American Constitution Society panel on DC v. Heller
Moderated by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, the panel features a discussion with John Payne (formerly of the D.C. Corporation Counsel's office; attorney of record on the Brady amicus brief, and currently head of the NAACP LDF), Carl Bogus (Prof. of Law at Roger Williams, and lead author on a pro-DC amicus brief of some historians) and me. The debate was held at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C.; the video and audio are available here.
I was only disappointed that Dave focused so narrowly on the utility of guns, without being able to branch out more often to counter the arguments of the other opposing briefs. But I guess there's so much stupidity supporting the D.C. ban, and only so much time to combat the mendacity of the ban's supporters.
I also love how the introducer stated that the case could have great real-world effects on the government's ability to enact "gun safety laws." Not on, say, the roughly half of American households that have firearms, or on the right of citizens to defend themselves. No no, this is all about "gun safety laws."
What the heck is your beef?
Both the American Constitution Society and The Federalist Society often have opposing viewpoints for many lectures and always at conferences.
What the heck is your beef?
Well, ACS is a hackfest, son, and it's beyond belief
Yes, they pretend to neutrality
Yes, they invite the right
But they only ape the Federalists and we all know that's right
That's right they don't have ideas
They only have ideology
Kopel might have well as been a token
Because they ain't invite me
God damn America
God damn Laurence Tribe
How you gonna deny my Second Amendment rights
How the f*** is I gonna survive?
This was supposed to have at least 2 sides talking about a subject??
This is why NO SANE PERSON TRUSTS THE LEFT!!!!
They had 2 people for the "it's a States right" and one guy saying that people need to be able to defend themselves.
Typical DEMOCRAT Lefty BS. Have a talk between someone on the Left and someone on the FAR Left and say you are giving a balanced talk on the subject.
And how about BOTH those (&))(&)(%#^@%)*@#_(* trying to tag anyone who was for an individual right as being a racist slave owner!!
GOD, I expected that the discussion would at least be a little real but that it was so biased that it looked like a propaganda peice, that I didn't expect.
The ACS has NO HONOR, they have NO INTEGERITY, they have NO SHAME. If I was a member I would hang my head in shame and turn in my membership and NEVER tell anyone that I was part of such a group. They a nothing but a propaganda mouthpeice.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.