Arizona redeems itself. Slightly.

In one of its few intelligent moves, the state of Arizona has not passed a stupendously stupid bill into law:

Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed two controversial bills, one mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to run for president, the other allowing guns on college campuses, in a clear setback for conservatives who control the state legislature.

Brewer, who grabbed headlines a year ago when she signed a get-tough state law cracking down on illegal immigrants, vetoed the bills in an announcement late on Monday.

The so-called “birther bill,” would have made Arizona the first state in the nation to require presidential candidates prove U.S. citizenship by providing a long form birth certificate, and other forms of proof including baptismal or circumcision certificates, to be placed on the state ballot.

“I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptism or circumcision certificates’ … This is a bridge too far,” she said..

This is a watershed moment: Republicans are finally realizing that they ought to be embarrassed about the crack-pottery they keep promoting.

25 Responses

  1. Again, both veto’s are foolishness.

    Unless anyone comes up with a good reason why the constitutional req’s shouldn’t be enforced, which no one here has.

    How did the gun free zone at Virginia Tech work out? Exactly. The states that already allowed concealed carry on campus haven’t had any problems.

  2. Again reason won out over irrational stupidity.

    We do need a constitutional amendment to get rid of all guns. The current arms amendment is the biggest flaw in the constitution. It reflects the minds of settlers who are farming in a hostile environment and their (not unreasonable) fear of savages. We need to grow up from that mind set.

  3. Grow up to be like you? I’d say your fear of other people having the ability to defend themselves if need be, is irrational. Would hunters be able to have guns in your world bob? Outlawing them wouldn’t get rid of them, only disarms all the law abiding citizens.

  4. Were you sticking your tongue out when you typed your foolish psychological nonsense, nfellows?

  5. Sure Bob.

  6. Nate, don’t you see the progress in what Bob wrote? He’s saying what a lot of liberals have had to admit – that the second ammendment says what everyone always knew it said.

  7. No, Michael, the conservative interpretation is also wrong. It is meant for militias.

  8. The militia is comprised of all able bodied males 18-45, Bob. I’m fine with arming only those people. My only reservation is that it seems kind of sexist, but you obviously aren’t concerned with that.

  9. As I said, that amendment needs to be changed. Pay attention.

  10. I have paid attention. You think the current amendment applies only to the militia, which I than defined for you, as the US Code defines it.

    You made clear you think the amendment should be changed. Wonderful.

    What you haven’t done is make any kind of case for it. I think other Michael is right, you’ve just made some progress.

  11. For those of you who are not Bob and want to know where legal scholars stand on what the second amendment means, I encourage you to read The Embarassing Second Amendemnt by gun control advocate Sanford Levinson.

    Like Bob, Levinson is a strong advocate for gun control, but that’s where they part ways. Levinson is a legal scholar and wrote the piece in the Yale Law Journal in 1989, and he lays out all of the arguments for the different interpretations.

    Now it’s not fair to pick on Bob here – he’s only human, and as human we all have trouble when our beliefs are challenged. The Supreme Court has upheld the historic interpretation.

  12. The case for changing it is two-fold, the spectacular failure of it in the US and the success of bettter laws in Europe disallowing guns that are spectacularly successful.

  13. I have no trouble defending my beliefs when challenged because I use evidence and logic, unlike those here who have faith and litlle else. They like to point and demand more while they fail to defend their faith-based positions.

  14. It’s eliminated gun violence? That’s so wonderful.

    I don’t see it affecting the murder rate much. The mass shootings it doesn’t prevent. The people it makes defenseless.

    I guess effectiveness is a relative term. You would take away a right we have had for all of humans time on the planet, the right to adequate self defense, because of the abuses of a few?

    Bob, free speech is more dangerous than the second amendment.

  15. I don’t want to get into a long, drawn out gun control debate, so here’s my answer – British kitchen knives

  16. I am laughing at that rationalization. No one gets killed directly from free speech. It is usually some gun toting douchbag that kills due to an inappropriate reaction to speech.

  17. Right. When you have no argument, divert and obfuscate. Certainly not your first time by a wide margin.

  18. Right because speech can only incite gun toting people to violence. Student riots never end up deadly or violent.

    I’m still waiting for facts and logic. Really I would settle for just one or the other from you.

  19. Student riots never end up deadly or violent.

    usually when the police start shooting.

    I’m still waiting for facts and logic. Really I would settle for just one or the other from you.

    Because you don’t pay attention: it does not work in the US but Europe’s gun ban is effective. Did you comprehend it this time or do I have to use morse code too? Facts on the ground is evidence and proof.

  20. Sorry about the other username, everyone seems to have figured it out, I have another for blogging for an organization I volunteer with, but I’ve reverted to my other username for the moment. If only signing in and out wasn’t so clunky, sigh.

    Yes Bob, all those other unarmed and unfired upon protests that turn violent (all the time) are just the media suppressing police brutality reports. Yawn. Guns don’t cause violence, speech incites it all the time, with or without guns. People are happy to smash and stab each other, personally i’d rather be shot.

    You haven’t given anything but your opinions here Bob. As valid as they may be as your opinions, they aren’t facts. The gun bans in Europe haven’t prevented shootings, in fact some of the worst mass shootings have happened there. Should the governments ever become oppressive, the people there have no way to resist state power though.

    I for one realize that it wasn’t simply a settler vs savages amendment. It was largely about the right to revolt if the government becomes oppressive. I don’t trust that government will always be a benevolent creature and you’ll never find a second amendment repeal come close to passing.

    Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, prohibition of drugs hasn’t worked and prohibition of guns would never work and doesn’t work either. I admire you idealism but recognize it for what it is, a utopia as people such as Thomas Moore wrote about, nothing but wishful thinking. Nice, but simply wishful.

  21. Edit: I’m going to make this into a post, too.

    I didn’t expect this to be about the gun veto, but so be it.

    The Second Amendment was clearly intended for two main purposes. First, as Nate pointed out earlier, it was meant to allow citizens to have guns should the government become oppressive. Second, it was meant to secure the government against attacks from foreign nations (or insurrection). Given the specific wording of the amendment, it is clear that the latter reason was more the point than anything.

    What we have from the Supreme Court over the years are a series of rulings, many of which rely upon preceding rulings. This is common enough, but it is also political enough. What’s more, we have people like Scalia who – despite all the lies claiming the constitution is a static document – will ignore the original intention of the Second Amendment. (Sticking by his beliefs would be inconvenient to his purely political style of ruling.) This debate is not well-grounded in history.

    So what we have is an amendment which does not guarantee what those on the right claim it guarantees. Both of the original primary reasons for the amendment are largely irrelevant today. What’s more, if those on the right were honest and took the Second Amendment to its conclusions, then we would be living in a very different world. That is, our Bill of Rights is based upon the idea of natural rights. While we only legally apply them to Americans and those on American soil (with some exceptions), the underlying principle is that it is an inherent right for everyone to bear arms (among our other rights). If that is the case, then it is a right for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But we stop short of taking the principle that far. Or at least the right does. (The left isn’t operating on ahistorical principles in the first place.) And the same goes for American citizens: If someone argued to the Supreme Court his right to have an atomic weapon, it would never fly. This flagrantly violates the arguments being put forth by the right.

    That said, I’m not against gun ownership. As always, we have to take a pragmatic point of view. While much of Europe has overwhelmingly superior statistics to the U.S. when it comes to not dying from guns, it is unlikely America will ever achieve such a state. We have to deal with the fact that there are millions and millions of guns out there, many in the hands of criminals. We should control ridiculous weapons that serve no real purpose outside a military setting (a point, incidentally, where the right will agree with me – when we’re talking about nuclear weapons; the point goes out the window for most other weapons), but it probably isn’t going to help anything if we prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns. Sure, let’s curb gun show purchases and force waiting periods – that will be effective in keeping guns from some criminals – but complete bans have to be questioned.

    So I do favor allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons. It’s just that the Second Amendment does get us there.

  22. No, Nate, you are all wrong. You twist and obfuscate everything. Your opinions contradict the facts and evidence.

  23. Well if You’re going to be so convincing, I don’t know how anyone can argue with you Bob.

  24. You supplied nothing of value or any evidence.

  25. Sure Bob. .

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: