Let's see 'em valerie!

Does that mean she's sagging or doesn't want to expose her tatas?

Glenn Reynolds: assumption of the risk, jackass. What happened to personal responsibility?

Is Valerie Plame representative of the women who work in government? If so, maybe I won't be working in private practice after all.

Reynolds is right: it's the mall's fault. Not the fact that the kid had access to an AK-47. It would have been better if everyone in the mall had an AK-47. Or, even better, if the mall was handing them out at the door.

Reynolds is right: it's the mall's fault. Not the fact that the kid had access to an AK-47. It would have been better if everyone in the mall had an AK-47. Or, even better, if the mall was handing them out at the door.

Valerie Plame is hot. It is milf-y hot, but hot nonetheless. Even more impressive given she's like 45.

anyone hear this rumor that Simpson is requiring facetime? Lat, why aren't you covering this story?

Reynolds is an idiot. The article is about concealed weapons permits as deterrents to multiple victim shootings. This was a murder suicide. The threat that another person, who is carrying a concealed weapon, will kill you if you start shooting people in the mall is not much of a threat IF YOU PLAN TO KILL YOURSELF ANYWAY!

Now, if what he means to say is that had someone been carrying, they could have killed the kid before he could kill as many as he did, that's a different story. It also ignores the possibility that Joe Sixpack with the 9mm in his waist is an awful shot and some stray bullet ends up killing someone. That would be a bit of a nightmare for the mall's premises liability insurer.

"I'm a mother of twins, are you kidding me?"

Well, those twins will need their college education paid for, Val. Take off the blouse.

Now, if what he means to say is that had someone been carrying, they could have killed the kid before he could kill as many as he did, that's a different story. It also ignores the possibility that Joe Sixpack with the 9mm in his waist is an awful shot and some stray bullet ends up killing someone. That would be a bit of a nightmare for the mall's premises liability insurer.

=============================

Usually if someone carries a concealed weapon legally, they are familiar with firearms and are probably a very good shot. Most states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so this person would have to have such an interest in firearms that he went through the time and expense of filling out an application, paying for a background check, and going down to the courthouse or sheriff's office to do all of this. I have a concealed carry permit, and I have been around guns (and taken many gun safety courses) since I was 6 years old when I got my first BB gun. That experience is probably pretty typical for most people who take the trouble to get a concealed carry permit and carry a firearm legally.

Second, I don't think there is a very plausible theory to be advanced where you could hold a shopping center liable for a patron who is carrying a firearm legally using said firearm to stop a potential mass murderer and accidentally hitting an innocent bystander. Sure, the person who accidentally shot the bystander has real liability, but not the mall or shopping center.

10:52 - Actually, take a look back at the STB facetime post. Lat has corrected it.

The facetime requirement IS true, at least for some people (ie, junior corporate associates in NYC).

"Justice O'Connor's status as the first woman on the Court makes it easy to praise her. I cannot imagine that she would be receiving the praise that she gets from the country if she were male."

Or if she believed in enforcing the Constitution. Not everything is about gender.

"Second, I don't think there is a very plausible theory to be advanced where you could hold a shopping center liable for a patron who is carrying a firearm legally using said firearm to stop a potential mass murderer and accidentally hitting an innocent bystander. Sure, the person who accidentally shot the bystander has real liability, but not the mall or shopping center."

-didn't anyone ever teach you that anecdotes and generalizations are worthless?
-you may be familiar with guns, but you aren't familiar with your first year torts book - go read about business invitees, the duty of care is pretty high

"I'm a mother of twins..."

Yes, Val,

Show us the twins!!!

6:18: You're so cute. Name one justice who has not strayed from the Constitution when the Constitution was not on their side.

Hint: There aren't any.

test 1 2 3

anything but that

I fucking despise my girlfriend.

Glenn Reynolds - Everything is an argument for greater weapons rights, including abuse of weapons rights.

Can we not just be reasonable and say that people can have guns, but not friggin' AK-47s?

Instaputz also links to "respected scholar" John Lott in that post. Has the man no shame? Is he unaware of the rampant dishonesty & fabrication in Lott's work? He clearly takes his readership for total morons. Or, he's just a total moron himself.

- go read about business invitees, the duty of care is pretty high

The standard of foreseeability is pretty high, too, so unless there had been previous shooting sprees in this mall, the third-party criminal act was unforeseeable and there was no duty.

The shooter did not have an AK-47, you morons. He used a semi-automatic SKS.

