« Agnosticism vs Atheism | Main | Caudaphobia - The Tragedy of the Tails »

17 June 2015

Comments

Bill Tozer

Well, I'll start off with something that will catch noone's imigination. Playing it safe tonight. In news you can't use, this explains why I have seldom seen a vampire in northern Russia. Werewolves of London, yes, vampires northeast of Translyvinia, not so much.

http://mg.co.za/article/2015-06-18-ramadan-in-st-petersburg-the-city-where-the-sun-doesnt-set

fish

Seems others are noticing as well.....


"John|6.18.15 @ 9:13AM|#

They are drooling with glee over this. Normal people are horrified and sad. Progressives are happier than on Christmas morning. God they are fucking evil, sick people.

reply to this

fish

Hey George B.....if you the Christians were "suspect" from an education perspective you're really going to be pissed at the Scientologists!


http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1648-5-weird-realities-when-scientologists-run-your-school.html

Russ Steele

Obama is "transforming America" more by incompetence than design.

Some of the contractors that have helped OPM with managing internal data have had security issues of their own—including potentially giving foreign governments direct access to data long before the recent reported breaches. A consultant who did some work with a company contracted by OPM to manage personnel records for a number of agencies told Ars that he found the Unix systems administrator for the project “was in Argentina and his co-worker was physically located in the [People's Republic of China]. Both had direct access to every row of data in every database: they were root. Another team that worked with these databases had at its head two team members with PRC passports. I know that because I challenged them personally and revoked their privileges. From my perspective, OPM compromised this information more than three years ago and my take on the current breach is ‘so what’s new?’”

Details here: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/encryption-would-not-have-helped-at-opm-says-dhs-official/

All the encryption in the world would not have prevented this problem when foreign nationals have complete access to the operating system. Snowden proved the danger to security when there is no control over root access. Even an 8th grade Linux hacker knows the power of root access.

The question is what is Congress going to do now that their information has been compromised along with all the other common people. China now knows what everyone's security clearance is and all their other secrets.

Patricia Smith

We opened ourselves up to cyber terrorism once we shipped our technology manufacturing overseas. Since virtually every computer, tablet, cell phone, etc are made overseas, what is to prevent them from altering these devices so they have access to all of our information (including the governments)?

fish

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 18 June 2015 at 07:47 AM

Almost nothing.

Get used to the fact that once your personal information is in a networked computer it is, by definition, insecure.

George Rebane

RussS 736am et seq - A very important revelation and good points. It all begs the question (especially for progressives) - why would we ever want to expand an incompetent, and arguably often evil/corrupt, bureaucracy like the government, instead of limiting its function and power to the absolute minimum required to maintain our Republic? The Founders in their wisdom knew that, and today in the aggregate we no longer do.

Michael R. Kesti

Patricia Smith 18Jun15 07:47 AM

I honestly intend no insult by telling you that your statements indicate that you clearly do not understand how modern computing devices work and how the security of their data are violated.

To more directly answer your question, the companies who design those devices go to great efforts to analyze how data breaches occur so that flaws can be corrected. In the course of their work they would find design alterations such as you suggest in very short order. What is more, the root causes of data vulnerability are overwhelmingly found to be in the design of the software which is routinely updated in ways that involve no off-shore production facilities.

Patricia Smith

George above, At least we can hold the government accountable for their actions. Corporations operate with impunity.

I'm all for limiting the scope of government. Let's start by dismantling our military complex overseas and invest in America instead. Our infrastructure is crumbling, some schools facilities are worse than prisons, we could develop clean energy, etc.

I think it is disingenuous to compare our current complex structure to the country when it was founded. There are so many aspects that didn't exist then. Do you want to go back to taking a month or more to get a letter, 6 months to cross country, and (gasp) open immigration?

Patricia Smith

Michael K, 9:02am I'll be the first to admit that I am utterly ignorant of modern technology - and want to stay that way. It's all I can do to keep up with my emails, websites, and posting on the occasional blog. I've never texted, tweeted or twitted in my life and have no plans to do so.

My statement about overseas companies altering hardware to spy on us was meant as an illustration. I have no idea how they mange to keep hacking our records, but they certainly do. is it inconceivable that a foreign power could hijack our military computer systems or shut them down? This seems like a mjor security breach to me.

Todd Juvinall

Corporations operate with impunity? Jeeze Patricia have you read the millions of pages of rules and laws on the books regarding corporations? Apparently not. The problem is the enforcement of the laws, not that corporations are exempt from them.

Kind of like Obama saying to America, "screw you" I am disregarding the laws on immigration". You dumb asses that voted for me now get to be unemployed because I allowed all these foreigners to take your jobs"

Regarding the "complexity" of present day life in juxtaposition with the Founders. Hogwash. There are "truths" that are always the same through the ages and only people that want to change them to accommodate bad behavior would disagree.

George Rebane

PatriciaS 908am - You misunderstand. I only hearken to our Founders for their ageless wisdom on governance and the Great Experiment, and have made no recommendation to return our country's form and function to the 18th century. I cannot fathom how you deduced that I was disingenuously comparing "our current complex structure to the country when it was founded."

And I believe your greatest error to be that "we can (today still) hold government accountable for their actions" through presumably normative means. Anyone who has paid attention during the last years should have disabused themselves of that notion - and actually our abdication of that capacity is now decades in the past. I know it hard for progressives to grok this, but you cannot construct a controllable government that has the power give and take everything, and in the process to punish resistance with impunity. A good awakening here is provided in Charles Murray's recent 'By the People'.

Michael R. Kesti

George Rebane 18Jun15 08:08 AM

I believe that the answer to your question is obvious. Those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, of which there are a great many more than at the upper end, see that allowing expansion of an incompetent, evil, and corrupt, government is to their economic benefit and they are willing to trade their freedoms for that benefit.

While Russ's comments may raise your question they certainly do not beg it.

Account Deleted

from Patricia: "Corporations operate with impunity."
That statement explains a lot about 'progressive' thinking. GIGO. Garbage in garbage out. The companion statement to that one is that that Wall Street was 'deregulated'. You cannot make intelligent decisions when your world view is so seriously skewed as to believe this sort of nonsense.

George Rebane

MichaelK 1004am - Agreeing with your analysis, I nevertheless stand fast. Your assessment of the answer as "obvious" corroborates that my stated question indeed went begging as intended.

("Begging the question means assuming the conclusion of an argument — a type of circular reasoning.")

Jon

Here is the Pope's encyclical today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html

fish

Posted by: Jon | 18 June 2015 at 11:32 AM

Pope is infallible in this then?

Walt

Patricia says,," At least we can hold the government accountable for their actions."
Uhhh,,, NO WE CAN'T!!! Gov. sure has been held "accountable" for it's abuse with the IRS, hasn't it? How about "O"'s abuse of power? He still tries to act as King.
The ONLY time in recent history were "the people" actually did something about gov. over reach was the Bundy Ranch incident. To this day the "G" man hasn't done a thing. They have left the rancher alone.

Patricia Smith

Yes, we can hold the gov't accountable, but rarely do because Americans in general would rather complain than take action. Say what you will about the ACLU, but they are out there protecting everyone's rights against gov't overreach. (Most recently, taking the Fed to court over the NSA spying.)

Wall St has NOT been held accountable for their disgusting rape of our economy. They have been rewarded and gained more control than they had before the meltdown.

Jon

fish 11:56, absolutely not infallible. But then again I am no Catholic. I simply lay the fact out there that hundreds of millions of people on earth will listen to the man, and he does sway public sentiment.

Account Deleted

Patricia, you said corporations, then switched to Wall Street. Let's go back to your original statement. "Corporations operate with impunity."
As far as Wall Street 'raping' the American economy, it seems to have had a very willing victim. The govt has worked tirelessly to destroy our economy - but the left doesn't seem to mind unless we're in an election cycle.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 18 June 2015 at 01:18 PM

Last week the NY Times was crowing about how organized religion was at an ebb. The majority of practicing Catholics are outside the United States now with Africa, South America, and Asia leading the charge. If these individuals want to follow the Popes guidance than who am I to criticize.

As the left is so fond of pointing out the principle of the Separation of Church and State is still supreme in the US so keep your religious laws off my body!

Jon

fish, the Pope's every pronouncement certainly ain't what it used to be in the USA. But he is still a major, major leader for the population in many
Catholic enclaves in this country. I remember my very Polish, very pius college roommate plastered every inch of his space with Pope pictures and quotes.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 18 June 2015 at 02:53 PM

Well I'm quite sure then that he'll heed the Popes direction on Climate Change.

Jon

Actually he will, and is a fairly big enviro guy I understand.

But yeah, nothing to see recently with Climate Change, move along..after you read the NOAA report.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/06/18/warmest-may-spring-year-noaa-climate-report/28936525/

Todd Juvinall

The Pope giveth and he taketh away. Along with his personal observations on weather, he included anti abortion in the encyclical. So maybe he has no use for "liberals" wiping out the children in the canal? Jonnie/MA will be apoplectic.

Funny how the left is so bereft of character they would get into bed with anyone they hate with a passion like the Pope or religious people in general. What whores the left is. Jonnie on top?

Todd Juvinall

Here is the actual document.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Jon

Todd, how bout you stop the intellectual dishonesty and classless, foul comments without merit. I've never met anyone in my entire life who "hates the Pope with a passion." Who do you know who has said that?

As Kesti says (as others cringe when you post), real classy there Todd.

Michael R. Kesti

Jon 18Jun15 at 04:23 PM

You must be thinking of somebody else, Jon. I am quite certain that I have never said that Todd is real classy.

8^/

Todd Juvinall

Soryy "jonnie" I don't debate a troll. Tell us all who you are. Kesti at least does that.

Regading "classy", never gave it a thought. I am a man who does not care what you or Kesti say about me. In fact, I revel in the praise. What a hoot!

