Republican/Conservative hypocricy & the Constitution

[eeyore1954]

Never forget that the 'War On Drugs' was a pet project of Small Government^TM false idol Ronald Reagan.

There wasn't a concerted effort to stop drug use before him and after him by leaders of both parties?
He just gave it a "catchy name".

 

[MikeMangum]

The concern over "the government is going to take away our guns" has been going on for a long time and I still haven't seen it happen yet.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because there have been many attempts, some successfull, some not.

How about this, for the most recent attempt:
EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition.

The EPA was very quickly flooded with extremely angry comments:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6010&issue=

Responding to a grassroots outcry from gun owners, the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other radical groups that had sought to ban the use of lead in ammunition.

Agreeing with the position of the NRA and the firearms industry, the agency explained in a news release that it “does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” Further crushing the hopes of anti-gun and anti-hunting activists, the release added: “nor is the agency seeking such authority.”

Yep...it's specifically excempted from the Toxic Substances act, is outside of the EPAs jurisdiction, and they weren't 'seeking such authority', so instead of simply denying the petition, they open it for public comment...the first step in implementing a new regulation. Only after they get a crapload of angry responses do they pull an Emily Litella.

As far as hypocrisy goes, pretty much everyone is hypocritical about something; that's just part of the human condition. For example, liberals/Democrats have been (rightly) invoking the 1st Amendment to defend the right of the GZ mosque organizers to build, but ironically, forgetting that that exact same amendment gives critics the right to complain about it.

Sta;wart defenders of freedom of religion? Yes and no. This was from 3 days ago.

How to Repeal the First Amendment . . .

In five easy steps.

Step 1: Launch a debate within key private professional organizations (such as the National Association of Social Workers or the American Counseling Association) about the need for “social justice” within the profession. Argue stridently that social workers and/or counselors should be leading advocates for “equality” or “diversity.”

Step 2: Incorporate this view within extraordinarily broad rules of ethics. For example, the American Counseling Association rules of ethics say that a counselor cannot “condone” (whatever that means) discrimination on the basis of:

A]ge, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/ spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/ partnership, language preference,socioeconomic status, or any basis pro-scribed by law.

Note, the word used is 'condone', not 'engage in'.

The NASW code of ethics is even more broad:

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.

Rules of this breadth can mean literally anything. They can even be interpreted as an ethical requirement to “speak out” against (subjectively defined) injustice or discrimination and have been interpreted to reach even discriminatory thoughts that may cross a person’s mind when viewing a client file.

Step 3: Convince public entities (like colleges or state licensing boards) that they must teach and apply these privately-generated ethical rules to students and members of the profession. Apply the rules of ethics to expel or punish students who deviate from the ideological norms of the profession.

Step 4: When challenged, argue that conventional First Amendment analysis doesn’t apply because you’re merely “teaching professional standards” or applying the “rules of ethics.” Appeal to a Court’s often innate desire not to interfere with university curriculum or professional ethics. Do everything you can to avoid talking about the text of the actual rules themselves.

Unquestioned support for freedom of belief from liberals? Get real.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Then you haven't been paying attention, because there have been many attempts, some successfull, some not.

How about this, for the most recent attempt:
EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition

The EPA was very quickly flooded with extremely angry comments:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6010&issue=


Yep...it's specifically excempted from the Toxic Substances act, is outside of the EPAs jurisdiction, and they weren't 'seeking such authority', so instead of simply denying the petition, they open it for public comment...the first step in implementing a new regulation. Only after they get a crapload of angry responses do they pull an Emily Litella.

<Snip>

Yet you really havent been keeping track of this have you?

08/27/2010: EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban


So a bunch of scientists called for the ban of traditional ammunition because of the potential effect it has on wildlife, so they file a petition with the EPA. The EPA responded by saying no, because they don't have the legal authority to do so.


This ISN'T the liberals calling for a ban, it's the scientific community calling for a ban, nice spin though. Also, this ISN'T just ammunition either...

EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

 

[Chaos]

Yet you really havent been keeping track of this have you?

08/27/2010: EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban


So a bunch of scientists called for the ban of traditional ammunition because of the potential effect it has on wildlife, so they file a petition with the EPA. The EPA responded by saying no, because they don't have the legal authority to do so.


This ISN'T the liberals calling for a ban, it's the scientific community calling for a ban, nice spin though. Also, this ISN'T just ammunition either...

Haven´t you heard? All scientists are "intellectuals" and thus liberals.

 

[elbe]

I'm not a gun person so I'm don't know, but is there ammunition available that doesn't contain lead? If so, regulating a known toxic substance (if the EPA had that authority in this case) seems like a piss poor way to "ban" firearms.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not a gun person so I'm don't know, but is there ammunition available that doesn't contain lead? If so, regulating a known toxic substance (if the EPA had that authority in this case) seems like a piss poor way to "ban" firearms.

Why? Is there something special about guns that makes lead less toxic? I'd argue to the contrary myself.

 

[elbe]

Why? Is there something special about guns that makes lead less toxic? I'd argue to the contrary myself.

That's not what I said. If the only type of ammunition contains lead (something I doubt but don't honestly know) I can see how the gun crowd would consider a ban on lead ammo to be a cheap way to ban guns. Otherwise the claim that it's meant to ban guns is just silly (though I would think the EPA should have authority over ammunition if it spreads a known toxic substance around the wild, but that's already been taken from their hands).

So I was just arguing that MikeMangum's claim that it was meant to "ban" guns to be without merit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…though I would think the EPA should have authority over ammunition if it spreads a known toxic substance around the wild…

From where does this toxic substance come in the first place?

 

[elbe]

From where does this toxic substance come in the first place?

