negative effect on the environment without completely sacrificing our way of life by making certain modifications.

He doesn’t say that we have to abolish air travel. That’s a straw man you impose on him, and then you mock him for not living up to your straw man.

Does you cut pollution by buying a carbon offset or by not causing pollution?

Carbon offsets are used to cut pollution. It’s another way to get to a positive result.

You have yet to actually point out that he’s a hypocrite, just that you hold him to a standard that he doesn’t support.

We could keep going around and around on this as you keep inventing new standards for him and put new ideas in his mouth, but it doesn’t change the facts.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #214473

LB
I have put no new ideas in his mouth and I have not invented a new standard to hold him too.

I say if he truly supports what he says, then he should actually do it. He has millions of dollars, why doesn’t he buy hybrids for poor people in exchange for their regular cars?
He flys commercial? I’ll believe that when I sit next to him.

“He says that we can have a less negative effect on the environment without completely sacrificing our way of life by making certain modifications”

This is where I believe you go wrong LB.
WE does not mean all of us. There is a big difference in how normal folks can help and how rich people can help.
All of gores flights, modes of ground travel, energy use etc… he probably uses more energy than 10 of us combined.
All he needs to do is to live on the same level as he expects us to live. Not make himself poor or anything, but use his money to further his beliefs in stopping global warming.
Why is that too much to ask? Isn’t the earth worth it?

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #214479

Yes, those are good goals. However, probably doing much more good by spreading the word and using his influence, knowledge, and skills to increase the odds that many people convert to hybrids, use CF lights, recycle more, etc.

In fact, close friends of mine decided to buy a hybrid this month instead of a standard car after watching “An Inconvenient Truth”. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were hundreds or thousands of other people that were similarly positively influenced by those the lessons that Al Gore presents.

And if that’s true, Mr. Gore’s positive impact for the environment is much greater than it could have been through his individual efforts, even if he had withdrawn from society completely as a hermit!

Would it be best if the knowledge and influence he has could have been spread without his traveling around the country and around the world explaining the science and discussing ways to fix the problem? Sure! Could such a thing be possible? Nope, he has to take the message to the people of influence where they are.

Yes, he lives in a big house. However, he uses the most efficient technologies he can, and he buys the greenest energy he can (even at a premium). Unfortunately, there are people who look past the personal efforts he makes in order to hold him to an impossible invented standard - all the easier to discount him.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2007 6:53 PM
Comment #214482

Well LB, discounting him and discounting what he has proposed are two different things.

You like him and his message.
I don’t like his ways, but believe his message deserves some thought by people.
Either way, it makes people think.

Always fun and informative my friend. Have a great weekend.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #214486

stephen


“So, you argument is, Gore shouldn’t come talk to you until he stops travelling around. Maybe he could sail to whatever destination.”

maybe you need to re-read my post. i said nothing of the kind. i don’t care who flys around in a private jet. if i could, i would too, but then i would not bang the global warming drum, and preach the evils of burning large amounts of fossil fuels. i suppose there is no other way for him to travel besides a G-5. hey how about a commercial 1st class ticket, a train, a private bus. he could travel all over the continental US in a private coach and not burn even 10% of the fuel. that jet burns @ 2000 to 3000LBS of fuel an hour.


” No such restrictions will be placed on oil execs or their flacks,”


they’re not lecturing us on the evils of a large carbon foot print, HE IS. and who said he should be restricted? i just think he should lead by example or shut his big trap.


“Gore’s power bill, he gets his power from a company that does wind power. He can use a hundred times the power of an ordinary home, if it’s not burning fossil fuels somewhere else. I should like to point “


what do the rest of us do that don’t have this option, in So Cal thats not an option, edison doesn’t offer it.


Posted by: dbs at March 30, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #214501

kctim-
The problem here is that part of this effort concerns the development of technology, with all the trial, error, and duration of time that requires. There’s a part of what he advocates that he cannot do himself, and that is what he is being criticized for. That is, he can’t turn the clock forward and use one-hundred percent green technology, because a lot of it hasn’t yet been full developed.

Also, you should concern yourself with the agenda of those who are mounting this criticism. It’s no accident that they are grilling him for energy usage. It’s an argument that at it’s foundation argues against the ability for people to do better, and tries to convince people not to follow what Gore says.

It’s an argument made by those in the pay of the folks who profit on a daily basis from high fossil fuel consumption. The message here is “consume as you have been doing. There’s no good alternative, even for this spokesman”

If you’re independent, that’s not a neutral message to accept. If you don’t accept the possiblity of global warming, isn’t that a foolish approach on other grounds?

Gore’s offsets pay for technology to begin the change to a better way of handling things. We’re not getting unaddicted to foreign oil until such time as we replace the technology upon which it depends. It’s that simple. We will be importing oil as long as we’r driving cars with the current gasoline engines in them.

