Slashdot Mirror
Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
CanHasDIY (1672858) writes "In his yet-to-be-released book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, John Paul Stevens, who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court for 35 years, believes he has the key to stopping the seeming recent spate of mass killings — amend the Constitution to exclude private citizens from armament ownership. Specifically, he recommends adding 5 words to the 2nd Amendment, so that it would read as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.'
What I find interesting is how Stevens maintains that the Amendment only protects armament ownership for those actively serving in a state or federal military unit, in spite of the fact that the Amendment specifically names 'the People' as a benefactor (just like the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth) and of course, ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia. I'm personally curious about his other 5 suggested changes, but I guess we'll have to wait until the end of April to find out."
What I find interesting is how Stevens maintains that the Amendment only protects armament ownership for those actively serving in a state or federal military unit, in spite of the fact that the Amendment specifically names 'the People' as a benefactor (just like the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth) and of course, ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia. I'm personally curious about his other 5 suggested changes, but I guess we'll have to wait until the end of April to find out."
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is the same view the ACLU has, and it's why they don't dive into 2nd Amendment cases because it's basically a radical view in today's world.
All a state would have to do is amend their constitution to proclaim that all their able bodied citizens are members of the state militia for defense of their lives, property, and the state if mustered into action. What can the feds do then?
No. Fuck you. As a supreme court judge, your job is (was) to defend the constitution, not undermine it. Don't you think we've had enough of our constitutional rights taken away? Does it ever stop?
Oh, and since your reasoning for this BS is the claim that murders are on the rise, how about you stop fucking watching FOX news and actually get educated on what is really happening? I won't even bother with the logical fallacy that having weapons available supposedly makes everybody frantic murderers.
It's as if he is choosing to ignore the recent killings at Ft. Hood in 2009 and 2014 because clearly no one 'serving in the militia' could ever do anything like that. It must be just those dangerous civilians out there and couldn't possibly be related to an individual's mental health or motivations.
It might be helpful to note that he's not proposing a ban on gun ownership, rather that the individual states should be allowed to regulate such ownership more than is currently allowed.
not news for nerds
not stuff that matters
however it does drive click revenue to feature a hot button culture war issue.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination... However...
Everyone should be armed. Assuming you're not a felon, a weapon should be in every single citizen's possession. Period. No loopholes.
Gun safety should be taught in public school, along with the inferred rights and responsibilities involved.
The reason? So that normal citizens like you and me can defend ourselves on the way to the Canadian border. Because when these idiot libs and cons start really shooting at each other... the Klondike might be our only hope.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The whole point is for the citizens to be able to form a militia in order to defend themselves from their own government. Those words would effectively decimate the whole reason for the second amendment.
States that want lax gun laws would just create State Militias that were mostly unreguluated. These would be sepperate from the national guard. These would basically be gun clubs. In places like Kentucky a 14 year old would be able to join. The only service requirement would be taking a NRA gun class. I guess you would also need to say the pledge of allegiance.
That is all.
I for one am just grateful that a liberal jurist has finally acknowledged that it would take a constitutional amendment to do that. Most of them seem to think that the Constitution already reads that way.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia". Not wearing the militiaman hat all the time seems to be working for the Swiss just fine, BTW.
Ezekiel 23:20
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Instead of applying revisionist views that have no Constitutional basis.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Does he really think curtailing guns will stop mass killings?
Try banning stupidity like this:
strange stoy on anti-tea party site, since I expect there are more like this on tea party sites.
Maybe then there will be less anger.
Of course he won't speak out against that because in his wacked out state that would violate first amendment rights. So instead he proposed to flush the second amendment down the toilet.
Since Stevens' change has the purpose of exactly contradicting the original intent, it seems shoddy and absurd to just change one little phrase in it. For example, the "of a free state" part becomes a joke, or at least a meaningless window dressing, once this amendment ceases to be about guaranteeing a specific freedom to the people. In other words, Stevens' modified amendment is capable of fitting in very nicely with the goals of a tyranny, and has nothing to do with increasing the power of the people to prevent a powerful government from taking away their freedoms. But maybe Mr. Stevens really anticipates his suggestion going mainstream, and supposes that by leaving the form of the original in place, 2nd Amendment supporters will be unable to effectively oppose the change?
Regardless, I personally smell a rat.
My suggested new text:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Laws limiting weapons in any way are prohibited, including but not limited to background checks, registration lists, and places where they can carried. All governments, foreign and domestic, should be afraid of the armed populous."
If a gun can be anywhere, everywhere can be defended quickly.
(Did you know that a convicted felon is not required to register his guns since that would violate his 5th ammendment right to not self-incriminate? Look it up!)
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
I want chocolate milk to spew forth from all the water fountains at work. And my dream has a much better chance of becoming reality than Stevens' dream.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You can change any amendment with only five words and completely change its meaning.
For example, try tacking this onto any of them - for only white land owners.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
...now take please your meds...
Your opinion is so wrong, it's not funny. America is not about the masses sitting at the feet of a former Supreme Court justice to learn how to interpret the Constitution. It has been the expectation for all of our country's existence that all of us will be educated in our civil liberties and have a good understanding of them. Something as basic as the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTELY NOT above our heads. So get out of here, doofus, because you're making me mad.
Here are six amendments (not in any form of airtight legalese) that would be useful:
1: Campaign donations are forbidden. Each candidate for an elected office will get an equivalent place to state their platform. Advertising anything election related on a commercial (paid) basis will be a crime.
2: Similar to Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution: Only US citizens can influence the politics of the nation.
3: A "no confidence" vote can be done on Congress, forcing a complete re-election with no incumbents allowed in for the next term (but can run after that.)
4: Same as Article 23 of the Mexican Constitution. No double jeopardy, and after three trials, the defendant is now absolved of charges.
5: Same as Article 10 of the German Constitution, guaranteeing privacy.
6: The right to a firearm is guaranteed. However, part of school education is firearms training, from elementary school to high school. The purpose of this is to "un-Hollywoodize" firearms, and make them perceived as a tool (similar to a chainsaw or weed whacker), and no more. If packing becomes pedestrian or gauche, the gun control problem will go away by itself.
These are not perfect, but they will go a ways to address critical issues.
the intention was a check of power: that the people would rise up and fight a corrupt government and take it back.
what this assclown wants is even MORE power to the government.
I say we reverse this. arm every citizen and actually make it ILLEGAL for the government to ever rise up against its own people. like that pussy at davis, the 'seargent pepper-spray' asshole, he should have been locked up for the rest of his life for abusing his authority against actual peaceful citizens who were simply exercising their RIGHT to protest the government.
we have a system where the police (in various forms) exist only to keep the powerful in power. anything left over after that is just a token to throw to the masses to keep them in check.
I'd like to see revolts against any government org that uses lethal force against its own people.
of course, it won't ever happen. we have lost our ability to keep our government afraid of us, the people. we lost. I wonder if we forever lost that?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Guns were regulated or prohibited in some cities/states so however we interpret the 2nd the founders didn't think it implied some absolute right to "arms." And, really, "arms" applies to a whole range of weapons. It means I can have a suitcase nuke camp out under a flight path with a Stinger on my roof, or whizz around the airport with a fully loaded Russian surplus MiG.
Of course the "originalist" Scalia should know this and agree with gun rights limitations (snark).
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The good part of this that I see is that he is advocating changing the constitution and not just ignoring it. The constitution can and should be amended to account for changing values, changing technology and different external influences. Once you start ignoring the constitution, then what rules do the government need to follow? Change the constitution to what it "should" say, then we all know what we're doing, what's expected of us, and where to go next.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
guns dont cause mass shootings... people who break the law do. guess what is in common with people who break the law in one way and people who break the law in another? they tend to break laws. making it illegal to own guns does just a little to them as making it illegal to kill people. we dont need to stop people from owning guns, we need to find better ways to stop mass shootings... even if that means putting in boxes of 'in case of terrorist, break glass'. as far as schools go, i think we should give teachers the ability to have handguns in locked safes in their classrooms, and allow them to take it out it the case of a shooting situation.(of course, they would need to be trained for it as well).
In Swiss law use, storage and transport of weapons is VERY heavily regulated. Everyone is armed, but you don't get to walk down the street with your SIG 550 or leave it propped up in your hall closet. There are insane rules on ownership, storage and transfer, and the penalties are incredibly severe. There is no comparing the US and Swiss systems. Anything but bolt-action or single-shot weapons (beyond your militia-issued weapon) require special permits.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
***
Your argument would
a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings
b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars)
c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
He's sooooo wrong. Every fucking moron on earth should have the right to own a gun! A rail-gun ... and mini-nukes that come with a free backpack!
Authority worship seems to be popular. I don't think there's any hope for these people.
[End Of Line]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The Militia Act of 1903 makes an organized militia, but anyone not part of that is in the reserve militia if they are a man between 17-45. So, most of the people he is trying to prevent from having guns could still have them under this amendment. This doesn't count states that would just make everyone in their state automatically part of the "state" militia to bypass this nonsense.
But *you* are. And so is practically every American. Unknowingly, you have committed crimes, and you have been found guilty. Why else would the NSA be spying on you? You are a criminal sir, in the eyes of the government.
If you're going to make the distinction, then NO american can have a gun, because we are all guilty according to various state and federal laws.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Not necessarily relevant, not necessarily true. He knows a crapload more about his agenda. But nothing necessitates knowledge to equate to proper use. In fact, I'd wager he is well aware of the real evident meaning and intention. Hence he wants it changed....
The real scholars have, and every time, those who go by simply a historical basis conclude without a doubt that the intention was personal arms.
This is what would happen. They changed it to Militia's could have guns, then suddenly "Militia" are considered terrorist organizations. And the only people allowed to have guns would be the police, the government & the army. We the people would be fucked.
Be seeing you...
Um, who disposes of the people?
You're basically asking "What happens when the people itself needs disposing of?"
(see 1939 historical information)
I keep telling people it's alpha-quality garbage that needs a rewrite. The goal was good, but we messed up implementation. Pilot has taught us that people are fucking bastards and we need to try this again. The problem is the other side wants to gut it and rewrite it without our "freedoms" or whatever, and so nobody on this side wants to gut it and rewrite it to KEEP THE BALANCE OF POWER.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Zero guns in civilian hands = more guns in criminal hands.
You didn't read my post, did you? Either that, or your reading comprehension is at second-grade level.
Do you also perform surgery on yourself? Do you represent yourself in legal matters?
You didn't read his post, did you? Doing those things is *nothing* like reading the constitution.
Riddle me this: how is it even possible for you, as a non-specialist, to read all the historical documents related to the Framers?
By reading them. Are you stupid?
It's not
You're an idiot. Just read the damn constitution.
Unless you have spent years studying this topic, you have no legitimate hope of understanding it in depth.
Who are you to say how quickly someone can come to an understanding of the topic? Especially when it involves just reading the constitution.
You are just too ignorant and closed-minded to see your own limitations.
You're too ignorant and closed-minded to see your own stupidity and authority worship for what it is. Go and lick the government's boots some more, drone.
[End Of Line]
Homicide rates in the United States have been dropping and are the lowest since 1906 or so.
http://www.ricknevin.com/uploa...
The last mass violence spree was with a knife. So he is going to do what, ban knifes? Ban anything that can be used to hurt people?
The elephant in the room is that mental health services have been slashed for decades and even when people are identified as being unstable there is little that is or can be done to help them before they become violent.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia".
Traditionally, the term has been defined as "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, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Using this logic every ruling by the Supreme Court should be 7-0. Instead we have hyper-partisan activist judges like this guy who are pushing their agenda using an appeal to authority.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Good thing Knives are not arms.... oh wait.
What knives/cutters were used in the most recent stabbings, what cutters were used in 9/11. Ban them all!
Oh ya, this is going to work really well.
Take everything from the proles so they don't threaten the oligarchs!
Why, when analyzing the 2nd Amendment, do these so-called "scholars" mince commas and words explicitly in the text as written in the Constitution to derive the intent of the authors?
Why do they not read the Federalist papers, in which the founding fathers mention an individual right numerous times? (28, 29, 46, which I won't quote because you can find a much better summary here.)
Why do they not read the state constitutions written around the time, that reflect, in similar language, also an individual right?
1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
See the entire timeline here.
Listen, I get it. Stevens wants to amend the Constitution to revoke the explicit ordained right to possess firearms. Why lie about it and claim that it was never intended for individual protection?
So you want to also limit free speech to old white dudes on soap boxes and manual movable type printing presses?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
As an American, I would love it if we had a gun policy like Japan or UK etc, (ever hear of a drive by stabbing?) but the U.S. has been so gun crazy for so long and there are so many guns out there, getting rid of all them would likely be impossible. Not to mention the gun nuts that would rather go down shooting than hand over their guns. I just can not buy into, "more guns will make us safer"...
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Literal, out of context interpretations of sacred documents by the masses has been great for science.
There is a middle ground in citizen scholarship, between taking a document at its most literal and complete deference to the the high priests. An educated populace should understand the nuances that led to a document being written in the first place and applying critical thought to determine if those reasons are still valid today or if the document should be evolved.
-Chris
You're probably ALREADY serving in the militia, by US law:
"UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
à 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
wasn't it some guy michael who did that documentary, showing that there are an average of THIRTY FIREARMS PER PERSON in Canada, yet there were only two gun-related murders in the entire country that year. by contrast, i remember the camera man showing the city of detroit and this guy michael saying that there had been tens of thousands of gun-related murders in just that one city of the united states, alone.
no: if canada's population can be sensible about guns, then gun "control" in america is not the answer. basically we may reasonably deduce that there's something terribly wrong with american society, resulting in many individuals placing little value on another person's life and them being sufficiently stressed or pathologically outright insane as to be capable of killing. passing laws to remove the guns *will not stop that*. it is simply not connected.
if [sensible] citizens are not permitted to defend themselves from their own government, what we then have is a situation where the Oligarchy of the United States (see http://politics.slashdot.org/s... ) could basically murder those people who see it as their duty to protect their fellow cizitens from tyranny.
hmmm... where have we seen that happen before? and before anyone *outside* of the united states imagines this to be a "local problem", remember that the united states has been doing things like bombing other countries and cutting off communications (cutting underwater mediterranean cables for example) of any country that attempts to e.g. start selling oil *not* on the $USD standard. so basically if the united states ends up in chaos it means the rest of the world ends up in chaos as well.
sensible U.S. Citizens: please make your voices heard. loudly.
What you *should* find interesting is that this guy knows a metric crap-ton more than you do about the history of the Constitution, and maybe your opinion is like a second grader giving advice to NASA about how to construct their next heavy lift vehicle.
I do not oppose personal ownership of firearms, but I find it really arrogant for armchair legal history scholars (read: ignoramuses) to try to foist their particular skew on history.
Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.
Me so sorry, Masa! Oh lordy lord, how dare ah step out of mah place 'n quweshtun authoritah! Puh-leeze don't whup me, Masa! I'll never roam ag'in!
You know what I find arrogant? Armchair character assassins, who don't know me from Adam, assuming that I have less understanding of American history than the next guy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
While I don't want this change, I am glad that someone is actually talking about this. Everyone else either wants to ignore the constitution, or reinterpret it in their favor. No one ever talks about amending it any more. Even when that is clearly what is necessary to proceed.
This problem extends to issues beyond gun control. Politicians are constantly weasel-wording laws to avoid constitutional issues. Instead, if we really want the government to be able to take images of us through our clothes at airports, read our email, detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without charges, grant copyrights that extend nearly forever, allow same-sex couples to marry, establish a national healthcare system, regulate marijuana, etc... then we should amend the constitution to say these things. Instead, we just pass the laws anyway, then spend decades fighting over them.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, pp 87-88.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, June 4, 1788 (From J. Elliott, Debates in the General State Conventions 425 (3rd ed. 1937).
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
That was almost word for word the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, which makes our 4th President essentially the author of said amendment. But he also had this further to say in "The Federalist", in which he DEFINES what it means:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
That last one was straight from the author of the amendment himself....
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons. Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it? Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
Ezekiel 23:20
I agree on some level, but with caveats -- if words don't mean anything, then the rule of law is a joke and tyranny is that much easier. As written, the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow the government to disallow gun ownership. So to the anti-gun lobby I say, "Change the constitution or get outta here."
It's the legal foundation our country is built upon. If there were sufficient agreement that the second amendment is detrimental, it could be eliminated through the amendment process.
Why does everything need a federal law anyway? There are state and local laws that could be used to address the concerns of people in high population density areas, and if there's enough benefit from those, the support for a federal law would bubble up from there.
Do you think people in the Bible Belt and California want to be governed by the same laws? There's no reason that different cultures should not be permitted to have laws appropriate to their communities.
The United States would be in a lot better shape if people protected privacy, protected the freedom to assemble/protest, and fought campaign funding abuse ( Citizens United, etc ) the way the NRA fights for guns. It would be a lot more secure in freedoms as well as its physical safety.
Look, he wrote a book; he wants to generate sales. How better than to make some argument that will polarize everyone?
Come on, sheeple.
You can' control you anger, so everyone else has to leave? no. If you cant control yourself, you leave.
"Something as basic as the 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTELY NOT above our heads."
It's poorly written. IT was slapped together becasue people couldn't come to a solution to how to fund a military, and it shows.
If it was well written and easily understood we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Besides that, they constitution is designed to be changed with time.
That doesn't even get into the issue that the verbiage passed by congress is different then the verbiage that was ratified by the states.
You sir, are the doofus. Educate yourself.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.
Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?
Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.
Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So women don't get guns?
Upthread someone said that Switzerland requires that everyone keep track of individual rounds of ammunition. I'd be okay with this in the US.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.
We are a stable, mature, modern democratic state. We have an operable court system and the rule of law. All of this - ALL of it - comes from us.
We elect people. They represent us. If we don't like the way they are representing us, we elect someone else.
That is how government works in a democracy.
So when you suggest that we need to be armed in order to protect ourselves against our government, what you are doing is suggesting possible violence against the people that WE elected. This line of thinking can be called a lot of things. But for sure, it is Anti-Democracy.
If you are in the minority and you are losing elections and you do not like the way those elected officials are governing... if you think arming yourself is the answer... then you clearly do not understand or support democracy.
Overthrowing, fighting against, or threatening a democratically elected government is not patriotic. It is not constitutional. And sure as heck is not what the founders envisioned.
They were worried about monarchies and kings. Not properly elected officials you happen to disagree with.
He hasn't officially been a judge in a while so he's allowed to say what he wants.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
william bonney would have been proud...
(yeah, simpsons ref.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is all about government being able to expand its power and make sure that the citizens lives are controlled by government rather than vice versa, by people who are obsessed with power and basically want to be dictators, to have unlimited power over peoples lives. They want a defenseless population and this leads to dictatorships.
I agree, that the general population in the country should be provided arms, as it is done in Switzerland.
The same is true of historical documents: word meanings shift, and context is lost. If you think think you can read the US Constitution, in isolation, as if it were an ANSI-standard C program, you have willfully kept yourself ignorant of the reality of human history.
If you think that I cannot read the constitution or historical documents, then you're just a mindless bootlicking piece of trash. Mindless authority worshipers can never comprehend what it's like to have opinions of your own.
You seem to be assuming that everyone is as profoundly ignorant as you, and that authority figures are always right. Not sure why. Our system was set up so that the people ultimately have the power, even if not directly. Authority worship just doesn't factor into it, and a single authority that dictates how to interpret the constitution just doesn't exist.
[End Of Line]
I'm pro-second-amendment and socially liberal. There are plenty of others like me.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
If you have a basic understanding of how the English language was written at that time, and an understanding of the definition of the word 'militia' at the time of the writing of the amendment, there is no debate. The writers wanted everyone who could serve in a militia to be able to have a firearm. Those who could serve in a militia were THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. There is no reason to think any differently.
What amazes me is how many of the same people who will state that the Bill of Rights clearly gives women the right to have an abortion, will twist the 2nd amendment around to say that citizens should not have guns. (Note I'm not trying to start a discussion on abortion, I'm just saying that if you can read abortion into the Bill of Rights, then gun ownership cannot be questioned.)
You can argue all day about whether the 2nd amendment should be in place. It's a lot harder to argue about the intent. The founding fathers thought a free people should be armed. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
So keeping is not owning? Really?
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both. It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes - as it covers both people who should and shouldn't be given weapons (missing a foot vs. being mentally handicapped, for example), both "disabled people should be denied weapons" and "disabled people shouldn't be denied weapons" are irrational opinions unless further elaborated what "disabled" means. Of course "he doesn't think that disabled people should have access to weapons", since the opposite would be dangerous. And he probably doesn't think that disabled people shouldn't have access to weapons either. It's basic logic.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm in favor of gun control, but I think most people will tell you this idea goes too far.
First of all, forget the idea that the constitution guarantees you the right to have as many weapons as you want of any kind. That's stupid. The first amendment guarantees the right of 'free speech', but you can't yell 'fire" in a crowded theater. You can't drive up and down the street with a sign on your car that says "my neighbor is a child molester', and you can't publish a newspaper that prints obviously libelous and untrue stores without repercussions (although some do come pretty close). Freedom of religion doesn't allow for human sacrifice, even when the victim is willing. So the idea of limitations on the Bill of Rights has a great deal of precedent.
Except when it comes to guns.
But you can't have an RPG, can you? You can't seed your lawn with land mines. By statistics, nuclear weapons are safer than hand guns. Nobody has been killed by one of those in over fifty years. But would you want everyone to have one? There are limits people are willing to accept, but nobody agrees on just where to draw the line.
People who live in rural places where there are dangerous animals or no local protection need to be armed to protect themselves. My mother-in-law lived on a farm with no neighbors for miles. She kept guns, and occasionally needed them. But the idea that someone living in a gated NJ suburb needs an AR15 is just dopey.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortunately, they frequently do it with guns. Guns make it so much easier, no thought, just react. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Show me the difference. A bad guy is often a good guy with a couple of extra beers in him, or who had a bad day. An unarmed drunk is a nuisance. An armed drunk is a danger to children.
So the idea, the one used by many countries, is to keep guns away from people who don't need them. Crazy people, people with a history of violence. People who are careless enough to let their guns fall into the hands of those people. Can you show me a way to make that happen? Till you can, I lean toward the policy they use in the UK. Basic guns, rifles, etc. are fine. If you need a hand gun, you have to show me why, and I'll have to be really sure you need it before I let you have it.
More guns isn't more safety, if that were the case the US and Iraq would be the safest countries on the planet, but they're not. People in the US live in a fantasy world created by cowboy movies. The real old-west was very different, and quite dangerous till even they started controlling weapons in towns.
To fix the 2nd amendment simply: s/(arm|weapon)/technology/gi
The spirit of that amendment should have included all technology, not just weapons -- A fact we cryptographers are made painfully aware of in the classification and control of our mathematics as if they were munitions.
Does he really think curtailing guns will stop mass killings?
It has worked before. Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath
is not the occasional shopping mall looney. It is the scum which invariably manages to gain control of any body of governance. That is what the founding fathers sought to address. It was worded vaguely in order for said body of governance to ratify it.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I said nothing of the kind, which shows your imbecility.
What shows your imbecility is your non-stop replies that demonstrate your authority worship.
Again, what you and your conspiracy-whackjob nutcase
Where are the conspiracy theories that I have claimed are happening? I didn't. Unless suggesting that authority figures can (and are, often in the sake of getting more power, as history shows) be wrong is considered a conspiracy theory?
My point is only that this is a question for scholars, not for morons, like your honorable self, who believe that they can infer the entirety of Constitutional history from a few pages.
I've read numerous historical documents and understand the terminology in the constitution. This does not require your precious scholars or judges.
By the way, I want to compliment you on your excellent use of selective reading -- it confirms my opinion of your sort as being intellectually lazy.
I'll compliment you for the exact same thing, you intellectually lazy piece of garbage. You may actually have a brain, but you're too lazy, and too swayed by your pre-conceptions to use it.
It's so easy to turn all of that back on you mindless authority worshipers.
Now, be a good little pseudo intellectual
"pseudo intellectual" is a good way to describe you authority worshipers.
[End Of Line]
One of the problems with advanced weapons systems is they require a bunch of effort and facilities to produce, maintain, and use. So while they are fearsome, they are vulnerable to a large force that takes over their support structures.
For example while the US's combat planes are the most amazing the world has ever known, they only work when they have secure airfields to operate from. If those get taken over, they are in a world of shit. Which is why they have security but that security is men with guns. The planes can't defend their own airfields, for many reasons.
If you want to see it on a small scale, well ask yourself why the US has been unable to secure Afghanistan or Iraq. They had considerably more forces than your silly "1 aircraft carrier" scenario, it was hardly the whole population fighting, yet after years and years, they have been unable to secure the countries.
Lots of people with small arms are a force all of their own.
If George Zimmerman had had a sword or a nunchaku, he would be dead.
If George Zimmerman had been patrolling the neighborhood with a sword or a nunchaku he would have been a Ninja Turtle.
In this context, "go away" is an expression that approximately means "let's mod this down into oblivion", which is exactly what happened (so far).
You are making some decent points (some, not all of which I agree with), but the original poster was just advocating blind deference to academics. In this context, that is the wrong answer, as any doofus in civics class could tell you.
What if we turn the idea around and say that all gun owners are automatically members of the militia and are required to spend 2 weeks/year training with their fellow militia members (at their own expense). They should also be first in line if and when it ever becomes necessary to activate the draft.
Very few people in the US are "armed to automatic weapons". The majority of us have semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, which fire one shot each time you pull the trigger -- just like revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action and other firearms with magazines. AND WE'VE GOT FUCKING GRIZZLY BEARS! (and several other nasty species)
We can go on and on about who should be allowed to have a gun, that the 2nd amendment needs to be fixed and the historical context of what the words mean.
What Stevens and others who support strict gun control are missing is a part of the Bill of Rights that is rarely discussed: the preamble.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will be ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the people that requires, or is indeed subject, to endless interpretation. The preamble captures the contemporaneous debate issues - should the US Constitution attempt to list the rights of the people in a document that was designed to list the limited powers of the national government.
The compromise was a list of rights that were considered so fundamental that "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Those clauses were restrictions on the powers of the national government.
1st Amendment - "Congress shall make now law..."
2nd Amendment - "...shall not be infringed."
3rd Amendment - "No soldier shall..."
4th Amendment - "...shall not be violated..."
There are many who believe the Bill of Rights is a granting of rights to the people when it is actually a harsher, further restriction on the powers and authority of the federal government.
If one looks at the 18th amendment one sees that the prohibition on alcohol was not simply a prohibition but was a specific grant of power to the national government to regulate alcohol. It wouldn't have been enough to simply outlaw alcohol. The amendment had to grant an additional power to the government.
Stevens' amendment to the 2nd amendment would not prohibit the private ownership of firearms nor would it grant a power to the national government to regulate that ownership. Stevens' proposed amendment would simply reinforce the mistaken belief that the Bill of Rights grants rights to the people rather than restricting the power of government.
Much of the attitude regarding the role of the Bill of Rights can be traced to the 1930s when Congress and Roosevelt found a friendly Supreme Court willing to change the definition of commerce to allow the Commerce Clause to be used to regulate all manner of activities.
People are still willing to say, "The Constitution gives me that right," when, in fact, the Constitution give you no rights. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government so they couldn't infringe on the rights you have simply because you exist.
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
-----------
About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.
I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.
Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.
That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC! I installed MyCleanPC right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!
MyCleanPC is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could!
My client's response? "MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!
Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in trouble. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC. After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!
MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
-----------
A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.
How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.
This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh and depressing reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.
A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why the
[End Of Line]
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both.
I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.
It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes
The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The 2nd Amendment is not poorly written when taken in context of the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendment is not a grant of a right to the people but is a specific prohibition on the national government.
The Constitution is not designed to be changed with time except through the amendment process. The concept that we will nilly-willy change the definition of words so that we can enforce any law we want and still claim adherence to the constitution is ridiculous. It begs the questions, why even have a written constitution if it is subject to change by merely changing the definition or meaning of words? If we merely want to follow the current fashion regarding fundamental rights why bother writing any rules that limit the power of the national government?
Until the 1930s, when Congress and Roosevelt found a sympathetic ear in the Supreme Court, there was no question that the national government had no authority to infringe on many of our rights. It was only the redefinition of the word "commerce" that allowed the national government to use that as a penumbra to cover all sorts of activities that would have previously been seen as infringements of our rights.
If Stevens wanted to really amend the Constitution to regulate firearms then he would propose something along the lines of the 18th amendment that brought is prohibition. He would grant the national government the power to regulate firearms rather than attempt to further cloud the issue and reinforce the concept that the Bill of Rights grants people rights rather than further restricts the power of the government.
Rare event in a small country, you have to wait 100 years to prove it. China will have invaded and easily occupied the disarmed country before that milestone is reached, however.
When the constitution was written, the only forms of long distance communication involved horses and either yelling or writing on paper. The founders could not have foreseen things like a telephone or even the internet. The danger posed by mass communication and instant spread of ideas is too strong to overlook. Things like "twitter revolutions" and "cyberbulling" and "anonymous slashdot comments" are a danger to society. Therefore, the first amendment should be rewritten to specifically include only communications spread orally or written by horseback. If you take away the second amendment, there is *nothing* preventing the above from happening. The second amendment protects all of the other amendments. Even though we live in a modern and peaceful society today, there is nothing that guarantees this will continue in the long run. Civilizations rise and fall - almost always due to the failure of centralized power. Weakened and dependent populations survive only based on centralized power - when it falls so do the people. Strong, independent, and empowered people survive *despite* the failure of centralized power.
Unfortunately they were incorrect.
Mod parent up.
Anyone who thinks that modern, asymmetrical warfare means trading blows with similar weapon systems hasn't been paying attention to the last DECADE PLUS of our history.
There isn't a Taliban air force yet the Taliban is still around despite our air force bombing them for years.
add "not" and be done with.
Like this?: 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... Not!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
James Madison, (you may have remembered his name as he was one of the primary authors of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fourth president of the US, etc..), wrote under the pseudonym Publius a letter that was published in news papers in and around this new group of states. A whole series of these letters and essays, which are now collectively known as the Federalist Papers, were written to help explain to the people why they should ratify this new document and accept this new form of government. The people at that time were a little on the leery side and really didn't have a lot of trust in governments (having just fought a war with England and such).
In the Federalist Paper #46 Madison wrote
Not all supporters of gun rights are conservative. I consider myself armed and liberal, and agree with the following quote:
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx.
It is possible for both statements to be true...that is, that there are cases where lethal self-defence is the only way to stay alive, but *also* that on average owning a gun makes it more likely for the owner of the gun to be injured/killed.
If this is the case, the each individual gun owner needs to decide whether they think they're going to be subject to an armed attack in their house, and also beat the odds of being injured.
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok ... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself ... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years ... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of his income. If the govt. *really* wants to FINALLY do something constructive with the land they sat on for over a century? Again, fine ... but do it in a sensible way. Inform people of exactly what's going on (not LYING about it), and if it's something like a solar project? Why not just build it there and leave the cattle alone? I don't see why they couldn't co-exist and keep everyone happy.
I just came across Canada stabbing victims identified as students: ‘They were all good kids’. The dichotomy is intriguing:
(1) The victims were 100% innocent. (2) The murderer was 100% guilty.Bang Bang You're Dead is a great way to explore the question, "What if this dichotomy were wrong?" Now, I don't mean to assert that victims always match the pattern in Bang Bang. Sometimes people lash out at folks who had nothing to do with their pain. But sometimes they do. And when we assert (1) and (2), we sometimes depart from a true description of the situation. Do we care about this?
The idea that merely removing guns from the populace will stop the 'badness' which leads to a good proportion of mass murder is delusional. It'll merely suppress visibility of the problem. Sadly, many are just fine with this. Treating the symptoms is easier than treating the cause. False dichotomies are easier than uncomfortable tensions.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to.
1 + 1 = 2, you fucking moron.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to.
1 + 1 = 2, you fucking moron.
Ha, funny.
That is what you were going for, right? Because that's how I intend to take it, regardless.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok ... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself ... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
So much information, but lets make your vision a little clearer., shall we? First it does not matter if animals graze on land in nature, you would not like it if I let my heard of cows on your land to graze. Secondly Bundy is building physical structures on the land, unless you dont call trenches that he is building to provide water physical structures, on the land. As for grazing fees, it does not matter if he decides to do the repairs to fenses himself, he owes those fees, he is using the publics land, he does not get to decide unilaterally if he wants to stop paying.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years ... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
The government did not just buy up that huge track of land, atleast not anytime in our generation, or our parents generation, or even thiers. They have owned the land for just as long a Bundy's family has been using it. They just formed the BLM to manage it. Also the government owning land is one of the ways they offset taxes. As for why it did not bother anyone, it is because until 20 years ago they were paying the fees, until he stopped. Also they did not want to sieze the cattle, they wanted it off the public land...major differnece
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
it is not Bundy's land, he has to go for what the owners say, or he can find other grazing land.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of
When you cant win, ad hominem.
His antipathy towards our most important civil right, the right to self defense, shows that Stevens was never fit to be admitted to the bar at all. The second amendment doesn't need fixing, it needs ENFORCEMENT.
The right to keep and bear arms isn't for the government to grant or withhold, and the second amendment doesn't even presume to do so. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, it cites one important reason for preserving it, and forbids the government from infringing it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If the government really wanted to assert control, it could use tanks, jets, nukes and many other weapons which you don't have access to. Syria is a prime example of why arming everyone does not guarantee anything.
Canada is a second example that arming everyone is both unnecessary and needlessly increases gun-related deaths.
Because if there's one right that needs to be guaranteed and protected from tyranny... it's the "right" of the armed forces to be armed.
Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I thought it was a bit sketchy before what exactly the 2nd amendment meant, but specifying it with this addition really underscores the absurdity of the position.
Esoteric reference.
It's very curious how Slashdot (and other large web forums like Reddit) mostly lean left on every issue..... except gun rights/gun control, where an NRA convention that Charlton Heston himself would be proud of breaks out every time. I've never figured out why.
It will be easier to fix SCOTUS than the constitution. Considering the 27th amendment is the most recently ratified in 1992. It also holds the distinction of taking 202 years to become ratified after being submitted in 1789. Of course it deals with congressional pay and not anything of real import to average citizens.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Sounds like a senile old socialist.
Isn't it curious how Fmr. Judge Stevens wants to add words to this amendment that would restrict arms to only those in the military? If we did as Mr. Sevens suggests, then we'd have the same situation as if the Second Amendment were repealed.
Judge Stevens: if you don't like the Second Amendment, then just say so. Don't cloud the issue by trying to apply a "fix" that really isn't.
Yeah the Second Amendment sucks. But the Bill of Rights is too important. PLEASE DON'T MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Do you really want to open up a discussion on whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion needs a little "fixing"? For every enumerated right that you care about, there are huge numbers of people who'd be glad to see it deleted.
Most of the land was originally the feds in the first place and only leased to others. And before then the land belonged to the natives who lived in the area before the white man came and decided they wanted it instead. At no point in the long history of southern Nevada was there ever a divinely granted right to this farmer or his ancestors to own or occupy the land.
Grazing cows are very damaging. Granted that damage was done hundreds of years ago. Hint, the southwest wasn't alway barren dessert. The introduction of horses made a huge difference.
Cheap storage VM.
His proposed fix is a little too wordy. We should use more brevity and make the meaning the forefathers intended more direct and precise. Instead of his proposed change being:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
Should simply be:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why make it so complex and leave it open for conjecture?
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
I agree that the wording of the 2nd Amendment COULD be construed as to state that all persons shall have the right to arms SO they will be available for the militia.
How then to reconcile this claim with Article 1 section 8 "the Congress shall....set the discipline of the militias....officers to be appointed by the states".
That sits squarely with the idea of the Militia being an organized and trained body with all men being compelled to perform training.
Absent this compulsion, for whatever reason, nullifies any claim to be a member or potential member of the Militia.
It follows then that there cannot be personal right, given that the mandatory service in training is absent.
Stevens is correct, but I think the 200 years of precedent before all SCOTUS before Roberts the right wing ideologue, was more than sufficient to prevent Heller or this issue.
Only a deliberate attempt to redefine "militia" could lead to the tortured "reasoning" of Heller before the Roberts court.
Interesting sexism there...
I see nothing in there requiring any of that.
Big brother knows best. I'm too weak and irresponsible to use freedom wisely, therefore I should not have freedom. Freedom is slavery!
Sorry, but people aren't going to stand for this sort of revisionism.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Gangs and Mobs are just competing governments and they already have guns, so this change in the law wouldn't really change anything compared to today. Murder and coercion are crimes either way.
The street thugs robbing 7-11s would get shot by armed 7-11 clerks (if corporate policies changed too).
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
If the government is willing to disarm itself first, I might be willing to consider the proposition, but when the elite bureaucrats can have armed bodyguards, personal ccw and our police forces are armed to the teeth for no-knock paramilitary raids on civilians, forgive me if I'm hesitant to give up my right to self defense.
Sticking a bunch of cows in one spot and leaving them is damaging I suppose but so is keeping them off the land. High intensity grazing is basically necessary for healthy grasslands. No more million head hers of roaming bison? You NEED cattle to prevent desertification.
Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.
More like zero lead in your lawful peanuts = more lead in your unlawful peanuts.
As it stands, guns in civilian hands can stop guns in criminal hands, which makes it different than lead in peanuts since zero lead in your lawful peanuts can't stop the lead in your unlawful peanuts.
Give me an analogy that fits with self defense, and maybe we'll get somewhere :)
Grazing sheep and goats is very damaging. Cows on the other hand, not so much. Sheep and goats will graze down to the root bulb, pull it up, and eat it before moving on. Cows don't do this, they will graze down to the ground, but generally leave the root ball intact. The major portion of the damage done to the southwest was the product of sheep and goats. (I know this because I live where the Chihuahuan desert moved north 100 miles during the wool and mohair era of west Texas) Now, cows CAN damage land, but only if kept on it to the point where they are starving to death anyways, at which point they will probably consume the root bulbs of the grass, but if your to that point, you have another problem entirely.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The 2nd amendment was not put there for cattle ranchers and farmers and people who hunt for food.
It was specifically put there because the founding fathers recognized that the human spririt has failings.
One of those failings is the one THEY were most familair with, and Mr. BUNDY out on his Ranch in Nevada is finding out right now.
HIstory is quite clear about this point: Governments have a nasty tendancy to kill, and destroy themselves along with the laws of the land and the citizenry with them.
If the people are denied the unconditional purchase and ownership of ANY weapons, governments will have their way with them.
Contrary to that is, of course what we know to be true: If no person who gets out of bed in the morning feels like controlling, possessing or stealing, or killing his neighbors were around, I would agree. We would not need weapons.
But we live in a world were a small fraction, about 1% of the population have uncontrollable urges to Murder, Steal, Rape and Loot our country.
If everyone is not armed, they will eventually take over. It also makes it VERY expensive for say, the Russians, Europeans or Chinese to ever EVER get the notion of invading and setting up on US soil. So arming everyone has lots of benefits.
But unfortunately we have subject A: Mr. Harry Reid from Nevada.
But we do not live in that sort of world with Mr. Reid and his ilk around.. We live in a world, were Harry Reid, a Senator from Nevada has colluded with foreign interests, to use his ability as a law maker to make laws that make it OK for China to steal land from a American citizen.
When Harry Reid says for example, you can't break laws I make for my own benefit to steal Mr. Bundy's land AND you are a domestic terrorist for resisting my business investments as such...
WELL WE HAVE A WHOLE NEW KIND OF COUNTRY WE ARE LIVING IN. ...For his own personal gain himself, and his family. That form of government is not a democracy. Or haven't you all heard?
It is a Oligarchy. http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
What? The USA has no engineers who could build, manufacture and create a solar energy plant as good as a Chinese government firm? Really?!
News to me for those of you sitting in your parents basement after 4 years of engineering school looking for a job!
Of course we do and worse yet, I wouldn't trust Chinese parts in something as critical as a power plant in the USA.
In the end Senator Reid, has colluded with foreign powers to steal this land, and profit from it, including his family.
O L I G A R C H Y.
According to the Constitution, that is TREASON, as it redraws the borders such as what wars do, and therefore has made war on the American people for his personal gain.
Secondly why do you need snipers to come out and target Bundy over were his cattle are grazing? Unless of course you know what you are doing is against the law, and immoral and he would resist?
Third there are laws that have been ignored, that have means to grand father Bundy into the ownership of the land he grazes his cattle on. I am sure an agreement could be reached on that without the need of Military snipers, Blackhawk helicopters. These laws are totally ignored. That is to be expected, because this isn't about the LAW, it is about Reid and his kid getting a sweet deal on a solar energy plant.
Bundy is a special case because he has been grazing those lands before most of your grandfathers were born, over 100 years his family has been there using that land the same way he always used it.
The response from the Feds makes absolutely no sense. Certainly no sense in formenting, provoking the American citizenry with military assets placed all around the ranch.
How do we fix it?
1) Reid resigns immediately.
2) Bundy is grand fathered into the lands he has been on for over a 100 years using existing
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
As worded, police would be prohibited from having guns. Unless police count as milita, in which case that guy in Nevada suing the police for violating his 3rd amendment rights should win.
"...the intention was a check of power: that the people would rise up and fight a corrupt government and take it back."
Nice try. The founders intended that the well-regulated militia be under the command of the government. If you don't believe me, google "whiskey rebellion".
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
it takes a 2/3rd majority of both house and senate to amend the constitution. Thats never going to happen. We cant even get enough to agree in order to override a veto from the POTUS. You also have the 1936 SCOTUS ruling that says that you should be allowed to have the same weapons used by the military of the day. At the time, a short barreled shotgun was NOT used by the standing army. So he violated the NFA by not registering it and paying his $200 tax stamp. The ONLY reason the 1986 full-auto ban still exists is because NOBODY has yet brought it before the courts and sited the 1936 SCOTUS ruling. Clearly 3-shot burst and full-auto M4's are widely used by many branches of our military.
btw today's state militia is the Sheriff's department and by extension the local police forces granted their authority from said sheriff's departments.
Deadliest school masacre yet in the U.S. featured only one gun, and that was incidental:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Which is no defense of anything in particular except perhaps caution about what laws can actually prevent in the face of determined malice.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
even before our constitution every settler was REQUIRED to have at least TWO muskets, a bag of powder, and so many pounds of ball shot. It was expected that every able-bodied male of 14 years old or older (at the time that was enough to be considered a man enough to fight) to participate in the defense of your town, state, or property from invaders.
Even field artillery was considered a 2nd amendment issue
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
** In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
He has no business being on the bench. A big F-You goes out to the bastard.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I propose we strip John Paul Stevens of his citizenship and toss his ass out of the country. He has forgotten what it means to be an American citizen. His kind is a danger to this country and should not be tolerated for a split second.
Oh, and take away his considerable retirement checks.
This 2 minutes to load bullshit has GOT to stop. a soldier was expiated toreload and fire in 15 seconds for at least 4 minutes. They used a paper cartridge, with the powder, wad, and ball wrapped inside, a solder would take the cartridge, rip the end off with his teeth, pour a little powder into the pan, drop the rest into the barrel, and ram it home with the rod. at this point, it was raise, cock and fire. Now, a Pennsylvania Rifle on the other hand, could take 30 seconds to a minute to reload, because the ball fit much tighter, making reloading a more difficult process. It also had a lot longer range, and was more accurate, and there was not a lot of them in existence.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
How exactly does it make sense to believe that the 2nd Amendment was to effectively protect the military's right to bear arms? The Founders obviously were talking about grassroots organizations and the people and not just another branch of the federal army like the national guard is now.
The guy does NOT own the land. The land has been owned by the government for as long as he has been using it. He owns 160 acres, that is it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Nevada never had bison.
Cheap storage VM.
this has been discredited by almost everyone, including fox news...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
When you make it illegal (or very difficult) for good and law-abiding people to own weapons, then only criminals will own guns.