I know! Just because toxins occur naturally in the environment doesn't mean we shouldn't spread them around so they would cause more damage than in their native state, right? Since mercury is a naturally occurring element we shouldn't try to dispose of it in a safe manner, we should just dump it wherever we feel like - a lake, a forest, your backyard... wherever!

Did you know they banned lead in paint too? Doesn't make a lick of sense!

 

[lomiller]

I'm not a gun person so I'm don't know, but is there ammunition available that doesn't contain lead?

The biggest problem is lead pellets from shotguns, which tend to be about the right size to be confused with food and eaten. Lead shot is banned here and people do just fine with steel shot. You need to use a larger shot size to make up for the weigh difference and steel has a narrower spread so you need to shoot better, but I have no problem with asking hunters to actually know how to shoot.

 

[KingMerv00]

From where does this toxic substance come in the first place?

Locked safely away in mountains, like uranium. That doesn't mean there aren't proper disposal methods we should use.

 

[portlandatheist]

I think the assumption of the OP is completely wrong. I think the opposition to the Center at GZ is ridiculous and misguided but I wouldn't necessarily say that the folks opposing it are hypocrites in regards to the constitution regardless of how inappropriate their opposition to the "mosque" may be.
I oppose cocaine use but I support its legalization.
The Center for Inquiry recently protested the Wesboro Baptist church but they support their freedom of religion.
A bunch of Idaho white supremacists were considering relocating to a small town here in Oregon and the local residents protested the move but that doesn't mean they oppose their constitutionally right to do so.
It is perfectly reasonable to protest and make a public statement that "we as a community oppose your church/speech/politics/group" and that you are not welcome without opposing your adversary's constitutional right to do so.
It's a red herring to conflate opposition to a group with opposition to their constitutional rights. We need to distinguish what they are actually opposing. Are they trying to send a clear message that the Muslim community center is not welcome, or are they trying to oppose the legal right of Muslims to build a community center anywhere they wish to put one just as any other religious group has a right to do?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's a red herring to conflate opposition to a group with opposition to their constitutional rights. We need to distinguish what they are actually opposing. Are they trying to send a clear message that the Muslim community center is not welcome, or are they trying to oppose the legal right of Muslims to build a community center anywhere they wish to put one just as any other religious group has a right to do?

And how does seeking to legally prevent a religion from building places of worship as is happening is many many states not just in lower Manhattan, remember California is too close to ground zero to tolerate a mosque being built or something. So how does that legally blocking of them not deprive them of their constitutional right to freedom of religion?

 

[Neally]

And how does seeking to legally prevent a religion from building places of worship as is happening is many many states not just in lower Manhattan, remember California is too close to ground zero to tolerate a mosque being built or something. So how does that legally blocking of them not deprive them of their constitutional right to freedom of religion?

Several polls show that those opposed still acknowledge the legal right to build it. Did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Do you realize that there have been no protests or attempts to legally block the building of other mosques in other parts of NY?

In other news, liberal nut John Cusack calls for a satanic death cult center at Fox News.

 

[Lurker]

Several polls show that those opposed still acknowledge the legal right to build it. Did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Do you realize that there have been no protests or attempts to legally block the building of other mosques in other parts of NY?

In other news, liberal nut John Cusack calls for a satanic death cult center at Fox News.

I laughed when I read this link. That FoxNews is criticizing Cusack for saying things that might inflame those who are not right in the head is the height of hypocrisy. Beck, Hannity and their ilk make their living using similar incendiary rhetoric and they do it all the time.

Sorry for the derail, I just had to comment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Several polls show that those opposed still acknowledge the legal right to build it. Did you even read the paragraph you quoted? Do you realize that there have been no protests or attempts to legally block the building of other mosques in other parts of NY?

Wrong see the whole staten island mosque contraversy, or the one in tennesee or...

In other news, liberal nut John Cusack calls for a satanic death cult center at Fox News.

Two things, one show me the broad local support for that, and two show me the group that is being hurt by that?

There are many many locations that are blocking at mosques being built, that is not any kind of singular issue, but one that is effecting many communities. It is just this one that is getting truly national attention.

 

[Neally]

Wrong see the whole staten island mosque contraversy, or the one in tennesee or...

Show me where there was broad support for denying them the legal right to build verses their legal right to voice objections for something to be built. Again it's the difference between my objecting to a KKK center being built in my neighborhood verses denying them the legal right to build it.

Two things, one show me the broad local support for that, and two show me the group that is being hurt by that?

Show me where Fox is saying Cusack doesn't have the right to his stupid statements.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Show me where there was broad support for denying them the legal right to build verses their legal right to voice objections for something to be built. Again it's the difference between my objecting to a KKK center being built in my neighborhood verses denying them the legal right to build it.

Well for the Manhattan Mosque they tried to block it getting permits and permission to be built. I think they tried to get the former Burlington Coat Factory store turned into a landmark.

They speak out and try to block permits and other such tactics to prevent the building of mosques. Why wouldn't you consider the blocking of permits to be obstructing the building of these mosques?

 

[Neally]

Well for the Manhattan Mosque they tried to block it getting permits and permission to be built. I think they tried to get the former Burlington Coat Factory store turned into a landmark.

They speak out and try to block permits and other such tactics to prevent the building of mosques. Why wouldn't you consider the blocking of permits to be obstructing the building of these mosques?

If a KKK center was proposed to be built near me, I'd try whatever legal ways there might be to prevent it. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed speak out against it and to work within the law to do this?

 

[drkitten]

If a KKK center was proposed to be built near me, I'd try whatever legal ways there might be to prevent it. Do you think I shouldn't be allowed speak out against it and to work within the law to do this?

Um, yes. That's the whole point.