Quote:I wouldn't go that far really Dave. It could happen.
The financial crisis has been called a meltdown in large letters on the front pages.
That is good for selling newspapers.
That is the purpose of headlines.
Have there been any studies to analyse
the fidelity of correspondence between
the size of headlines' fonts and the accuracy of their predictions ?
Quote:In a real meltdown, which nobody has entirely ruled out,
the Union gets dissolved and war breaks out between states
or groups of states in which the buildings of the EC are reduced
to rubble with tank fire and smart bombs and suchlike and which
goes on for a few years until everybody gets fed up and some old
guys get together to have another Convention.
Yellowstone National Park was established upon a supervolcano
which may erupt within the next few centuries.
In my opinion, that is more likely to happen than another war
between the states.
Quote:
When I said it wouldn't happen I was meaning it was unlikely.
Even very unlikely. I meant it won't happen if there's no
meltdown. I think that word was used to jack up nervousness
and get you all ready for some serious straightening out.
Soften you up. And us.
Sure.
Quote:
The Command Economy, which I know Mr Paulson said was a temporary measure,
does seem to have tectonicated a bit don't you think?
I read last week , I think in Lefeber, that the second amendment
gave Americans the right to make war on their government.
The actually phrasing toned it down.
Well, the prevailing concept was this:
the citizens owned America and thay chose to hire
a property manager to attend to it, on a daily basis.
That employee, was government; their hireling,
which shoud not get out of hand. The Revolutionaries who
founded government in America, were
mistrustful of government,
having just gone to a lot of trouble and risk to overthrow one,
and this was very manifest in The Federalist Papers,
their exhortation that the Constitution of 1787 be ratified.
In its 3rd footnote of US v. MILLER 307 US 174 (1939) the USSC
cited to USSC Justice ( 1811-45 ) and Harvard Law Professor Joseph Story,
and to Judge Thomas M. Cooley, as approved ( and adopted ) commentators.
Justice Story said:
" The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers
a strong moral check
against usurpation and arbitrary power
of the rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph
over them." ( J. Story COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 746 [1833] )
[ emphasis added by David ]
On the other hand, Judge Thomas M. Cooley said of the Second Amendment:
" The right declared was meant to be
a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary
and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily
overturned by usurpation. [ emphasis added by David ]
The right is GENERAL-- It may be supposed from the phaseology
of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only
guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not
warranted by the intent.... But the law may make provision for
the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty,
or of a small number only or it may wholly omit to make any
provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled,
the purpose of this guaranty might be
DEFEATED altogether
by the action
OR NEGLECT TO ACT, OF THE GOVERNMENT
IT WAS MEANT TO HOLD IN CHECK.
The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that THE PEOPLE
FROM WHOM the militia must be taken, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, and
THEY NEED NO PERMISSION OR
REGULATION OF LAW for the purpose. " [
emphasis added by David]
( Cooley, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
P. 281 2, 2nd Ed. 1891 )
Thus, it is shown that these respected judges found that
it was the intent of the Founders that supreme power,
PHYSICAL POWER, was to remain in the citizens,
not in their hirelings. With the ousting of the Hanoverian Dynasty
from its sovereignty over America, sovereignty was instated
in the
citizens, as distinct from the government which thay
opted to bring into existence, to serve them.
Qua what arms the people have rights to keep and bear,
the US Supreme Court said in US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
that they should be "ordinary military equipment...
AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn] 154, 158."
The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are
usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute
ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any
encroachments on their rights." [emphasis added by David]
Q.E.D.: the USSC acknowledges that the Founders
were cognizant of the need of the citizens to use force to keep
their servant in line.
The 2nd Amendment was the eraser on the pencil
that thay used to create government; just in case.
Quote:
The shops sold out of guns and ammo recently from what I've seen.
Well, there are still some available.
Obama 's election has been a great boon in the personal defense industry.
David
