This could get the liberals howling!
 

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc



Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of
Federal Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the
"reasonable relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation
between the intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of
well regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts
have not interpreted any of the amendments as being universally
applicable under all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting
our right to own rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which
would be necessary to defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause
of the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL
REGULATED militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case
decided in the 19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what
they don't like, not something they support or endorse.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have not
interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable under
all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to own
rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be necessary to
defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel
invasions.

- 15. 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.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces (with
the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then isn't it up
to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for
example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State."

In some states their Constitutions say the right to bear arms "shall not be
questioned"..

We are a union of states. The Federal Gov't has no voice in gun control, it
doesn't even have the power to regulate gun ownership. That is left to the
states and the people respectively.

More guns!

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have
not interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable
under all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to
own rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be
necessary to defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions.

- 15. 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.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces
(with the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then
isn't it up to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.


The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use
of arms," and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law "to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for
example, recognizes the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the State."

In some states their Constitutions say the right to bear arms "shall not
be questioned"..

We are a union of states. The Federal Gov't has no voice in gun control,
it doesn't even have the power to regulate gun ownership. That is left to
the states and the people respectively.

More guns!









Unfortunately the guns are usually taken away from the people who are safe
with them and the criminals wind up the only ones being armed. I fear the
government that wants to take away my guns.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...


Robert Musgine wrote:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=206575

Imagine everyone owning a handgun - what a better world it would be!

9/11 would have never happened if the passengers were armed.

Columbine would have never happened if the teachers were armed.

Free men own guns!!

Guns keep you safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lWyp-RQCc


Whether or not the right to bear arms is "individual" or "collective"
isn't the real issue. The real issue is how to interpret and apply both
clauses of the Amendment, and in particular, how to relate the first
clause - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state..." - to the second. For the last 70 years, the test for
applicability of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted in a series of Federal
Circuit Appeals Court rulings since Miller, has been the "reasonable
relation" test, i.e., whether there is a reasonable relation between the
intended use or character of the firearm(s) and some form of well
regulated militia. It should also be kept in mind that the courts have not
interpreted any of the amendments as being universally applicable under
all circumstances. And don't forget about protecting our right to own
rocket launchers, cannons, tanks, etc., all of which would be necessary to
defend the security of the "free state."

Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause of
the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case decided in the
19th century). - Absolutely absurd! - Regulation is what they don't like,
not something they support or endorse.

Jim



I would take militia to mean what it meant when the Constitution was
written.


The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows:
Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel
invasions.

- 15. 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.


Now it seems who ever is eligible to be called forth to fight wars is the
militia. The militia is run by the States. So aren't are armed forces (with
the exception of the national guard) unconstitutional? But then isn't it up
to what the individual states claim is the militia?


The bottom line is that we need more armed citizens. The government is our
servant, it is not the other way around. More guns means more freedom.



Whatever the Second Amendment means by the term: "militia", One thing is
certain. - It's a "well REGULATED militia." (I emphasize the word
"militia" because, over long experience in such discussions, it's going
to be ignored, dismissed, or passed right on by if I don't.)

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:10:10 GMT, JimC said:


Sounds like you are hoping for an interpretation in which the Court, in
essence, simply ignores or discards altogether the entire first clause
of the amendment. Of course, the rednecks claim that the "WELL
REGULATED militia" is simply "the people" (based on an obscure case
decided in the 19th century). - Absolutely absurd!


If I recall, Larry Tribe, who knows at least a thing or two about
Constitutional law did an about face on this issue, and has come to view the
2nd Amendment as not being so limited.

Of course simply labeling those who disagree with you "rednecks" is about
the weakest for of argument imaginable.

Dave (who knew Larry way back before he divorced his first wife)

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned
in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another
way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia."

Jim

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "



A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free state,
the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.



Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected by
the state, for the state's purpose.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "


I don't see what people don't get about this simple statement. Why do they
try to read all sort of crap into it that's not there nor was intended to be
put there.

If it were written in today's English it would be written thusly - "Because
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, at the time this was written, consisted of individual citizens
bearing arms - their own personal arms. If needed, a call was put out and
indivicual citizens gathered with their arms to fight an enemy. If
individuals weren't intended to have a right to bear their own arms there
would not be a militia. No milita that I've ever heard of at that time had a
bunker full of arms that were passed out to individuals. It didn't work that
way.


A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free
state, the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be
infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.

Huh? How so? Or are you being sarcastic. It's very apparent that "the
people" refers to individuals - not some group of indeterminate size.

Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected
by the state, for the state's purpose.

The founders feared the power of the federal govt. The founders were
concerned about state's rights. Militias are a state voluntary military
consisting of individuals bearing their own arms. It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.

Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Firearm abstinence is not an effective method of gun control. Studies have
shown that education along with the distribution of effective ammunition and
firearms training goes much further in reducing gun related injuries.

Abstinence is not an effective method of birth control. Studies have shown
that education along with the distribution of condomns and sexual
paraphenelia goes much further in the reduction of unwanted pregnancies.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:
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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.


Bob, your views are contrary to the long string of appeals court rulings
regarding this matter. - Incidentally, this particular country (the
United States) is NOT governed by or controlled by the Federalist
Papers, and our legal system is NOT subject to them.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:


Dave wrote:

Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.

Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.


Denied.

How about answering my question. - Pretty please!

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:

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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.


Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself.
- It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Robert Musgine wrote:

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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and case
law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well REGULATED
militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate the
militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it is
definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787,
states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:20:03 -0500, Marty said:

Dave wrote:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."
Merely pointing out some of the holes in your view of universal truth.
Move to strike the answer as unresponsive.

Denied.

Ah, I see, barrister and Judge, therefore outright fabrications
regarding adversaries views are perfectly acceptable, to say nothing of
evasive answers.

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. "



I don't see how "the people" have freedom of speech. The way it is worded
the people can only assemble and petition. Now this is only "the people"
which is a collective term. It doesn't say that individuals have any right
to petition or to speak freely. I don't see any rights "given" to the
"press", it doesn't even say the press has free speech. What is the press
protected from or what right is enumerated here? I don't see any at all.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

I do not "misinterpret" anything to do with the English language. I happen
to be an expert on it. Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or
regime that exalts nation and often race and stands for a centralized
autocratic often militaristic government.

Central, autocratic government is a liberal (socialist) ideal. Read
autocratic as dictatorship. It is far from conservatism which is considered
to be on the right in the current political spectrum. Today's conservative
movement is for smaller, decentralized government and a strict abiding by
the Constitution. I know it's difficult to understand because today's
so-called conservative seems to grow government like crazy but the
conclusion that needs be drawn is Republican doesn't necessarily equal
conservative. On the other hand, Democrat definitely means liberal. Fascist
liberal is a slightly more to the left version of what we see in today's
Democrat party. Believe me, Hillary Rodham is a fascist.

It is necessary to abide by today's definitions of liberalsim vs.
conservatism - i.e. left vs, right in order to have an intelligent
discussion. Your harkening back to some mythical founding tenet couched in
the past when the terms were defined diferently than they are now is a lame
attempt to misdirect the discussion. Now, go to the back of the class..

Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Robert Musgine wrote:

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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate
the militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it
is definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of
1787, states:

" A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

Let's get down to brass tack, shall we?

"to *keep* and bear arms" Now, we all know that to bear arms means to carry
or be equipped with them. But, what does it mean to *keep* arms. It means to
retain them in one's possession. If they are held in an armory at a militia
headquarters they are not, by definition, being kept by the people.

Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Alan Gomes" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:


Robert Musgine wrote:

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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim

Jim,
And one other thing that is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment
itself. - It's that however you define the term "regulated," it does not
include infringing on the peoples' right both to keep and to bear arms.
Strange how people who want to seize on the word "regulated" as a pretext
for infringing on the right both to keep and to bear arms so often ignore
that.
--AG

Exactly true, sir! One only has to examine the definition of regulate. Well
regulated means to regulate well and to regulate means to govern or direct
according to rule, to control and to bring under the control of law or
authority and to put in good order.

It can be clearly seen that a well regulated militia has nothing whatsoever
to do with limiting the personal right to keep and bear arms. Rather, people
MUST have a right to keep and bear arms in order for there to be a
well-regulated militia. A militia without arms is no militia. Certainly not
a well-regulated militia.

Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:39:26 -0500, Marty said:

Ah, I see, barrister and Judge, therefore outright fabrications
regarding adversaries views are perfectly acceptable, to say nothing of
evasive answers.

Cheers
Marty

Surely you don't have the same reading comprehension, Marty. He asked me
what I was saying. I told him what I was saying. Again.

No matter how many straw men you or he wish to set up and knock down,
they're your straw men, not mine.


Oh dear me, no Dave. You may accuse me of of offering straw men, I must
however humbly request that you quote said straw men.

I will however read the question back for you "Are you saying that you
think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another way, that the American
citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia." ".

So, to rephrase, in case you have a reading comprehension problem, are
"A well regulated militia" and "The people", synonymous, in this context?

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

http://www.mises.org/story/1111

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.mises.org/story/1111



Just what would you like to me to glean from this heartwarming tale of
life in the modern USA?

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

"Alan Gomes" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:


Robert Musgine wrote:


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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim

Jim,
And one other thing that is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment
itself. - It's that however you define the term "regulated," it does not
include infringing on the peoples' right both to keep and to bear arms.
Strange how people who want to seize on the word "regulated" as a pretext
for infringing on the right both to keep and to bear arms so often ignore
that.
--AG


Exactly true, sir! One only has to examine the definition of regulate. Well
regulated means to regulate well and to regulate means to govern or direct
according to rule, to control and to bring under the control of law or
authority and to put in good order.

It can be clearly seen that a well regulated militia has nothing whatsoever
to do with limiting the personal right to keep and bear arms. Rather, people
MUST have a right to keep and bear arms in order for there to be a
well-regulated militia. A militia without arms is no militia. Certainly not
a well-regulated militia.

Wilbur Hubbard

We have the usual citations of the "fathers" and the Federalist Papers,
quoted to prove, in essence, that every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be
able to walk into any gun show and buy whatever firearm he damn well
pleases. As I mentioned previously NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS (including
the 2nd) has been interpreted as being universally applicable in all
circumstances. Freedom of speech is limited by the laws of slander, and
by public interest (e.g., no yelling "fire" in a public theater).
Freedom of the press is limited by principles such as the laws of
slander, torts, and criminal law. Freedom of religion has been
interpreted as being limited in certain respects with respect to public
health, and with respect to parents control of their own children (e.g.,
they can't prohibit their children from having have certain medical
treatments, under some circumstances). The right to assemble and protest
is limited by issues of public safety. - - Etc., etc., etc. With respect
to the 2nd Amendment, the Government has a right to limit the right to
bear arms with respect to certain people and circumstances, such as the
mentally deranged, criminals, etc. Sort of like some of those posting
on this newsgroup.

Regarding the intent of the fathers, Thomas Jefferson's opinion was
suggested by his comments to the effect that he favored a review and
updating of the constitution every few years so that it would address
changing conditions and needs naturally to be expected in future years.
In other words, if Jefferson was living today and participating in this
discussion (and typing his comments relative to this discussion on his
own PC), he would say something like:

"Why the hell are you idiots searching through the Federalist Papers
trying to dig up obscure expressions of the intent of the writers of the
constitution more than 200 years ago? Their intent was to get the damn
thing written (based largely on principles advocated by certain French
and English philosophers) and get the show on the road so that we could
have a basis for keeping the country together and overcoming the
ultra-conservatists of our day (those opposing a central Government and
favoring a loosely organized federation). We knew nothing about the
vast changes that would take place in the next 220 years, which is why
I stated that I thought that the document should be expected to be
modified in future years to reflect changing times and circumstances.
What kind of freaking idiots are you to expect our hurriedly written
document to be completely applicable to each citizen and circumstance in
the year 2007, as if our writings were eternally valid, divine
scriptures handed down by the Almighty on tablets of stone?"

(Which is why we now have amendments to the constitution, and why we
have exceptions to the amendments, as discussed above, and why the
founders, in their wisdom, included a judicial branch with the power to
interpret the constitution, along with the precedents of english common
law.)

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:50:39 GMT, JimC said:


How about answering my question. - Pretty please!


You have a reading problem, I take it? Here again is what I said.


If I recall, Larry Tribe, who knows at least a thing or two about
Constitutional law did an about face on this issue, and has come to view the
2nd Amendment as not being so limited.

Of course simply labeling those who disagree with you "rednecks" is about
the weakest for of argument imaginable.


That's what I said, and that's what I'm saying. Sorry if you wish I had said
something else. But I didn't.

I don't question that that's what you said. But you didn't answer my
question.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.mises.org/story/1111



Just what would you like to me to glean from this heartwarming tale of
life in the modern USA?

Cheers
Marty


He's a f*cking troll, that's what.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

This could get the liberals howling!
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:08:31 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:50:04 -0500, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.


Well, it seems you have misinterpreted fascism. One of it's founding
tenets is anti-liberalism. It is a movement of the *right*.

I do not "misinterpret" anything to do with the English language. I
happen to be an expert on it. Fascism is a political philosophy,
movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race and stands for a
centralized autocratic often militaristic government.

Central, autocratic government is a liberal (socialist) ideal. Read
autocratic as dictatorship. It is far from conservatism which is
considered to be on the right in the current political spectrum. Today's
conservative movement is for smaller, decentralized government and a
strict abiding by the Constitution. I know it's difficult to understand
because today's so-called conservative seems to grow government like
crazy but the conclusion that needs be drawn is Republican doesn't
necessarily equal conservative. On the other hand, Democrat definitely
means liberal. Fascist liberal is a slightly more to the left version of
what we see in today's Democrat party. Believe me, Hillary Rodham is a
fascist.

It is necessary to abide by today's definitions of liberalsim vs.
conservatism - i.e. left vs, right in order to have an intelligent
discussion. Your harkening back to some mythical founding tenet couched
in the past when the terms were defined diferently than they are now is
a lame attempt to misdirect the discussion. Now, go to the back of the
class..

I can see why you consider yourself a sailor. You sure are windy, but a
little confused. Perhaps you will answer me this, if the terms were
defined differently for fascism, a mere 80 years ago, why do you wish to
demand a "strict abiding by the Constitution", a document that is over
200 years old? Were not the terms defined differently then?

If autocratic government is a liberal ideal, why is the greatest threat
to democracy always from the right? The left has a history of
overthrowing kings, and tyrants. The right, a history of overthrowing
democracies. I've looked, but I have only been able to find 3
democracies that were overthrown by leftists, but well over 100 that were
overthrown by the right. Why is that?



Wilbur Hubbard

This could get the liberals howling!
 

JimC wrote:





Regarding the intent of the fathers, Thomas Jefferson's opinion was
suggested by his comments to the effect that he favored a review and
updating of the constitution every few years so that it would address
changing conditions and needs naturally to be expected in future years.

Here are a few comments from Thomas Jefferson regarding how the
constitution should be modified in view of societal changes over time,
and to correct inadequacies inthe original drafting. Note that he says
nothing about searching the Federalist Papers for the "original intent"
of the fathers. Instead, he recommends looking forward, not backward.

" No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the
course of time, the imperfections of a written Constitution will become
apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring CHANGES IN SOCIETY
which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for
the nation. It was imperative, therefore, that a practicable means of
amending the Constitution be provided."

"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide
a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall
have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the
nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole
people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express
purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for
remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time
in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of
ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action
accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever
passing." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:488

"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may
require occasional and corresponding modifications." --Thomas Jefferson
to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113



"We must be contented to travel on towards perfection, step by
step. We must be contented with the ground which [the new] Constitution
will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will come for
correcting what is amiss in it." --Thomas Jefferson to the Count de
Moustier, 1788. ME 7:13


"Our government wanted bracing. Still, we must take care not to run
from one extreme to another; not to brace too high." --Thomas Jefferson
to Edward Rutledge, 1788. ME 7:81


The Right to Change a Constitution

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted
him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of
their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval,
1816. ME 15:41

"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual
change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to
progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves
behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood
and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred
to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would
have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such
examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as
another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let
us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude
essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and
well-meaning councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME
15:41

"[Algernon Sidney wrote in Discourses Concerning Government, Sect.
II, Par 13,] 'All human constitutions are subject to corruption and must
perish unless they are timely renewed and reduced to their first
principles.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.


"Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and
insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with
all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other
nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their
constitutions." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787. ME 6:295,
Papers 12:113


Change is the Choice of the Living

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect
or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those
who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil
they may produce. The present generation has the same right of
self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"My wish is to offend nobody; to leave to those who are to live
under it, the settlement of their own constitution." --Thomas Jefferson
to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:70

"We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture
to make them unchangeable. But still, in their present state, we
consider them not otherwise changeable than by the authority of the
people on a special election of representatives for that purpose
expressly. They are until then the lex legum." --Thomas Jefferson to
John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the
fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810. ME 12:394


Experience Dictates Change

"I am a friend to the reformation generally of whatever can be made
better." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wilson, 1813. ME 13:349

"Let us go on perfecting the Constitution by adding, by way of
amendment, those forms which time and trial show are still wanting."
--Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 9:419

"It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it."
--Thomas Jefferson: Address to Cherokee Nation, 1806. ME 19:149

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and
deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and
suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I
belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It
was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and
forty years of experience in government is worth a century of
book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from
the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

"Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with
the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be
assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand,
[deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles,
practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the
consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human
mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254

"I am not afraid of new inventions or improvements, nor bigoted to
the practices of our forefathers. It is that bigotry which keeps the
Indians in a state of barbarism in the midst of the arts [and] would
have kept us in the same state even now." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert
Fulton, 1810. ME 12:380

"Nature and reason, as well as all our constitutions, condemn
retrospective conditions as mere acts of power against right." --Thomas
Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:380

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they
wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it
keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead
of this, the European governments have resisted reformation until the
people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force,
their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and
long-continued anarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824.
ME 16:15


The Slow Process of Amendment

"I am sorry [the federal convention] began their deliberations by
so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their
members. Nothing can justify this example but the innocence of their
intentions, and ignorance of the value of public discussions." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Adams, 1787. ME 6:289

"There is a snail-paced gait for the advance of new ideas on the
general mind under which we must acquiesce. A forty years' experience of
popular assemblies has taught me that you must give them time for every
step you take. If too hard pushed, they balk, and the machine
retrogrades." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1807. ME 11:400

"Governments... are always in their stock of information a century
or two behind the intelligent part of mankind, and... have interests
against touching ancient institutions." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert
Patterson, 1811. ME 13:87


The Earth Belongs to the Living

"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation
cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end
because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them
in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the
abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet
our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose
that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a
right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like
manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they
will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead
and not the living." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1816. ME 15:46



"Can one generation bind another and all others in succession
forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not
the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things,
not to mere matter unendowed with will." --Thomas Jefferson to John
Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"The generations of men may be considered as bodies or
corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the
period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes
on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on
successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider
each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its
majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding
generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." --Thomas
Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:270


"Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of
the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third,
even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will
and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with
themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who
has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and
nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be
no accident [i.e., attribute]." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval,
1816. (*) ME 15:42

"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in
life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all
the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their
laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable
but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to
John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48


"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated
periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the
European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of
time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of
that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other
words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one
preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like
them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes
most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the
circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its
predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn
opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be
provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with
periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if
anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel
Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the
end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force,
and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation
exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if
the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years
only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing
an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might
be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived,
that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and
without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot
assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious.
Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions
get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal
interests lead them astray from the general interests of their
constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every
practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable
than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,
1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

"This principle, that the earth belongs to the living and not to
the dead,... will exclude... the ruinous and contagious errors... which
have armed despots with means which nature does not sanction, for
binding in chains their fellow-men." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Madison, 1789. ME 7:460, Papers 15:396

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:49:31 GMT, JimC said:


Bob, your views are contrary to the long string of appeals court rulings
regarding this matter.


Of course the Courts of Appeals do not, under our system, have the final
word. There was quite a string of appeals court decisions based on Plessey
v. Ferguson, too.



But unless and until until the Supreme Court overturns their decisions
on this matter, the Courts of Appeals decisions are controlling.