Make no mistake- people that are out to do bad will have no trouble at all obtaining weapons and using them and will have a field day knowing that even more of the good citizens have been stripped of their rights to protect themselves, their families, and their property.
As an outsider (I live in Australia) I find it amusing (and slightly scary) that removal of an individual's rights are automatically assumed to be evil.
In Australia, most people *don't* have the freedom to carry hand-guns (or crossbows or semi-automatic assault rifles) and mass killings in Australia are vary rare (only one that I can think of in the last 20 years).
What we have is freedom *from* mass killings. I'm happy to give up my freedom to carry deadly weapons if it means that most other people also don't have deadly weapons most of the time.
At the end of the day, the ultimate individual freedom is to be able to absolutely anything you want, absolutely any time you want to, including killing anyone you want whenever you feel like it. We deny people that level of individual freedom to protect the freedom of society as a whole to get on with their lives in (relative) safety.
And if someone goes mental in Australia, 99% of the time they go mental with fists or maybe a knife. If we can't stop all murderous psychopaths, I'd far rather have a murderous psychopath with a knife or two in my country than one with several semi-automatics.
I think what's really going on is that the left is trying to tie the second amendment to slavery so they can do what they do with everything else they want to stamp out: call it a 'civil rights issue'.
All that will do is expand the scopes of the definitions of 'disease' to include ever growing cross sections of society.
... a plan to "fix" the Bill of Rights, amendments which have guided and protected Americans for over two centuries, I get very leery.
FTFY
.sig
definitely not.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
People: "body of persons comprising a community". It is a singular noun. "Peoples is the plural." "People" is not the plural of "person" - that is "persons". The second amendment does not refer to the right of any individual person to keep and bear arms outside of membership in a militia. The language is already there, but almost everyone, including members of Supreme Court regularly misinterprets it.
In other places, The Constitution, and the various Amendments, are rather particular about using people or persons, and I'm starting to wonder if the Second wasn't written screwed up on purpose, so that no one could say for absolute certain what it means.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Strange you say? So, let's replace some of the contentious words so we can get a better idea of the sentence structure, without having the associated emotions derailing us.
A well stocked fridge, being necessary to the health of a free man, the right of the people to keep and eat ham sandwiches, shall not be infringed.
Huh. You know, it reads alright to me. The problem isn't the wording. I think the problem is the founders didn't or couldn't imagine a time in the future where so many uneducated and uninvested people would have the opportunity to vote.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
As someone looking at US culture from outside, the attitude towards guns is one of the things I despise most. I can see how the "right to bear arms" made sense before modern weapons but seriously, the gun nut culture and weapons worship that I see from people from US whenever someone has the audacity to suggest that maybe there's too many guns too easily available is just insane.
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
So marijuana is a dis-qualifier, but you got nothing to say about beverage alcohol?
Seriously?
Your reasoning on pot should mean a similar choice should have to be made so that if you own a gun you can never even have one beer.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
When my parents were threatened and decided to get guns, they both trained hard. My dad is a really accurate shot, and my mom is even better. Unfortunately, not everyone is quite so well trained. And some people seem to think guns are toys that you don’t have to be careful with. I’d be in favor of stricter regulations on certifications beyond what you get from an internet course. But I also think it should be a lot harder to get a drivers license. Too many idiots on the road.
As for our right to bear arms, there are two reasons why that right should never be taken away: (1) the government hasn’t demonstrated its ability to protect people otherwise and also often borders on presenting its own threats to the people (I don’t advocate violence against government representatives, but the government DOES need to generally operate in fear of at least political retribution from the people it’s supposed to serve), and (2) we’re too reliant on the government anyway — I think people need to be more self-reliant, not reliant on the nanny state.
In the US, state and federal governments no longer function to serve the people. The fund themselves at gunpoint, taxing the shit out of citizens, but operating primarily to further the goals of a minority of big corporations and major political party agendas that keep politicians fat and in office. Andrew Cuomo has given talks about restoring trust in the government. The government should NEVER be TRUSTED (per se). Trust doesn’t enter into it. It needs to be a centralized resource that pools resources and enacts laws to meet the needs of the people, and it is “trusted” only so far as the people judge its success at those goals, based on sets of internal and external checks and balances.
I trust federal and state governments like I trust Windows: It’s okay as long as I run antivirus software and firewalls and perform regular reboots. And watch it carefully and aggressively save my work and perform regular backups and perform regular maintenance, etc., etc.
Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.
So that would be the same legal scholars who decided that the individual mandate in the affordable care act and the penalty/fee/tax for not having insurance was not a tax thus giving standing but then later ruled that it is in fact a tax and thus was something that was constitutionally allowable to be levied by congress. This seems like a rather tortured reasoning since they ruled one way and then in the same ruling they overturned an earlier part. So you will have to excuse me if I don't put much faith in their legal scholarship if they overturn their own ruling mere minutes after making it.
Time to offend someone
The whole point of the Second Amendment is to never, ever, ever, let a government have total control over our lives (Revolutionary War). The Second Amendment is the FINAL bounce of power. You have the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, the Legislator Branch.....AND the People. If any of those three step out of bounds (of the Constitution), it is our job to make sure they get back in line. I'm not advocating violence against the government (I served in the military) , just saying if these branches step out the Constitution, its our job to protest and make sure they understand they are in the wrong.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to give people the power to fight their own government should the need arise. If you look at the Bill of Rights and what was going on under British rule many of the Rights were added specifically to address issues they experienced. The British were limiting the ability of the people to report on what was going on, was preventing organized demonstrations, was confiscating weapons and forcing private citizens to harbor troops. Without the 2nd amendment the people of the US would have zero chance of overthrowing the government should the need arise. Of course with the technological advances in military weaponry it'd be very difficult to due with personal weapons, but that may be more justification to broaden the weapons allowed by private citizens.
Why not? Political parties press agents have freedom of the press. They're just not journalists.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...it's a sure-fire way to ensure that the 2nd Amendment is exercised with extreme prejudice.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
I can answer that in short order: PMS
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
You basically got every single thing wrong about the case.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This posting on slashdot has motivated for me to go for my handgun license. Everyone has the right to protect themselves and their family.
You can't seem to explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
Not that I really care, but so far we've seen only your claim and absolutely no other evidence that this ever even happened, much less why.
The only thing I've been able to turn up is that both these guys seem to have sites that are alive and thriving.
APK, you need to face up to the fact that nobody is going to believe a single word you say without incontrovertible proof. And since your notion of "proof" equals "link to another long silly offtopic APK flaimbait rant", it's easier just to say that nobody believes anything you say.
Given your history over the last decade (and some), my guess is that this is based on some incident where you spammed their sites until they changed to providers that would block your IP address. Until you provide some hard evidence to the contrary, you are wasting your time bringing it up at all.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sure reads like one....
As others have said, when written it was assumed every citizen would be part of the militia, thus the terse text in amendment II.
;)
I've always thought a good way to enforce the spirit of the words would be to deny gun ownership to anyone who has not served their country.
It could be civil - postal worker (no 90's jokes please), firefighter or police, someone in the executive such as alderman, mayor, congressman - or active duty military.
This harks to the thinking of Robert Heinlein, who in Starship Troopers commented that if you wanted to vote, you needed to have served.
Having gone straight from high school to the Air Force, this has always seemed a sound principle.
Of course, certain individuals (the current NRA leader, for example, who claimed a nervous disorder to avoid the draft) may have different feelings on the matter...
Bundy's family was using it 78 years before BLM even existed. Incorrect.
+++OK ATH
His family was using it 76 years before BLM existed. Incorrect.