The Pope is hated by a few billion people as evidenced by the screeds from the Muslims for one thing. Most "atheists" such as yourself jonnie have spoken of the hate of the Papa many times in my lifetime. You just weren't listening.

Michael R. Kesti

Todd Juvinall 18Jun15 05:12 PM

There is no way that you can know what most atheists have said about the Pope, Todd, but don't let that stop you making it up as you go.

Don Bessee

TJ- I'll give you a hint, when 'the jon' is preoccupied here the only action in liberal lament land is a couple of lefties debating vaccinations while RR get hundreds of posts a day (which is great but gets hard to keep up on! have to visit more during the day) narcissists need an audience and this is the best game in town. Thanks, Dr. R!

Todd Juvinall

DonB, so true.

Kesti, how do you know what I know? Please tell. Here is Number 120 on the Pope's musing today.

"120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.[97]"

You tell us how you think this will go over with the Godless crowd Kesti. I dig your opinions.

Michael R. Kesti

Todd Juvinall 18Jun15 05:32 PM

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism), "...self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 8% of the world's population..." The population of the world is greater than 7 billion people. You would therefore have to have heard 70 million atheists speak disrespectfully of the Pope in order to know what you claim.

I suspect that some of the "Godless crowd" will not enjoy that the Pope has revealed their hypocrisy.

Todd Juvinall

Just an aside about Obama today. He derided gun ownership in America while sending enough of them to arm thousands of troops in the Eastern Europe area. Now if guns are so terrible here, why are they so necessary there?

Kesti, you are a smart guy, can you tell us?

Walt

Seems our LIBS have "found religion" all of a sudden when the Pope pipes up being in the AGW camp. He is just a man like anyone else. At least he hasn't tried to rewrite the Catholic faith to be politically correct and now abortion is fine and dandy.

Todd Juvinall

Walt, I think there will be liberals whose heads will explode from sensory and hypocritical overload! LOL

Michael R. Kesti

Todd Juvinall 18Jun15 05:58 PM

Thanks, Todd, but I'll pass on that one.

Walt

Well well... The cook fire in Yuba Co. started out as a planed controlled burn!
Cal fire will have PLENTY of explaining to do.

Account Deleted

The pope's recent comments show that the man hasn't got a very good grasp of reality.
"The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," he wrote.
The countries following the capitalist models have mostly been the cleanest countries. All of the former USSR countries were the piles of filth. And good ol' commie China has the worst pollution of any country. If the pope doesn't like our nasty anti-Christian money why does he still accept it?

Todd Juvinall

Walt is it moving your way?

Todd Juvinall

ScottO, I say the Pope has the ability to take a vow of poverty. He could issue an edict to liquidate the hundreds of billions the church owns and turn it over to the poor. I say Papa, lead the way and we will follow. Even though I am not a Catholic.

Capitalist America has spread trillions of dollars to countries that steal it and then spit in our face. The Vatican was never attacked as the rest of Italy was so perhaps they don't know the true horrors of that.

Walt

No, it's holding in Yuba Co. The air tankers that some LIB thinks are a waste of money have boxed it in well. That red snot is really doing the job.

Walt

OK,, THIS is fit for the sandbox.
Some red meat for the AGW libshits to chew on. Belly up to the table true believers.
http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html

THE END IS NEAR!!!! ( news at 11...)

Account Deleted

Human extinction?? Oh dear. You know what the left will say to that -
Women and minorities will be hit the hardest.

Russ Steele

If I were Catholic I would be shorting the collection plate until the Pope gets some real science advisors and fires his communist advisors and global warming fear mongering staffers. If the million plus US Catholics that do not believe in AGW all shorted the collection plate, the Pope would soon get the message.

Jon

Many wondering- why is the Charleston massacre not considered Terrorism?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-shooting-terrorism-or-hate-crime.html

George Rebane

Terrorism's common definition requires a greater group purpose to be achieved by the act of terror. One person acting spontaneously alone with no prepared commonly held social goal or objective does not constitute terror in that sense, but could well be a random act of insanity connected to nothing but the voices in his head.

Walt

Speaking of terrorists,,,
A movie shot by one with a happy ending. A must see.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/18/isis-jihadi-captured-his-own-death-on-gopro/

We need to send more Gopro cams to ISIS.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 18 June 2015 at 09:41 PM

It's a shame to see a once great newspaper reduced to this kind of pandering.

Ben Emery

De javu on the newest trade deals isn't it. Go listen to the arguments for NAFTA and listen to the sell out Obama talking points.

Yesterday the Corporatist Republican Party supported the Pro Business and Anti Environment/ Labor President Obama Trans Pacific Partnership deal.

Just like the 1990's with NAFTA, WTO, Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000, Financial Services Modernization Act 1999, and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

House passes trade authority bill, Senate outcome unclear
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/house-vote-trade-promotion-authority/

Ben Emery

George take a gander at this and see what you think.

Endless debate rages over exactly what the Framers meant by the term “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd Amendment.

To simplify matters somewhat, let’s consider the two opposite positions of the debaters:

The more liberal (the word “liberal” being used here in the sense of generous or non-restrictive) side of the argument holds that “well regulated” should be taken in the sense that a clock that keeps good time is “well regulated”.

This same side also argues that “Militia” referred to all the able bodied men of military age, which at the time the 2nd amendment was written would have been about ages 16 or so through age maybe 45 or a little older, and so could have potentially served in the Militia. (At that time there were no hard and fast rules regarding acceptable enlistment ages in militia or armies.)

The more conservative (the word “conservative” being used here to mean as restrictive and narrow as possible) side of the argument holds that “well regulated” refers to codified laws, rules, and regulations as propagated by the government (which could be at either the state or federal level).

This same side also argues that “Militia” referred to only those individuals who were actually active in the Militia at any given time (rather than the entire mass of able bodied men who were eligible to do so).

Trying to understand the original meaning or true intent of the Framers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, is a form of Originalism, which takes on two basic forms:

· The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

· The original meaning theory ( which is closely related to textualism), which holds that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary, everyday meaning of the text to be. (Note: It is this latter view of the Constitution with which most Originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.)

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

So in order to better understand the historical and lexicological context the Framers found themselves in, as well as understand what they intended the term “well regulated” to mean, let’s take a brief look at the history of militias in the early United States, both pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary.

First, we want to make sure we clearly understand what a militia is.

mi·li·tia n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

So broadly speaking, the word militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers (or, historically, members of the fighting nobility). Therefore, the word militia could be used in reference to:

· Defense activity or service to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.

· The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

· A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

· An official reserve army composed of citizen soldiers. In the U.S. these are most often referred to as the Army Reserve and National Guard, but other state defense forces could meet this definition as well.

Of course, there was no official reserve army (e.g., a National Guard) in existence at the time of the country’s founding, so that reference is out the window.

(Note: I have seen some commentators refer to the National Guard as a “select militia”, but this is an incorrect usage of the term as a select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, most often politicized.)

Let’s consider, then, a brief history of militias in the United States, from both before and during the time of the American Revolution.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)

"The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war." (emphasis added)

So other than the fact that use of militias already had a long and well-established history in the colonies well before the Revolutionary War took place, it is interesting to note that the Second Continental Congress (i.e, the Founders) found it desirable to include “regulation of the militia” in the Articles of Confederation.

The question is, why would the Founders feel a need to codify (i.e., formally regulate) the militias?

Part of the answer might lie in the fact that even though the colonial militia had played an important role in the early fighting of the Revolutionary War, many of those leading the war effort, including George Washington, didn’t really think too highly of the colonial militia and/or its members, including the way they handled themselves in battle.

George Washington himself, upon assuming command of the Continental Army (which in 1775 was comprised entirely of militia), said, “All the General Officers agree that no Dependence can be put on the Militia for a Continuance in Camp, or Regularity and Discipline during the short time they may stay.” He would later say, “To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.”

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~jamie/html/effective_use_of_colonial_mili.html

If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter. – George Washington, September 1776

http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-in-the-Revolutionary-war.htm

Of course, in the later years of the War the militia proved to be of great effectiveness, but this occurred only after Washington et al finally figured out ways in which to utilize and to take advantage of its strengths (e.g., in guerilla warfare, as an ‘early warning system’ for the regular army, etc.) and avoid its weaknesses (e.g., avoid taking the British military on in 'head-to-head' battles).

But the history of the militia in the early U.S., as informative as it may be, does not supply us with an answer as to what the Framers thought a “well regulated Militia” would look like. For that we need to consult what they wrote at the time (i.e., historical documents).

In the endless debate regarding the 2nd amendment, much is made of the Framer’s words written in either support of or opposition to the proposed Constitution (e.g., the Federalist papers, etc.), which is, of course, entirely necessary and appropriate.

However, in this debate the Articles of Confederation are usually, well if not completely ignored given very short shrift. Yes of course the Articles are not the supreme law of the land, but even though they were superseded by the U.S. Constitution they were still quite important in the interpretation of that document, as the Articles formed the original charter under which the 13 separate colonies were able to band together to fight for their independence, and then remained in effect for some time after that independence was finally won.

In addition (and most importantly), while it is commonly thought that the Constitution was written from the ‘ground up’, so to speak, it is interesting to observe how much of the ‘ground’ upon which the Constitution stands was actually laid down by those Articles.

As such, in the attempt to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, perhaps it would be of some value to take a look at those Articles and see if they are not relevant to an Originalist-oriented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

First some background on the Articles of Confederation.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Articles of Confederationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

"The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.”

That section of the Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6 (of the Articles), which states that

“No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."(emphasis added)

Now take a look at the language used in the Constitution regarding militias.

First, consider the powers of Congress over the Militia:

Article One

Section 8

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Next, consider the powers of the President over the Militia:

Article Two

Section 2

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Therefore, taking everything in the preceding discussion into consideration, that is the role of militias in the early history of the United States, including both before the Revolutionary War as well as the experiences of George Washington et al with the colonial militia during the War, and then also the parallels between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution regarding the definition, role, and functioning of the militia, I think it safe to say that the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is from an Originalist perspective, stands on fairly firm ground:

The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!

“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)

But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)

In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation viz a viz militias.
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-%E2%80%9Cwell-regulated-militia%E2%80%9D-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean#sthash.BTlNNc7m.dpuf

Todd Juvinall

Ben Emery 7:53 AM
Regarding the angst the democrats have on the trade bills and their impact on jobs. I laugh my ass off because they have been the greatest destroyer of jobs in their own country! Mi,,ions of laws and regulations in every aspect of our lives. Ben Emery is worried about the loss of jobs here to overseas. Sorry Ben Emery, you and your ilk have already won your battles with your own people! The proverbial "horse is out of the barn"!\\I must say the left's scorched earth policies have done their dirty deed. Even the trillion dollar Iphone is made in Red China. So Ben Emery, you just won man! The great "equalization" of America's wealth to the world is under way with a vengeance. Thanks for all those regulations Ben Emery. NOT!

Ben Emery

Todd,
What are you talking about? Blah blah blah

Account Deleted

Ben - there is no 'debate' as to what the Founders intended.
It's well documented. Here's a few examples:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
Please feel free to dig up quotes that contradict the ones I have provided.

Walt

Great cut and paste job Ben.
The courts have ruled in favor of the 2ND and the people's RIGHT.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" don't you understand?
Progressives and Socialists just love to go with " Ya,, that's what they wrote,, but this is what they really meant." Redefining the meaning of words is the newest game for the Left. HELL LIBS have redefined the meaning of "all". Hillary claimed to have turned over "all" her emails. ( "all" she felt she needed to, to stay out of hot water.)
The gov. said they turned over "all" of Lois Learner's emails, until it was found they they didn't.

Back to the 2ND,, Gun rights are winning in the courts. The gun grabbers are spending big, and losing. Even here in Ca.
Ca's waiting period has been shot down, because it infringes on one's rights to acquire a gun, and done jack shit to stop crime.
Places where guns laws are lax, there is less crime with guns. That's a fact. Places with the most gun restrictions, crime is through the roof. That's also a fact.

Patricia Smith

Walt, above. I was totally against guns until I moved to Nevada County. I now see that there are many good reasons for people to own guns (although I am not one of them). I absolutely support a person's right to own a hand gun, shot gun or rifle, BUT no one needs assualt weapons. (Do you seriously think you could stockpile enough weaponry to take on the govt?)

Unfortunately, people being people, horrible incidents are going to happen from time to time. There is little that can be done to change the hearts and minds of people. Banning all guns wouldn't even stop these random mass shootings. We can't legislate away every evil (if only).

Everything needs balance and getting background checks before hand is not unreasonable. You have to pass a test to drive a car and some disabilities rule out your right to drive, although not nearly enough. I was at the DMV a few months ago and there was a man so old that he couldn't sit up by himself. He shook so bad that he couldn't sign his name and he got a license!!!

My only beef with the NRA is that they are so rigid that they won't accept even common sense regulations. I understand that banning guns would serve no purpose as no ban has ever stopped an activity with a regulation and I understand the"slippery slope" argument. Sometimes we have to make compromises for the common good.

Ben Emery

Walt,
The courts also ruled the people were property at one point as well. So that doesn't fly with me. Each era of citizens has the ability to debate and change the laws to reflect the current day.

Ben Emery

Patricia,

I get in hot water with my friends on the left with the gun issue since I have always fought against the banning of weapons. Until we have a debate and amend the 2nd amendment I will always be against bans. I do on the other hand believe that registration of guns/ ammo, proficiency courses and updating, and liability insurance for owned guns are some basic common sense laws that need to be put in place.

The other issue is immigration since I am for having strong restrictions and enforcement of illegal hiring practices of companies. Therefore taking the incentive of immigrants of making the journey to the US. NO jobs No migration.

Jon

Leave it to Walt to bring Lois Lerner into a serious discussion of gun regulations...

Walt, as Patricia indicates in her very logical, common sense approach, its not a political thing- its way above that. There are plenty of Walt's so-called LIBS that are gun owners, and many mainstream Repubs who abhore the NRA and its stranglehold on common sense.

George Rebane

re PatriciaS's 953am - Do such understandings of 'common good' also include the common good served by accepting a certain death rate from the misuse of firearms, just as accepting the death rate from, say, driving motor vehicles, or from the collateral effects of overwhelmingly beneficial drugs, vaccinations, swimming pools, public beaches, mining, lumber, construction, ... ?

