110 thoughts on “Articles That Fit No Current Thread”

  1. But that would open another can of worms, the “well-regulated” part, which is why I posted the article in the first place.

    The term “well regulated militia” refers to a militia that has trained to the degree that they can fight as a single coherent unit as opposed to fighting as a bunch of individuals.

    if I don’t misinterpret Uzi’s stance, I don’t see even him being against enforcing the “militia clause”.

    Yes. The Second Amendment varies in scope depending on circumstances. Kind of like how free speech covers both political ads and pornography, but the protections for political ads are a lot stronger than the protections for pornography.

    People who are just ordinary citizens have the right to have weapons that are suitable for self defense. Actual militiamen have the right to have weapons that are suitable for winning a war, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

    If we brought back the militia, anyone who chose to join the militia would have the right to vastly more powerful weaponry.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. “Alvie’s posts could be regarded as an exercise of freedom of speech arguing in favor of repealing the Second Amendment.”

    I took an oath to defend the first amendment. I agree.

    “Although I don’t find swapping gun murders for non-gun murders to be a compelling reason for repealing the Second Amendment.”

    Again, I agree. Hence my position that, if given a choice, taking a bullet to the head over having my dick ripped off with a pliers and bleeding out, I’d take the bullet every time

    “FTR, I’m in favour of gun ownership by people who belong to a well-regulated militia. Which opens another can of worms which could override the whole idea of repealing the amendment. I call for a reinterpretation of the amendment, along the lines of what the amendment actually says (IMO). I call for a reinterpretation of the amendment, along the lines of what the amendment actually says (IMO).”

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but thanks for saying this because the constitution doesn’t give a damn about your opinion. The “comma question” has long been solved.

    A few weeks ago I made a comment about how the Federal govn’t works. Short version: congress passes a law, POTUS interprets the law, until judicial interprets the law POTUS interpretation rules. Once jucidial interprets, POTUS can either sue, or contress can pass a new law.

    Q( Who’s going to “reinterpret” the second amendment?
    A) The POTUS (in an administration change) or the courts?

    “Liberals” have shown a true disdain for giving a flying fuck over giving a shit over which POTUS candidate (who appoints SCOTUS judges) wins (fuck you! I’m not voting for Hillary, because I LOST when I voted for BERNIE!!!! in the priamries) aren’t going to land a judgeship in my remaining lifetime, as long as “we” continue to let Repubs divide us we don’t stand a chance of that. So judges aren’t going to help us, in our lifetime.

    Repigs nominate judges who WILL uphold the second amendment. Uzi is right about that. Although Nancy Pelosi, at least, will too.

    So, 2/3 of BOTH houses of congress (better vote Democrat), 3/4 of the states (NOT gonna happen), or people will continue to be killed by gun violence.

    It’s just gonaa happen. The second amendment will stand. This is a waste of time.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. The “comma question” has long been solved.

    As far as I’m aware there has never been a comma question.

    The essence of what became the Second and Third Amendments originated in the proposals made by the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

    Proposed right #17 became the Second Amendment.

    Proposed right #18 became the Third Amendment.

    Proposed right #19 was originally merged into the Second Amendment but was later completely removed because it was feared that people could maliciously use the provision to weaken the militia.


    “17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    “18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.

    “19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

    It is clear from the text of #17 that:

    a) the reason for the first half of the Second Amendment was to alleviate a fear that the government would abandon the militia in favor of a standing army, and;

    b) the intended legal effect of the first half of the Second Amendment was for it to be a requirement that the government always keep a militia handy so that the militia will always be available to carry out the government’s orders, making it unnecessary to raise a dreaded standing army.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Interesting question: I wonder how many “constitutional originalists” would agree that peacetime standing armies are unconstitutional based on the plain meaning and original/legislative intent of the second amendment.

    I’m betting “not many”.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. I forgot to add this: “the comma question” is raised by people who don’t understand the law, not anyone with any legal sense. I think it was settled in Heller, but I could be wrong about the citation.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. ” forgot to add this: “the comma question” is raised by people who don’t understand the law, not anyone with any legal sense.”

    Or perhaps denying the “comma question” is wishful thinking by people with a vested interest.

    The “question” exists, and as some people believe that the militia portion is important, it IS a question.

    As for “legal sense”, find a lawyer that can defend the militia question or attack it. You’ll find thousands, because the wording is indeed unclear.

    Keep your arms, for whatever their worth. It is undeniable that they are pernicious in a global sense. Useless in a constitutional sense without a militia and with a standing army. I certainly don’t expect an amendment regarding weapons, but how many massacres and unnecesary deaths will it take to actually adress what you call a right and the rest of the world sees as a very sick problem?