At least Gore actually puts his money where his mouth is. He may pay more for power, but he pays for it from an outfit that generates power in a way that doesn’t burn fossil fuels. He’s going even further, installing solar panels on his home. Comparing him to one of us in terms of energy usage is misleading. Anybody who’s rich, who has mansions, will use more energy, no matter how frugal they get. The rich use more of many resources. Gore just does it in a more responsible manner, and he’s using that energy to convince millions to reduce consumption and back green technology. We’re not talking a linear effect here. His consumption, already recouped by carbon offsets, goes to reduce consumption and increase efficiency elsehwere, to help encourage a social shift towards more responsible technologies. It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish to violate the man with a microscope on his energy consumption in order to discredit his message of reduced fossil fuel consumption.

dbs-
All forms of ground travel are slow.

Trains are not necessarily more efficient than cars.

Buses get about 5 mpg, which means on a trip of four hundred miles you’re talking about 80 gallons of fuel, which comes to 480 gallons. Less than a jet, but that’s ideal calculations. Jets get to their destination faster. If he burns 2000 lbs of fuel an hour, but gets there in two thirds of an hour, the efficiency goes down considerably. Additionally, Al Gore can get anywhere essentially as the crow flies, while a Bus may find it’s journey lengthened and its fuel efficiency lessened by terrain which Gore essentially just flies over.

Additionally, you forget one important fact: diesel puts out a lot of Sulfur, and particulates. In that case, you would be attacking him for causing acid rain, and belching black smoke into the atmosphere, right?

This is just the usual character assassination meant to distract from real issues, which is how we as a society use Greenhouse Gases. By your rules, Gore has to stay home, or communicate by computers, which nonetheless draw their own energy costs. Gore isn’t telling us to become energy monks. He’s telling us as a society to make changes in how we consume energy, and from what sources we get it.

More to the point, this whole brouhaha is meant to distract from the important point: is Al Gore Right or Wrong. The Right is really getting very desperate about avoiding that argument. I wonder why. Perhaps it’s having the less defensible position. How long does it make sense to put ourselves at this disadvantage, to risk this outcome?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #214542

“More to the point, this whole brouhaha is meant to distract from the important point: is Al Gore Right or Wrong.”

No distraction meant or being used. Whether you agree or disagree with Gore’s message doesn’t matter one whit in this discussion. Al Gore is a hypocrite (no two ways about it). Those who argue in his favor about his hypocrisy are also guilty of hypocrisy. He has options which would reduce his personal creation of greenhouse gases. He doesn’t use them, but he preaches that others should. It doesn’t matter that some of the energy he uses is from non-poluting sources, because the very fact that he is using SO MUCH energy means that others HAVE TO use polution-causing energy. Here is a wealthy man who refuses to change his lifestyle, demanding that those who have fewer financial options MUST change their lifestyles.

If Gore weren’t a Democrat or if you weren’t a Democrat apologist there’s no way you would support that.

I also believe Gore is essentially wrong in his message, but that is for another debate.

Posted by: Don at March 31, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #214544
Here is a wealthy man who refuses to change his lifestyle

I wonder how many examples we could give of his changed lifestyle and still have you make this counterfactual claim. The list is already pretty big.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #214546

stephen


“Additionally, you forget one important fact: diesel puts out a lot of Sulfur, and particulates.”

new deisel engines are extremely clean,and emit almost no particulate matter. i own an older commercial truck, an 1988 freightliner to be exact and even it is fairly clean, but the new computer controlled engines put out no black smoke at all. deisel fuel and jet fuel are extemely similar. both are forms of carosine. the jet is filtered more to remove impurities. cant have a fuel nozzle plug up at 35,000 feet. actually a jet engine will run on deisel fuel, and visa-versa.

Posted by: dbs at March 31, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #214547

“I wonder how many examples we could give of his changed lifestyle and still have you make this counterfactual claim.”

Oh, he’s changed? He used to use 30X the electricity in his mansion than the average household, rather than the 20X he uses now? He used to fly his private jet 25% more than he does now?

I guess I’ll stop using MY private jet and take the Amtrak next time!! I’ve reduced my carbon footprint because I couldn’t afford the $200 utility bill each month. My house is now cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer than before. The bills are still higher than ever. I now own my most fuel-efficient vehicle ever.

Gore doesn’t live like an average citizen, period. I doubt he ever has the house cooler in the winter than would make him comfortable. I doubt he ever takes public transportation to save the earth. Gore doesn’t use fuel-efficient vehicles. He is just a hypocrite. Any way you slice it, he doesn’t do what he preaches.

I guess I’ll just buy some offsets and go back to heating my Michigan house in such a way as to make me comfortable. Then I’ll be an environmentalist just like Gore. That’s the inconvenient truth.

Posted by: Don at March 31, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #214549
He is just a hypocrite.

We know you believe that.

We know the facts are otherwise.

What facts? “Gore doesn’t use fuel-efficient vehicles.” In fact, he and all his family drive hybrids. I’m not going to bother restating all the other problems with your claims.

Is there anything else to say?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #215282

Face it, if Webb were a Republican dems would have him labled a crazy right wing radical who is a a danger to everyone in the capital.

You should all know by now that when liberals are in favor of rules those rules only apply to the little people. How about if every adult in America is limited to only using as much energy per year as Al Gore uses, would that make liberals happy?

Posted by: carnak at April 5, 2007 9:07 PM
Post a comment