Yeah, you morons. You're stupid for believing that he had an AK-47, when only every media report says he had an AK-47. Morons. What stupid morons you are. Seriously.

Anyone who believes anything put out by the liberal mainstream media surely is a moron. Thanks for playing.

There wouldn't have had to have been a similar shooting in this mall for it to be foreseeable that some whacko would bring in an assault rifle and start blasting.

Given the fact that a number of recent shooting sprees have been perpetrated by 13-21 year olds, it is not un-foreseeable that the next venue after a school would be . . . a mall.

Or at least that's the argument that I would make.

3:03 - It's also being reported by FoxNews, the Washington Times, and any other conservative news outlet you want to check. Thanks for playing.

In fact, please offer one media source saying it was something OTHER than an AK-47. Thanks.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1691634,00.html?imw=Y

Nice. You've produced one (from a "liberal mainstream media" source). Now, given that there are so many reports saying that it was an AK-47, tell me why the people who said it was an AK-47 are morons?

Because an AK47 is a highly restricted weapon. Anyone who automatically believed that a a 19 year old could get his hands on an NFA selective fire machine gun doesn't know his guns, and shouldn't be commenting.

You're right. Only people who know their guns should comment when a teenager kills nine people in a mall.

Semi-Automatic AK-47s are legal and easily obtainable in most states of the United States. Certain states like California have specific restrictions which effectively ban new purchases of semi-automatic rifles like the AK-47.

It actually was an AK-47. As this article notes, the original identification as an SKS was incorrect.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10203759

3:03 got PWNED111!!!!!!111!!OMFGLOLWTF!!!!112

I knew a guy in my high school that had an AK-47, it really sucked.

And since the SKS is the cheaper, more readily available, Chinese version of the AK-47... six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Can anyone come up with a reasoned explanation for supporting Hillary Clinton? I can understand that some people are drawn to authoritarianism and cults of personality, but why does she get more than 20% in the polls?

12:01 - same reason people are drawn to giuliani (authoritarianism and cult of personality). it's not that hard to figure out, eedeote.

you didn't answer the question at all. I can see maybe 20% in each party being motivated by those reasons, but, for instance, if hillary gets most of the second place votes from biden and richardson supporters she could win the iowa caucus handily. also, her numbers country-wide are closer to 40% among dem's. so what gives? are 2/5ths of likely voters (who are somewhat more educated than the population as a whole) really drawn to these characteristics?

also, can no one actually articulate a reason for their own personal support of hillary?

Why Obama over Hillary?

Bros before Hos.. that's why.

12:01: Are you trying to figure out why people are stupid? I mean, 30% of the country still supports Bush. It's not a reason unique to Democrats: People are stupid. That's the answer.

I'm not going to vote for Hillary (as a Dem) but where does "authoritarianism" come into it? Cult of personality I can see, but what makes Clinton dictatorial?

In the state in which I am registered to vote, all the major Democratic candidates *except* Hillary Clinton have withdrawn from the primary ballot because they are so beholden to the antidemocratic privileging of a few fortunate voters from New Hampshire and Iowa. Yes, I speak of Michigan. It's hard to listen to any of them speak about popular will or moral courage given what they've done. (Note, I do not mean to imply that HC is above all this; clearly she has stayed on the ballot in Michigan only because she was clearly going to win regardless. But six of one, half a dozen of the other in my book when it comes to Hillary, Barack, John, or any of the rest of them (even Dennis!).)

"A gunman walked into a training center for young Christian missionaries in a Denver suburb early Sunday and opened fire, wounding at least four people."

Gosh, if only those missionaries were carrying concealed AK-47s. They should sue their church for not providing them with at least semi-automatics.

Or, 10:53 am, if one of them had decided to go through a CDL-like process designed to ensure (1) that s/he could carry a modern, semi-automatic handgun loaded with self-defense ammunition, (2) that s/he knew and understood the rules on civilian use of deadly force (law of justification, something most cops don't grasp very well), and (3) that s/he was a technically proficient shooter with the weapon carried... and such permit had (at least) a bi-annual demonstration of skills, knowledge, and combined application thereof requirement. They should sue the state for failing to protect them after failing to provide for a legal means of effective self defense... too bad soverign immunity's a bitch :)

True, 11:52. Those victims were so stupid! They should all be packing heat! It's the only safe thing to do!

still no defense of hillary?

She's experienced.

Hillary will advocate comprehensive gun regulations that reduce firearm-enhanced mass killings while permitting sportsmen and permitted and trained citizens to carry firearms sufficient for game and self-defense.

Althouse is a fool to think that Obama could beat the Republican nominee in 2008. The US is still to racist (at least latently racist) to elect an African-American as president.

Above the Law must be the only forum on the Internet where the Clinton trolls and the Obama trolls are more vocal than the Ron Paul trolls (who, unlike their counterparts on the left, actually have something to contribute to political debates despite their eccentric views).

10:07: Funny you would say that, considering that Obama would never even have been taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 2008 [as opposed to maybe 2020] if it were not for his skin color.

who are you supporting in the republican primary, fed soc?

I am leaning toward Romney. Of the five candidates with a chance of winning, I would not support Giuliani, who is socially liberal, or McCain, whom I don't really trust. I have a great deal of respect for Huckabee, who along with Paul is probably the most principled of the bunch, but his values are more in line with traditional values of the Democratic Party (before it became the party of abortion, atheism and political correctness). This leaves us Romney and Thompson, and Romney seems to be the smartest/most competent of the two.

Now, I hope that my support will not dissuade you from supporting Romney yourself...

Fed Soc -thanks for fostering intelligent debate (sarcasm)

You call Dems the party of abortion, atheism, and political correctness. Support for those things are, at best, the result of Democrats valuing (1) choice (in the liberal, like Rawlsian sense), (2) religious freedom (in the liberal, Rawlsian, non-establishment sense), and (3) respect for and tolerance of those who are different.

But thanks for proving yourself to be a typical Fed. Soc. ideologue. Rather than discuss the underlying values, which some on the right claim to value themselves, you would rather paint the left as supporting the unpopular (in your mind) results that support for those values produces. Isn't that exactly the sort of results-oriented thinking that the Fed. Soc. accuses "liberal" judges of?

I am leaning toward Giuliani. Of the five candidates with a chance of winning, I would support Giuliani, who is the most conservative on national security and economics, or McCain, who has taken the most principled stand on Iraq. I don't have a great deal of respect for Huckabee, who, along with Paul, is probably benefitting the most from fringe groups and far right-wing dissatisfaction with the candidates, but his values are more in line with traditional values of the Republican party (before it became the party of doctor murderers, polygamy, and politician sex scandals). This leaves us with Romney and Thompson, and Romney seems to be the one with the least chance of winning of these last-place two.

Now, I hope that my support will not dissuade you from supporting Giuliani yourself...

8:42: Always flattering to be parodied.

8:35, the point of my 1:39 a.m. post was to briefly compare the Republican presidential candidates, not to make a substantive argument on the current state of affairs of the Democratic Party. If you look at Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas, you would find that he is actually quite liberal, particularly on economic issues (see Club for Growth's negative report on Huckabee for more info on this). Huckabee's position on illegal immigration expressed during the Republican debate was also decidedly to the left. But Huckabee would stand no chance of winning the primary if he were running as a Democrat, because his positions on abortion, homosexuality and evolution would put him out of consideration (compare with Giuliani, who is a serious Republican contender despite his liberal views on social issues). In any case, the larger point on Huckabee is that I would not support him because, although principled, he is not a conservative.

I am happy to have discussions on abortion or the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause when relevant, but this was just not central to a post comparing the Republican candidates. And as you should have noticed, liberals make knee-jerk comments about the Republican Party all the time and you don't seem to take offense.

Fed Soc:

What's wrong with being the party of atheism?

Isn't reason and logic and rational though superior to believing in the supernatural and having "faith"?

Why do people in this country deem superstition to be looked up to and worthy of respect?

Shouldn't it be the opposite?

Something is clearly wrong when people professing belief in supernatural daddies in the sky, with powers greater than Batman, Superman and Spiderman combined, are deemed to be fit to run the most powerful country on Earth.

People should be laughing at these primitive superstitions, not considering them to be an electable trait.

The reason to carry: When seconds count the police are only minutes away. The police cannot protect you, period.

And who cares what kind of rifle it was? Is anyone so stupid to believe that it matters whether it was an AK, and SKS, or your run of the mill hunting rifle? The victims would all be as dead. Just because a rifle has been glorified/vilified in the media doesn't make it any more or less dangerous.

Fed Soc is perhaps the most unprincipled, politically-minded poster on this thread. He's like Sean Hannity - he doesn't care about which republican, conservative, or principle he supports as much as he views any chance to speak as an opportunity to throw in juvenile and snarky attacks against democrats. It's pretty amusing.