    BTW, Timbuk, your posts are sounding a bit ornery. Might be my misinterpretation… anyhow I thought it was being a pretty civilized conversation.

    So the question still stands – is the NYT article wrong? If so, should there be a debate on gun limitations? And yes, why the fuck not a militia?

    At least people would be trained and vetted.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. The militia portion exists. It is indeed important. But I’m not sure that referring to commas is the best way to refer to the militia issue. Commas don’t really have anything to do with anything.

    There isn’t much of a question regarding the militia clause however. The wording is perfectly clear. It is a requirement that the government always maintain and keep up a proper militia.

    Whether our guns are useless in a constitutional sense is debatable. But they are certainly useful in a “self defense against criminals” sense.

    Since the guns are not the cause of massacres, massacres are no reason to give up our guns. But even if guns were the cause of massacres, no amount of massacres would ever convince us to give up guns.

    The NYT article is wrong on a number of its facts, but the overall point that “when there are more guns, more criminals use guns instead of other weapons” seems valid enough. I continue to not see why that is a big deal. Someone is just as dead whether they are murdered with a gun or a knife.

    You do understand that if there were a militia, people who were not in the militia would still have the right to have and carry guns that are suitable for self defense?

    Anyway, I’m all for bringing back the militia. Militiamen have the right to have machine guns and Stinger missiles.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. “The “question” exists, and as some people believe that the militia portion is important, it IS a question.”

    I didn’t say the question doesn’t exist. I said it’s raised by people who don’t understand the law. By that I meant arm chair lawyers speculating about the second amendment, itself, don’t understand the *difference between “still open to debate” and “settled law”. My citation was correct, it was Heller that settled “the comma question”. Read the first sentence at the link.

    “BTW, Timbuk, your posts are sounding a bit ornery. “

    I’m thinking more along the lines of “determined”, or “resolute”, or “certain”, than “ornery”.

    *Prior to a SCOTUS ruling legal issues, such as the meaning of the militia clause, or any other statute, are open to debate. AFTER a SCOTUS ruling, the questions raised are “settled law”. The executive branch can still “interpret” the ruling, and congress can still pass a statute in response to the ruling, but they’d be wise to not violate the ruling in that statute, because if they do it will almost certainly be overturned again based on stare decisis. Same for the executive branch’s interpretation.

    I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the Heller decision was 5-4. Roe v. Wade, and subsequent abortion rulings IIRC, was 7-3. In later rulings about “the same” law, a 5-4 decision is more likely to be “ignored” (not the right word) than a 7-3, so basically forced birthers and gun grabbers are left with the “most viable” option being 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states to pass a new amendment, but gun-grabbers have an edge on forced birthers in getting a later, more favorable ruling on a “similar” law. Lawmakers, who are generally lawyers (or at least know a metric shit-ton of them), know this. THAT is the reason nothing happens after a mass shooting; it’s a waste of time.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. it was Heller that settled “the comma question”.

    If “comma question” means “the militia aspect of the Second Amendment”, Heller was about the right of NON-militiamen to have guns that are appropriate for self defense. Heller didn’t address the right of militiamen to have machine guns and Stinger missiles.

    Incidentally, if anyone wants to pay the legal bills, I’ll join the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force and sue for my right to have Stinger missiles. But I’ll really need someone else to cover the legal bills.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  10. The Geminids were fantastic. Imagine the best and that is what we saw,… sitting here in W. Kansas, where light pollution was at the near minimum.

    Mom went from not having any movement in her right arm and leg four days before Halloween to today going down the stairs with hand-rails with me spotting her via the gait belt. The stroke was caused by untreated Diabetes for over 6 months (don’t really know what the Dr. was thinking, but we like him so much) and her unwillingness to check her blood sugar. We have used cordycep mushrooms to strengthen her. Omega oils to build new neurological tissue and rebuld the old damaged nerve tissue. CBD oil. Extended sleep hours to allow the brain metabolites and the stoke’s inflammation mediators and debris to clear her brain. Much to the chagrin of many, she is home now. Don’t know how long I will be here. But I am dedicated to managing her newly insulin-dependent diabetes and her too-many medications (those insulin pens are a god-send, completely eliminated the statin, that god-awful drug class and some GERD medicine that really has no real diagnosis to support it’s Rx. while it CAUSES atril fib and hyperglycemia as side-effects). I am sure this place was just fine without me.
    My world is very small just now. I am sure that will change soon as the holidays pass and a routine is more workable.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply