Infringed
- Thread starter Gouvernail
- Start date
Mark K
Super Anarchist
- 47,621
- 1,868
O
One of Five
Guest
That's why god gave us dogs.
Mark K
Super Anarchist
- 47,621
- 1,868
O
One of Five
Guest
They also can hear the e-quakes a comin.
Olsonist
Disgusting Liberal Elitist
If we are talking about Bug Out Bags and dogs well then some dogs are just more equal than others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d8jOlC5VhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d8jOlC5VhU
Saorsa
Super Anarchist
- 36,810
- 423
Gouvernail
Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
- Thread starter
- #108
Mark K
Super Anarchist
- 47,621
- 1,868
Last edited by a moderator:
Gouvernail
Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
- Thread starter
- #110
Last night the TV show parenthood had a thing where a kid promised to work to get the vending machines back. Then his mother went before the school board and pled the case. I didn't do it that way. In 1969 I promised the kids I would go talk to the Principal about reinstalling the fruit machine but that I would do so with the clear understanding that if the kids still decided to buy apples for no other reason than to stomp on them and mess up the floor, Mr Palmer would most certainly take the thing right back out again.
I promised to get the town some tennis courts ( and I did) and I promised to find funding for a baseball team's equipment and to pay a coach( and by spring we had a team). I also teamed up with some kids who had a band and we had a dance after every Friday home game in football, basketball, and wrestling. There was no need to continue after that as the Dance hall at the nearby resort lake that always closed Labor day weekend opened up after the snow thawed and everybody went there.
I haven't done anything worthwhile since.
I promised to get the town some tennis courts ( and I did) and I promised to find funding for a baseball team's equipment and to pay a coach( and by spring we had a team). I also teamed up with some kids who had a band and we had a dance after every Friday home game in football, basketball, and wrestling. There was no need to continue after that as the Dance hall at the nearby resort lake that always closed Labor day weekend opened up after the snow thawed and everybody went there.
I haven't done anything worthwhile since.
Enigma0
New member
The "well-regulated militia" preamble to the Second must have meaning, else it would have been omitted.
Meseems that all able-bodied and unincarcerated persons resident in a state and over the age of 18 are now, at least potentially, members of a state militia. Male, female, or undecided.
Including those now opposed to private firearms ownership. Just as with jury duty, all such persons should be required to periodically appear for training with whatever is the current technology in personal carry military weapons and training in military field tactics. If any decline such duty and training, for religious or any other reason (other than physical disability or being over 50 years of age), then they also shouldn't have a right to vote in state or federal elections.
How say ye?
Meseems that all able-bodied and unincarcerated persons resident in a state and over the age of 18 are now, at least potentially, members of a state militia. Male, female, or undecided.
Including those now opposed to private firearms ownership. Just as with jury duty, all such persons should be required to periodically appear for training with whatever is the current technology in personal carry military weapons and training in military field tactics. If any decline such duty and training, for religious or any other reason (other than physical disability or being over 50 years of age), then they also shouldn't have a right to vote in state or federal elections.
How say ye?
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
I say ye should go here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
And search the page for the word unconnected.
A guy in the Chesapeake
Super Anarchist
That may be a good one for a Saturday AM when I'm up 3 hours before everyone else in the house.
atoyot
Super Anarchist
Registering to vote, requiring a "need" to do so and a literacy test (and recommendations of 5 respectable citizens of the county in which the applicant resides) in order to secretly walk the streets with this right, seems a fitting analogy.
While I'd have opposed it when I was 20 or so, it can't hurt to have some basic familiarization with militia-type service, even if it means having a draft again or compulsory induction for a period of 2 years, doing something service-related. Don't know how we'd get past that involuntary servitude thingy, though as long as constitutional protections are on the compromise chopping block, what the heck.
People just llluuuuvvv that word "regulated" when it suits them, but won't dare entertain a pertinent analogy to the rest of the bill of rights. The pro-restriction people should consider that:
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order. [obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
character of a well regulated militia
, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
---
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.htmlThe Federalist Papers, No. 29
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.htmlJournals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.htmlalso conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a
well regulated army
.
---
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](jc00964)):Saturday, December 13, 1777
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](jc00964)):.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better
regulated
, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of
well regulated troops
always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
---
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](jc034117))Saturday, December 13, 1777
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](jc034117)).
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the
best regulated militia
that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmeaWash.htmlfull passage
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmeaWash.htmlindicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the
best regulated troops
, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of
Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example:
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/law_of_liberty.htmwell regulated liberty
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/law_of_liberty.htm(properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.
(
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.htmlsource
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
This is a good read as well, regarding the complex adjustment from 1787 language to that of the present. Written by a liberal ACLU attorney, no less. Fair and balanced, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark K
Super Anarchist
- 47,621
- 1,868
Almost a cult classic. I thought it funny as hell when I saw it, but that was when I was 17. Haven't watched it since.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark K
Super Anarchist
- 47,621
- 1,868
The "militia" stuff got pretty thoroughly trashed in a recent decision. Barely any relevance at all. So it goes....
They did make it clear there could be serious limitations on the arms people could bring home with them though.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See,e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.
Miller
said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also
State
v.
Langford
, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824);
O’Neill
v.
State
, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English
v.
State
, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871);
State
v.
Lanier
, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiiSecond Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiiright is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiiSecond Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Enigma0
New member
So SCotUS has arbitrarily severed the Militia preface from the Amendment. Doubtless in an effort to guarantee the human right of self-defense and the ability to pot-hunt.
But that also means SCotUS has discounted a meaningful phrase, and could, via the appointments of a few more socialists to that bench, begin recklessly ignoring even more texts and principles in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Just as an Obama has gone stark raving mad with his sending missiles into abodes.
That severance means too that any principle of self-abnegation and sacrifice for one's country, in response to its recognition and enforcement of documented human rights, is then ignored. Which in turn may lead to an isolate professional military class as in fascist lands, which may lead to wiped-out minority villages and towns, next to ethnic cleansing, and finally to an Argentina...
Ah, well, I hope I'll be dead by 2026.
Last edited by a moderator:
