Home country: USA
Current location: NJ
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2011, 10:48 AM
Number of posts: 9,045
Home country: USA
Current location: NJ
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2011, 10:48 AM
Number of posts: 9,045
I like movies. Action and comedy are the best. Mysteries with a twist are great.
In his dissent in Heller, Justice Stevens applied from Marbury v. Madison that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The argument expressed from this point names as the sole purpose for the 2A, the protection of a Militia purposed RKBA only. That, while the use of a gun in self-defense would certainly be legal, the 2A does not innately protect possession for that purpose.
The Heller case was about: "We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment."
In my view, there were several known, established, accepted and respected behaviors common among the citizens of our young nation. They were:
- the ownership of long guns for the purpose of hunting
- the carry of smaller firearms such as pistols for personal protection
- the use of guns in general for practice
- the use of a gun during service as a law enforcement officer
and, of course...
- possession for use relating to militia service.
I argue that the 2A was written with the militia clause to include in its protection, the specific possession of militia appropriate weapons. That if, weapons not solely purposed for the first four uses, above, would be restricted from the people, the militia would be impaired. That the possession of militia appropriate weapons would be protected. After all a militia armed with Olympic target pistols of .22 caliber or 18th century muskets is hardly well matched against another force armed with even 19th century lever action rifles.
Through history, certain upper classes have prohibited the possession of state of the art arms to those outside their own group. Take for example Japan's Samuri who forbid general ownership of the katana. Laws that would burden the people in same manner as the British attempted to burden the colonies concerning firearms were to be excluded from possibility. The 3A was in line with that same end. It was a standard procedure among the British to house their soldiers in the homes of colonists and burden the quartering family with their feeding and sheltering.
In reading Federalist #46 one can determine that Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, intended to protect a militia of just about every free white adult male in the country. That the existence of arms in the hands of everyone rather than a select few (maybe 1% of the population) was entirely proper.
There have always been 1%ers that sought to be "above" the rest of us. It is that same special interest end that the 2A was enacted to protect against.
In the US we've enacted and, later, corrected laws that forbid certain types of folks from owning firearms. There were laws against selling or giving guns to Black folks and Native Americans, because it was said 'they aren't really people'.
I further contest inferring that the RKBA has no individual protection based upon the founders not expressing that aspect conflicts with the nature of the Bill of Rights. A fundamental principle of interpretation is...
In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject")
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
The effect of this principle is to apply the 2A in the way as the other rights in the Bill of Rights are applied. The 1A covers newspapers with hundreds of employees as well as an individual blogger. The 2A protects everyone's RKBA not just those who belong to a militia.
The 2A mainly expresses and protects a right, a common right of everyone, not an institution, not the militia. The very idea that a right exists but only for a certain few is insulting to the founders... and to us all.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Tue Apr 7, 2015, 08:00 AM (23 replies)
"A true progressive would be cheering anything that pisses off the gun running NRA..."
I'd suggest that real progress in the area of decreasing crime, including gun related crime, involves more cooperation than theatrics and annoying your political enemies.
Enough of the people are either pro-RKBA, anti-control or just dubious of the various big money proponents behind gun-control that a majority isn't there. If you have a goal, aside from maintaining the status of an "enemy" as an enemy, progress starts with common ground not picking fights and annoying people.
Lack of respect turns people off. Just ask Piers Morgan.
CNN noted the poor ratings of Piers Morgan Live, and commenting on them Morgan said that he was "a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it."
If by "banging" he means being rude, insulting and generally disrespectful to those with whom he disagrees, then he's on the mark.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:11 PM (1 replies)
As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In this context, a right is an innate attribute of a person. A right serves as a guide for behavior in that it names good, correct and righteous pursuits. Actions, having as a goal sustaining one's life are congruent with this guide. Enacting legislation providing for such behavior as legal is also congruent with this guide.
Suggesting that a only a group of people rather than an individual have the right to life is just plain bizarre.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Wed Oct 29, 2014, 03:17 PM (0 replies)
According to Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France:
"This is a terrorist group and not a state," ... "I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it 'Daesh' and I will be calling them the 'Daesh cutthroats.' "
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:12 PM (13 replies)
If you want something in the worst way..........that's usually how you'll get it.
- Now is the time to demand that the folks in the Statehouses and Congress educate themselves about the driving causes of violence.
- Now is the time to demand that politicians enlighten themselves ENOUGH so they can speak without being laughed at due to their ignorance. Information is power; ignorance breeds bondage and waste. Screw that some embarrass themselves, what about the embarrassment they cause their constituents?
- Many people feel that private arms are to blame for much of the violence. The US Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd, 9th and 10 Articles stand in the way of limiting rights to private arms.
- Now is the time to hold those elected accountable for understanding the new laws proposed and passed and those related laws which currently exist. Now is the time to lose the excuses about trusting advisers, making compromises and "just doing something".
- More than any other purpose or duty a government may have, the primary duty is to protect the individual.
In honor of Mr. Bloomberg:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Demand a plan? Sure, accept a plan unexamined for consequence, source and detail at the public peril.
For the last 225 years the US has been a leader among nations thanks to the wisdom in its founding documents. Those ideals, checks and balances, principles and rights have been in many ways adapted or copied by more than 90% of other nations. Discard, disparage or ignore any of that at possible cost to everyone.
When considering the existence of God centuries ago Blaise Pascal hypothetically asked, "Do you want to bet?" He then answered the question by saying that it is a necessary bet. The same is true of the RKBA; do you want to bet?
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:32 PM (1 replies)
...making fools of themselves saying things like magazines get "used up" and "shoulder thing..." not to mention folks like a certain Congressman who tied up a hearing trying to be sure that an influx of extra military personnel wouldn't cause Guam to "capsize".
I don't expect every one of them to take an 8 hour firearm class and spend a couple hours at a range.
Information is power.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:23 PM (1 replies)
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances.
The PRISM program is the latest of many surveillance programs to come to light as problematic. As technology advances (as it has from snail mail to telegraph to radio to telephone...) there will be advances in surveillance and these will be met by probably undue trust by private citizens. Incidents of what have later been determined as unconstitutional breaches of privacy are not hard to find.
The other programs like MAINWAY, Fairview, STELLARWIND and others back to ECHELON have used computers to correlate information gathered by various means. Wullenweber antenna arrays are spread over the globe and information from Snowden has revealed that telecoms provide info directly to the government.
The growing technology that makes easier the task of correlation of metadata such as call records and some details of text/email content with other data possibly including visual surveillance (maybe involving the NRO) begs for oversight with published understandable standards.
Not to go deep into conspiracy land here but there is a history of government surveillance programs by agencies with black budgets that weren't even acknowledged as existing.
Are new laws clarifying the 4th Amendment needed?
If so, what restrictions are reasonable?
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Tue Aug 20, 2013, 12:47 PM (4 replies)
...maintaining a militia is the common thread to all of these quotes:
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." - Augustine of Hippo
"Self-defense is Nature's eldest law." - John Dryden
"Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave." - Andrew Fletcher
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms." - Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." - Dr. Arthur Kellerman
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
...or do I have that wrong? Is there something else here I've missed?
Who said this: "Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty."???
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sun Aug 18, 2013, 05:02 PM (10 replies)
...the basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness have little meaning if those pursuits may be lost or destroyed by the selfish, capricious and arbitrary decisions of criminals. Some folks after a lifetime of work may, due to bad luck or low wages, may have not so much worth of possessions but who am I to decide that while it might be okay to shoot someone over a truck and $15,000 in tools that it isn't acceptable to shoot someone over grandma's pearls.
"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one’s goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." - Thomas Aquinas
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:33 PM (1 replies)
This is a repost of a reply I made a while back to a knowledgeable poster who wrote critically about the MSM characterization "High powered assault rifle." For those who've read this before and/or who have this information, my apologies.
These are terms whose significance is lost on most of the public. It has been my experience that any general details of ballistics are held as some mix of boring and complex. Specific details of works authored by experts such as Dr. Roberts for example: < http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf > among others, are viewed the same way with somewhat gruesome overtones. The idea that scientific means exist to design and evaluate the incapacitating effects of a weapon system is disgusting and contrary to the beliefs of many in the anti-gun camp.
- "High powered assault rifle" has origins similar to "double secret probation". A high powered rifle is a "bad" thing. An assault rifle is a "bad" thing. Form a conjunction of those terms and the object described has to be a "worse" thing.
- Often, the worst inaccuracies are perpetrated when those credentialed, charismatic and popular writers and speakers publicize their emotion based opinions.
It is an odd mixture of my own feelings to view these anti-gun pundits with anger, sympathy and pity; anger for trying to teach others based on their emotional prejudices, sympathy for their ideological goals and pity for the knowledge of their rather certain self-frustration of their cause.
Posted by discntnt_irny_srcsm | Sat Oct 27, 2012, 01:57 PM (2 replies)