In the (distribution) tails of every beneficial function there lurks death and tragedy. Humanity has progressed by having he courage to accept the Tragedy of the Tails. Caudaphobia is the name for an inordinate fear of the tails of a distribution, usually contracted through ignorance. I will post some of my previous writings on this. Thank you for the nudge Patricia. [Later - have posted as promised.]
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/06/caudaphobia-the-tragedy-of-the-tails.html

Ben Emery

Scott,
I have read plenty of the last handful of years about the 2nd amendment and standing armies. There was a huge debate about the 2nd amendment and to try and say it was a full agreement of the founders is ridiculous. Like everything that took place during the first 60 years of our nation, compromising to the South and slave owners took huge tolls on our young democratic republic.

A paper I found out about a couple years ago.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Abstract:
Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

Michael R. Kesti

Ben Emery 19Jun15 08:03 AM

I have come to believe that the "well regulated Militia" phrase is irrelevant to the validity of the 2nd amendment. With credit to Bill Whittle and his "Firewall" series, consider this precisely grammatically identical sentence.

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean that a well-schooled electorate — high school graduates, say — are the only ones with the right to keep and read books? Of course it does not, just as the "well regulated Militia" phrase does not mean that that only uniformed soldiers have the right to keep and bear arms.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 10:18 AM


The minute one of you guys brings up "common sense" as it relates to gun ownership you can bet that the last thing in the world that will be on display will be common sense.

Patricia Smith

Ben, 10:15 I hear you. Many of my liberal leaning friendswho have a zero tolerance policy towards guns get upset with my position. If I thought a ban would save even one life, I'd be for it, but history has proven that bans do not work. I also agree with you about immigration. If employer's were fined for hiring illegals, they wouldn't keep coming here and no border fence would be necessary (especially since they don't stop anyone from crossing).

George, 10:19 I agree with you. It's an undisputed fact that life is full of perils that could take any one of us at any time. You wake up, you take risks. Trying to reduce those risks is a reasonable undertaking as long as some common sense is applied (usually in short supply). However, we do need some rules and regulations. Do we want 8 year olds driving a car or have unsupervised access to a gun?

fish

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 19 June 2015 at 10:47 AM

Do we want 8 year olds driving a car or have unsupervised access to a gun?

Actually Patricia for many years this was the case.

Todd Juvinall

Kesti 10:43 AM

Excellent points.

Regarding driving a car at eight or any age. The country decided that it is a "privileged" not an entitlement so it is regulated. I actually wonder about the laws regarding travel in our country. Forcing taxes and fees on people to use the travel ways. But I digress.

Walt

I use LIBS,,because it's LIBS on the mass scale that attack gun ownership. Granted. "some" LIBS do like their guns as much as I.
Sorry you don't care for the AR style weapon Patrica. Why? because it looks "scary"?
Yes, the citizen SHOULD have "like weaponry" as the "G" man. It's been that way since the days of King George. ( well,, almost. Someone who didn't want automatic weapons in the hands of minorities, and gangsters put a stop to that.)
And yes,, in MANY states, those with the proper "G" man papers can still own them.
Ownership of the AR and the like are just keeping up with the times. Care to go back to the rotary phone?
I can come up with plenty of "You don't need that".
If you don't care to own a gun, that's your right as well. ( except in a few places where it's actually mandatory.. Yes,, they DO exist)
The 2ND Amendment isn't there to protect hunting. It's there to give you a chance form being the hunted.
Gov. got a refresher course in the meaning of the 2ND when they tried to strong arm Mr. Bundy. Now how do you think that would have turned out if the civilians had sub par weapons, or just unarmed?

On the subject of law breakers, there are laws on the books about growing weed and guns.
FED offence Patricia,, But that law hasn't stopped the growers from possessing guns.
So don't come back and play the "but" game.
Lefties here demand MORE anti gun laws, but "some" don't even follow the laws already on the books. ( Yes,, you know who you are)

Walt

Seems some people who wear a badge have no business carrying a gun.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/19/good-samaritan-has-yellow-labrador-retriever-shot-by-mississippi-cop/

And a lying somebitch at that.

fish

Posted by: Walt | 19 June 2015 at 12:18 PM

Yeah....saw that.....a cop in fear of a year old Yellow Lab is simply too chickenshit to serve as a police officer or sheriffs deputy. I imagine if he confronted a 275 lb. ex con he'd probably just shit himself.

Hillary Clinton Blames Charleston Shooting on Free Speech
Particularly a speech by a political adversary, conveniently enough

This is why I love her! America deserves Hillary!

Jon

fish, please link the direct quote attributed to Hillary where she directly mentions free speech. Thanks.

Obviously, she was placing some of the blame for the murders/act of terror partially on HATE speeches, hate groups, hate literature... which of course is very likely true. Same as it would be for 21 yr. old radical Islamic terrorists who derive inspiration from such things.

Don Bessee

"Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone less than stable." "I think we need to speak out against it, like for example a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable." HRC 6/18/15

Todd Juvinall

Based on the info we have so far it appears this young man was a racist shit. But what is more interesting in the "free speech" area is the "hate" I see from people other than white people towards white people! Nothing mush to see there, move along please. As a white man, I never owned another person as my ancestors never did either. My lineage has always treated people who are not white with the respect they deserve. But the race baiters, now including Hillary Clinton, never talk about the need for the people other than whites to stop their race hatreds.

A black from Africa can move here and be eligible for affirmative action help smply because of his color. How is that right? A "white" guy from Norway who has never even met a person other than white moves here and is immediately the recipient of hate speech from people not white. For me it is time to stop the racial yapping and get on board the American dream. All this in-fighting is destroying the country. No more HYPHENS on names or groups. If we are not all Americans in a American culture then we will be destroyed.

Account Deleted

Ben - I had asked for quotes from the Founders that contradicted the ones I had provided. Instead, I got a lot of nonsense from a dude from Davis and his certain knowledge that strict gun control reduces crime.
Like Chicago and Wash DC and New York. Hilarious.
The actual arguments from the founders that were in the article had to do with control or possible lack of control of the militias.
You provided nothing on the right of an individual to possess a fire arm. Nothing.
You lefties just might consider that if you think it's not important for individuals to own and possess firearms, ask yourself then: why was it so necessary to try to keep them out of the hands of the American Indians and the blacks?

fish

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 01:03 PM

She also said she'd support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, which brought huge cheers from the crowd. So she is campaigning on actually trying to make it illegal for citizens to fund documentaries to criticize her. But as is typical on the left, she played it off as though Citizens United is about "corporations buying elections," which nobody has ever proven is happening.


http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-blames-charleston-shooti#comment

and follow on links

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/13/hillary-clinton-announces-plan-to-essent

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/15/hillary-clintons-supreme-court-litmus-te

Account Deleted

from Shrillery: "...a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable."
It would be helpful if she were to identify who she's talking about and provide a quote.
I might say it's not acceptable if I were to know just what the heck was actually said, in context. But really it's just cheap points for the gruberized morons.

fish

Obviously, she was placing some of the blame for the murders/act of terror partially on HATE speeches, hate groups, hate literature... which of course is very likely true. Same as it would be for 21 yr. old radical Islamic terrorists who derive inspiration from such things.

Well so far...and I'm sure it offends your sensibilities greatly....the courts have been restrained in their restriction of speech....hate or otherwise. Hill is just whipping up the base by telling them that she'll press for restrictions of their liberties.....being not the brightest bunch they'll bark and applaud like trained seals!

Hillary 2016: America deserves Hillary!

Walt

Bloody great!!! Now the South Co. is going up.
Wolf and Still Rd.,,, now another near Globe. Evacuations in progress.

Account Deleted

For Patricia - please let us know where it's legal in this country for an 8 year old to drive or have access to a gun.
Anti-freedom wing nuts can never seem to advance intelligent arguments.

fish

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 19 June 2015 at 01:59 PM

I'd guess at this point that it's nowhere. It used to be. Farm kids had access to firearms because in general most weren't locked up. They knew where the house rifle was or where their old man kept his pistol if the need arose.

They also had access to farm vehicles (tractors, pickups, etc.) as they, unlike todays "snowflakes", were expected to help on the farm. If I'm not mistaken the left squelched that practice recently as well.....for the children.

Walt

Leave it to a Lefty to try and raise an idiotic argument. ( 8 year olds... good Lord...)
But if her clan has it's way in legalizing dope, 8 year olds will have greater exposure to
a drug. There is enough weed in grade schools as it is. ( and try and say it's not there. It was when I was in grade school.)

Patricia Smith

Scott, above You're kidding right? Did I say it was legal for an 8-yr olf to drive or have access to a gun? No, I said we need regulations to prevent that from happening. The point is we have some regulations already such as age requirements. I also believe background checks are a good thing - unless you believe everyone should be abe to anything they want, whenever they want, without restrictions.

Fish 10:57 So do want to share the road with 8-yr old drivers? I don't!

Walt 11:56 You think the citizenry should have access to the same weaponry as the gov't? Really? Where does that end? Should citizens be able to have rocket grenade launchers or atom bombs? You will never have enough weapons to outgun the gov't. And to your speculation as to what would have happended at Bundy Ranch if they had AR - there would have been a whole lot of dead citizens (and probably a few gov't agents as well).

fish

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 19 June 2015 at 02:30 PM

Fish 10:57 So do want to share the road with 8-yr old drivers? I don't!


Given some of your statements here I'd be more interested in knowing if the 8 year olds would be concerned about having to share the road with you.

Jon

Patricia, I'm not at all surprised by Walt's response. His posting here indicates to me that he sincerely believes there could come a day where he could end up battling leftist govt. forces, literally on his front stoop or at the fence line. Yes, for some of these guys, they truly imagine ungunning the govt. at his doorstep. Incredible ha? But true. As you could see recently, he seems overly concerned about strange planes flying over his rancho, and he sounds like a true prepper would, knowledgable about the ammo and arms market and the full details of the Bundy Ranch incident as best-practices for the future.