- Incidentally, this particular country (the
United States) is NOT governed by or controlled by the Federalist
Papers, and our legal system is NOT subject to them.


You're being disingenuous again. The Federalist Papers are and have been
frequently cited and used as a basis for determining the founders' intent.
Of course I understand that you subscribe to the "modern" view that what the
draftsmen intended is of no relevance today. That is not the universal view,
however.

--- Here's what Thomas Jefferson thought about how the constitution
should be viewed and interpeted today:

"Some men look at constitutions with SANCTIMONIOUS REFERENCE and deem
them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and
suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I
belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It
was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and
forty years of experience in government is worth a century of
book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from
the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

"Those who [advocate] reformation of institutions pari passu with
the progress of science [maintain] that no definite limits [can] be
assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand,
[deny] improvement and [advocate] steady adherence to the principles,
practices and institutions of our fathers, which they [represent] as the
consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human
mind could never advance." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:254

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Robert Musgine wrote:
http://www.mises.org/story/1111



Just what would you like to me to glean from this heartwarming tale of
life in the modern USA?

Cheers
Marty


He's a f*cking troll, that's what.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com




And you can't keep your f*cking mouth shut, can you?

Know why? Because your anger has won out again. You can't control your
outbursts, your need impulsively blurt out your nonsense.

You have some strong impulsive and compulsion control problems. That is why
I will always win. Even if you don't respond, I know you read everyone of my
posts and then you sit there, stew and fester. The anger builds and
eventually the promise you make to your self to ignore me is broken. You
must blurt out, you must respond - in anger!

Because you can't help yourself, nobody else can. The best anyone can do is
suffer your outbursts, rage and try to ignore them or work around them. No
one feels sorry for you, they just wish you would go away.

Someone like you should not own a gun, and probably can't legally because of
some past action. I certainly believe that people with strong anger issues
should not own a gun or have access to a gun. It is not worth the risk of
having some looney going about shooting up a mall, ferry boat, power boat,
kayakers, trolls, Master Mariners, Korean War Veterans or even their own
therapist. Flashbacks, anger issues, intense emotionally driven actions,
paranoia, feelings of persecution, extreme intolerance, not working well
with others are all signs of extreme risk to society. People like that
should be forced to undergo therapy in the least, probably live in a halfway
house environment and locked up for good if the problems persist.

Please, please take your chill pills! All of them at once! I'll send
flowers!!

This could get the liberals howling!
 

wrote in message
...

If autocratic government is a liberal ideal, why is the greatest threat
to democracy always from the right? The left has a history of
overthrowing kings, and tyrants. The right, a history of overthrowing
democracies. I've looked, but I have only been able to find 3
democracies that were overthrown by leftists, but well over 100 that were
overthrown by the right. Why is that?


Right and left are subjective to the person deciding the direction.

Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

There is no difference between the right or left. They both want to control
other people's lives where they have no business. One side wants mob rule,
the other rule by dictator.

Whatever happened to people running their own lives?

Democracy is simply mob rule, 51% rule the other 49%. Democracy does not
guarantee freedom nor protect it.

Only Constitutional Republics can do that and only if their constitution
works on the principles that the power is derived from the people and the
constitution is an enumeration of powers delegated to the government by the
people. Powers not delegated are retained by the people. Constitutions are
used to limit governments, expand and protect individual freedoms in a non
contradictory manner.

Anything more is less freedom.

Mitchell Ryan

This could get the liberals howling!
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:33 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

Hitler? Yes. Bush? I'm not sure what he is. He sure isn't fiscally
conservative, nor do his actions belie small government, rule of law,
abiding by the Constitution, etc.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:33 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler and Bush are both considered right wing by you, aren't they?

Hitler? Yes. Bush? I'm not sure what he is. He sure isn't fiscally
conservative, nor do his actions belie small government, rule of law,
abiding by the Constitution, etc.

Hitler was a socialist. So what makes him right wing?

Is Stalin right wing too?

Is Franco right wing?

Is Trotsky right wing?

Castro?

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:53:09 -0500, Marty said:

I will however read the question back for you "Are you saying that you
think that the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
is the same thing as "the people"? Or put another way, that the American
citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED militia." ".

The answer to that question is no. I am saying precisely what I said at the
outset. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thankyou, for a clear answer.

So, to rephrase, in case you have a reading comprehension problem, are
"A well regulated militia" and "The people", synonymous, in this context?

No comprehension problem. Now you're not asking me what I was saying. You're
asking your own question. The answer to that question is that I don't know.
I may know if and when the Supremes take the case and decide. So far I don't
believe they've spoken definitively on the question.

I guess I'll have to allow you that position, which I percieve as being
highly influenced by your legal training. Would you care to proffer an
opinion instead? In your opinion, does the Second Amendment extend the
right to own weapons to all citizens? If so why doesn't it (or perhaps
it does) extend the right to own 155mm Howitzers to drug dealers?

Cheers
Marty
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:11:17 -0500, said:

When are you going to treat us to an account of your recent cruise to Nantucket,
or wherever it was you were planning to go?

Actually, I had a report half prepared, and got busy with other things.

Didn't get as far as I had wished as a result of a number of things,
including weather and the need to go back for some engine repairs rather
than heading up to Buzzards Bay. Went to New London, Block for a couple of
days, Sakonnet, Tiverton (for the repair), back to New London (decided not
to try the Pine Island Channel in the dark) and back to Saybrook.


You have the little Yanmar one-lunger in that thing?

Cheers
Marty

This could get the liberals howling!
 

"Axel Merckx" wrote in message
...
Hey man, cut they guy some slack. Everyone knows I'm a whippy dippy
ding dong but no need to rub it in. Geesh!

Axel

This could get the liberals howling!
 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:06:40 -0700, Robert Musgine wrote:


Hitler was a socialist. So what makes him right wing?

No, he was a fascist. Just as there is nothing democratic about the
Democratic People' Republic of Korea, there is nothing socialist about
the National Socialist Party. In socialism, property and wealth are
communally controlled. That didn't happen in Nazi Germany. He was a
fascist. His rise was based on Nationalism and racism.

Is Stalin right wing too?

Just another autocratic, totalitarian, SOB. The former Soviet Union was
an elitist dictatorship.

Is Franco right wing?

Fascist, and that means right wing.

Is Trotsky right wing?

Definitely a leftist.

Castro?

I would say he's a leftist. A dictator, no doubt, but more benevolent
than most.

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:28:26 -0600, JimC said:


I don't question that that's what you said. But you didn't answer my
question.


I answered the question you asked, and did it rather precisely and
unambiguously. You asked what I was saying, and I told you.

I didn't answer the question you _thought_ you had asked--whether I intended
by my statement to be understood as asserting an entirely different
proposition. I then answered that question by saying no, I didn't intend my
statement to be understood as asserting anything more than its explicit
contents.
I asked the following question:
Are you saying that you think that the "well regulated militia"
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the same thing as "the people"? Or put
another way, that the American citizenry constitutes a "well REGULATED
militia."

You didn't answer the question. Instead, you merely stated that Larry
Tribe doesn't think the Amendment should be so limited. - That may or
may not be true (and, in fact, the overwhelming majority of appeals
cases interpreting the Amendment since Miller hold that there must be a
"reasonable relation" between rights under the Amendment and a militia
of some form). Nevertheless, please don't tell me that you answered the
question I asked. Because it simply isn't true.

Jim

This could get the liberals howling!
 

Dave wrote:

As a matter of policy (a very different thing from Constitutional dictates),
while I'm persuaded that private citizens should not be permitted to own
atomic bombs or Howitzers, I think a good case can be made that private and
relatively unrestricted ownership rifles, shotguns and probably at least
some types of hand guns, should be permissible.

But of course this is coming from a city guy who grew up in a rural area and
owned his first gun at age 11.

I think that's a perfectly sensible attitude. Now if we could somehow
persuade the folks that think nothing less than and outright ban will
do, and on the other hand convince the Wyatt Earp wanna bees that for
the safety of themselves and society there really ought to be some
restrictions.

If you want to see how not to do it, just have look at the monumental
waste created by our (Canadian that is) Governments gun registry.

Cheers
Marty