Thank u, Dlowan; most kind of u to post the definition.
OK, then, NeoGun believes that I am indecisive ?
on matters of controversy ?
Well, admittedly, I don't support W on some of
his positions (e.g., limiting funding for stem cell research,
his anti-cloning stance, nor his opposition to abortion),
but there are very few such issues
concerning which I am on the fence.
Offhand, parental freedom to spank a child
is the only one I can think of.
I believe I am using the wrong term (unless someone can tell me WHY they refused to support Blaine)
But I swear they were basically "Social Darwinists", which IMHO, have morphed into the "Free-Market Fundamentalists" of today.
OK
As long as my Neo Gun functions properly
It appears that my vocabulary is grossly deficient.
muggles: in Harry Potter books it refers to any person who is not a sorcerer.
Actually I don't think OmSig is uncertian as he is gullible, as he seems to have fallen for Heston's 2nd Ammendmnt absolutism hok and sinker.
I need to remember to rent "Bowling For Columbine".
(And could there be another web page here; to go with
The Next War, the soon to be relaunched Bush Infomation Network, a possible re-launch of the
Religious Liberty Network and even a bona fide personal site). Actually since the Gun Lobby may be second only to the fundys in running the GOP it may just be easier to link it off Bush-Info, along with a Howard Dean page:)
I have argued with omsigdavid over guns in the past. I have nothing new to add now.
I'll argue about guns if omsigdavid learns to spell.
I remember the Mugwumps. They sang with Linda Ronstadt.
Very hairy.
NeoGun:
It is a historical fact that the Founders
of the USA intended n expected each citizen
to be well armed. Remember, there were NO
police around until the 18OOs, neither in America,
nor in England.
In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:
"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms' ".
THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are
protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.
It is most noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights.
That law SHOULD control the courts,
thus disabling all governments in America from violating our personal rights to weaponry and self-defense.
I don't need Heston for a teacher.
You still seem to be buying the NRA line.
I still wonder what part of "Well-Regulated" they don't understand, and how much more blood needs to be shed.
It doesn't help that advocates of reasonble restrictions seem to suffer from a malady that so many "progressive" groups suffer from. An inability to assemble into a political body.
I don't argue with robots.
"Well regulated" did not mean by any GOVERNMENT.
When George Mason n Geoge Washington
organized the Fairfax County Militia Organization,
they had NO permission from the King of England
to do it. There already WAS a colonial militia.
Thus, their unit was a "well regulated" militia.
In the parlance of previous centuries,
a government sponsored, publicly funded militia
was called a "selected militia" meaning selected
by a government. In contrast, a "well regulated"
militia was a private group, the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire dept, or a volunteer library.
DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT'S
SYNTACTICAL ARCHITECTURE
MAY BE FACILITATED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment
ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
1. Does this say that only voters have the right to read books?
2. Does this say "well educated" only by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges?
3. Does this say that only voters who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books?
4. Does this say that if you miss an election, it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Books to knock down your door and steal your books?
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY new "gun control" laws? (or old ones?)
In deciding what to believe, I take no particular
notice of the NRA. They have not taught me anything.
My findings r from historical analysis.
I might observe that law review articles
concerning the 2nd Amendment, by leading
liberal intellectuals like Larry Tribe, Sanford Levinson, n
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School
agree with MY position; almost unanimously.
I guess u brush off the USSC too, NeoGun ?
in that case I quoted ?
I have MORE cases from the USSC
favoring freedom to bear arms freely available.
Examples of "well regulated" militia:
the Free French in WWII, under the control
of no government; or,
the merchants in American cities who
took up arms to defend their stores
in NY n in California, in time of race riots; or
the heros who took back the airliner
on 9/11 n crashed it, rather than let
the Moslems crash it into the White House.
All of these militia had no taint of any government control.
Regulate: 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
A militia regulating themselves? Perhaps not as absurd then as it is now.
As OmBot is basically on ignore as all he seems to be able to do is spew the NRA line.
Light:
It seems to me that the Gun Lobby (and thier allies) are closer to anarchist than they or thier minions realize.
PS. Found a link to VPC, basically the NRA's chief thorn and I hope to find more sites dedicated to the idea that the RKBA can be reconciled to a modern, and alas, more violent society.
Suggestions are welcome and feel free to PM me.
The NRA mantra isn't just about guns it's "And just what did you shoot today?" A tin can, a deer or a human being?
Spend a weekend in the adult ED at Hopkins ( I spent three and a half years wotrh of them) and tell me that private ownership of guns is a good thing,
As far as OSD's spelling, I usually get at least one first paper per section of Western Civ I teach each term in that form. They quickly acquire dictionaries when they see the big red ZERO on their papers. The thing that boggles the mind is that their highschools apparently let them get away with such nonsense.
Hobitbob:
U r comitting educational malpractice,
professional negligence, dereliction of duty,
n abuse of your students by perpetuating an
anti-efficient orthografic paradime.
EITHER U R FOR LOGIC n SOUND REASONING,
or u r against it.
Sir, inefficient spelling is doomed to extinction,
like Chaucerian English. Neither u, nor Humpty Dumpty can save it.
I hope to expedite its demise.
The professor gets a BIG, FAT ZERO !