George Rebane

PatriciaS 230pm - Please review this piece on the concept of 'Par Force' and its function.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/04/par-force-an-un.html

fish

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 02:44 PM

jeffy.....err..."jon"......have a chance to checks those links? See what our girl is up to?

Walt

Obviously you didn't pay attention one damned bit Patricia. Your search engine broke?
Google the incident and look at the pictures! "what would have happended at Bundy Ranch if they had AR - there would have been a whole lot of dead citizens (and probably a few gov't agents as well)" THEY DID!!!! YES!! Citizens with ARs!!! Earth to Patrica!! Every AR is NOT and automatic weapon!!!Good GOD woman!! get a clue. The days of muzzle loaders is long gone.
YES.. Even I have an evil AR ( Ca. legal no less)

Thanks for showing what smoking weed does to one's mind. "A" bombs???,, Really????
If one can afford a tank, I say let'm ( some people CAN and DO own tanks,,, and they shoot them TOO!!)
Penn Valley would not be the least bit unsafer if I had one.
I really believe you and "jon" are smoking the same GMO dope.
What's your next over the top statment??

Patricia Smith

This is the Sandbox so I imagine it's alright to switch topics because I have some breaking news! Brad Peciemer, the VP of Americans for Safe Access- NC (ASA) just had the remaining obstruction of justice/resisting arrest charges dropped. (Judge Linda Sloven had already dismissed his cultivation charges.) After careful consideration, the DA's office decided "that they didn't have a compelling enough case to convince a jury to find him guilty." This after Cliff Newell (who doesn't try cases) appealed to the court to not allow Brad a defense that included his role as an MMJ activist or that his arrest was timed just before the election to derail Measure S.

Todd Juvinall

Jonnie, I never served in the military. Did you?

Also, are you familiar with the fall of the USSR?

fish

Oopsy.....looks like yesterdays gun control trope was wrong.....no wonder "the internet is changing the way we communicate™".....because the mainstream media can't find their dicks even when they use both hands!

http://www.weaselzippers.us/226893-charleston-shooter-bought-gun-at-store-passed-background-check/

Todd Juvinall

Obama was sending guns, tanks and ordinance to arm 5,000 troopers in a number of countries in Eastern Europe. As he was signing those contracts he took time to hold a press conference about the scourge of guns. So if those guns are needed to keep the Rooskies at bay, why aren't they good enough for granny in Chicago? You just can't make this stuff up! Liberalism is a mental disorder. If the murdering scum 21 year old is a registered democrat, what happens to the narrative of the left?

Walt

LOL! "milk toast" decided to troll in. Just one of many Jr.,, Look how fast "the people" came to the aid of the Bundy Ranch. Uh,,, just who won that "battle"?

No big news Patricia,, Dope growers get off on technicalities all the time.

I also read that dope growers are not big on following the law all the time. " MJ grower busted.. many weapons found" Yup,, just writing a law will fix the problem. ( That law is already on the books.)

Gregory

Kesti, 10:43AM

I introduced George and RR to the translation of the 2nd's 18th century grammar four years ago, copied below. It being near Thanksgiving I used a sentence about cooking a turkey to illustrate:

********************************************************************
Here you go, George: "Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the Second Amendment "must be read as though the word "because' was the opening word,"[4] as in "[because a] well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State ... ."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm (one of many google hits, take your pick)

In other words:
A judicious seasoning, being necessary for a tasty turkey, a cook should take care in wielding the salt

means

A cook should take care in wielding the salt because a judicious seasoning is necessary for a tasty turkey.

Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 23 November 2011 at 11:33 AM

Account Deleted

From Patricia - " No, I said we need regulations to prevent that from happening"
I think we already do, Patricia. Just what the heck are you talking about?
Regulations don't always equal perfect outcomes. We have regulations against murder. But you might notice folks still manage to kill others in all sorts of ways.

fish

Posted by: Gregory | 19 June 2015 at 03:43 PM

Dead link dude!

Walt

Yummm.. But ribs are on the BBQ as I speak. and yes... A "judicious seasoning" was applied.
One half of the ribs seasoned for the German pallet, and the other a Hawaiian flair. Smothered in crushed pineapple after a heavy smoke. Another half hour and CHOW TIME...

Jon

So now Walt wants a tank. Just another Friday in loony land.

Account Deleted

for the fishy - yep, kids used to do all sorts of things. If they got out of line, there was a good thrashing in store for them. I have an old gun case I use as a book case now. It belonged to my brother in law's father. It has a 10 cent lock on it. And he never locked it. The boys knew if they so much as looked too long at the gun case, there was no end of trouble. And yes, kids operated farm machinery.
Apparently they are much too sophisticated these days to be trusted with weapons and machinery.

Jon

Wow, why doesn't it surprise me that Scott gets all sentimental about the good-old days when children behaved or got THRASHED...man, should I even ask the details on that? Explains quite a bit about the mentality and philosophy of life.

The comments to this entry are closed.