+++OK ATH
where's my personal sam site and suitcase nuke? surely the founders meant any type of arms. any argument against those can easily be used against any other type of weaponry. it's all or none or gtfo.
...
That's what judgement is for. There is no way to avoid judgement, and if the Justices can't tell when scope creep is being used to destroy the Constitution, then we're doomed. It's arguable that we're already there.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Going all the way back to the time of the revolution (or a bit after it) a legal president that actually crated two kinds of militia. A select militia and a general militia. In modern times the concept of the select militia has been taken to be the National Guard. Which actually isn't a militia at all as it's directly tied into the US Military. The other end of this spectrum is the concept of the general militia which is actually every able bodies man in the nation. The reasons for this being that in the past there were conflicts between the states and the federal government as a whole as to who was allowed to keep a militia. This precedent still hjolds true today. This is how those 'Michigan Militia' types don't routinely get stamped out by the ATF or DHS.
All I have said here really is a moot point given that what this ass-clown is pushing is a blatant call to revoke the right of the people to own personal weapons by harping on the concept of the militia and playing with the means of works. I won't bother trying to explan why this is completely wrong and instead will direct everyone to check out the episode of Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit' on gun control. They lay it out better and funnies than I could.
What a terribly long-winded way you have of admitting that you've got nothing to back up any of your claims about Reimer and Little.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Are you telling us that the all-knowing and all-seeing APK can't find a simple Slashdot book review?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Once again: You've never offered even so much as the slightest shred of evidence that either of these guys ever had their sites yanked at all.
Until you offer some solid evidence that this even happened, nobody is going to believe you, it's that simple.
Until we see this story from a reputable 3rd party, we are going to assume that you're making shit up and that nothing of the sort ever happened at all.
Again, I remind you that linking to your own posts is not proof of anything.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hey... I just realised that I *know* Jeremy Reimer.
I'll drop him a line after the holiday weekend and see what he has to say about all this.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You apparently don't understand how logic works.
Let's say you post something that makes some claim A.
I post a response which proves that A is false.
You then post B which is merely a copy of A.
Guess what? B is also false, and there's no need for me to repeat my response in order to prove that it is false.
IOW, repeating a falsehood does NOT make it true.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
APK, you really seem to believe that no-one can see that you (NOT some random ACs--YOU) are merely posting the same 3 or 4 trolls over and over again.
IOW, once again, you try to "prove" things by crapflooding.
And once again I remind you that I've no need to make AC responses to your trolls.
BTW, do you have some logical reason for targeting my most highly rated posts for your biggest crapflood attacks?
Especially since you've claimed that a higher moderation score makes a post less valid--in which case there's really no need for you to try to refute it, right?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Why do you keep referring to Ars Technica as my "backers"?
I've no special relationship with the site's owners. I'm a member of Ars, but so are lots of people. It's true that I know a couple of people who work there, but I've not cited anything in our discussions here that's not available on the public areas of the site to anyone who cares to look, even non-members. Available even to folks like you who've had their Ars accounts banned multiple times.
And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?
Provide some actual evidence that this happened.
Since you keep going on and on about about WindowsITPro.com... Let's see what you did there...
*types "WindowsItPro Forums APK troll" into Google...*
Here's the first hit from that site:
http://windowsitpro.com/window...
The very next hit is a Slashdot story from 4 years ago in which you're caught stalking a Slashdot user named clone53421 (much as you've been stalking me):
http://slashdot.org/story/10/0...
Oh dearie me, it just gets better and better... Here you are trolling 4chan:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog...
But I've saved the best for last. Brace yourselves for this one, which features--guess who?--none other than Jeremy Reimer saying, and I quote,
So, APK, how's that lawsuit going that you pretend to have against me? Any luck getting Shaw to cut off my internet access? How does it feel to be the laughingstock of the entire Internet?
Looks like another APK mystery has been solved.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hey... I just realised that I *know* Jeremy Reimer.
I'll drop him a line after the holiday weekend and see what he has to say about all this.
UPDATE: No need for me to do this now.
Although I might still send him a mail and see if he remembers me from that conference. And let him know how much I appreciated his many excellent posts at WindowITPro.com.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Nice try, but the cat's already out of the bag.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Already posted a quote from Jeremy making it pretty clear that you're making shit up.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And whaddaya know, here's Jay from the same discussion thread at WindowsITPro.com:
APK cried: "ou went way overboard man. You brought it on yourself bud doing what you have here and lying + being caught in it as posters noted above, and following me to ntcompatible.com and trying to lie about losing there to myself again your own fault, and portscannings of RoadRummer itself no doubt which is a violation of your acceptable use policy at crystaltech.com as well as your email harassing me and libelling myself on your forums!"
So let me get this straight: 1) You know my ISP is bellsouth.net 2) You incorrectly think that my hosting provider that I use for www.jaylittle.com is crystaltech.com rather than dwsgroup.com 3) You are emailing crystaltech about my alleged portscan (which despite my anonymous admission of you cannot actually prove happened).
Are you retarded? WHY WOULD MY HOSTING PROVIDER CARE WHAT I AM DOING OVER MY INTERNET CONNECTION? I sure hope you don't have children... having one mongloid who thinks he is gods gift to IT is more than enough thank you.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And a quote from Jay in that very same discussion making it pretty clear that you're delusional.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Ok, thanks for the info. That's one of the things I really do like about Slashdot. People from a WIDE variety of backgrounds are here, and can share first-hand information the rest of us wouldn't have.
I imagined the cows would pretty much just ignore such things as solar panel installations, since they're stationary objects and they can graze around their perimeter. Still, building fences around them doesn't seem like a bad idea anyway -- as you probably don't want random people climbing around on them, vandalizing them, etc. etc.
Drop it, APK. You were stupid to bring this episode up in the first place, when it's so easy to prove that you're lying and/or delusional.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Oh, and I just love the fact that you kept claiming that you had no need to offer any proof of your assertions about this episode until I let it drop that I've met at least one of the other participants.
Then, true to form, the "proof" you tried to foist off on us consisted of nothing but links to your own posts on windowitpro.com which I guess you were hoping no-one would follow up on. But by then I'd already used the Google and got straight to the truth of the matter.
Still thinking about sending Jeremy a mail and inviting him to drop in on this thread and give us his own version of events if he likes.
Hey! Maybe I'll offer him custody of the TrollingForHostsFiles account. You think he might like that?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You apparently don't understand how *utterly fucking transparent* you and all your AC posts that sound just like you are, APK.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You're fucking clueless. All I did was type your name into Google and discover what you yourself posted at Ars. And WindowsITPro. And numerous other places.
ProTip: If you don't want stuff that you've said and done before brought up now, don't post it on public websites that get indexed by Google.
And will you please quit posting links to COPIES of your statements that have ALREADY been proven false? If you post X and it's shown to be false, posting a new copy of X does not suddenly make it true again. Pretending otherwise is just fucking stupid, and you're not fooling anyone but possibly yourself when you try to do pass that off as an "unanswered point". When you claim that someone is "running" from such a post because they refuse to keep refuting the EXACT SAME FUCKING LIE again and again that has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN FALSE, you are LYING.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So you trolled people until they vented about you. And for all we know, you created that petition yourself.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Are you REALLY that fucking STUPID? All these points have already been refuted elsewhere.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Already exposed as a lie.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Liar, liar, pants on fire--as I've already shown elsewhere. Not responding to this fabrication again.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
CA's accounting practises have exactly diddley-squat to do with their ability to assess software.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
When the holy bleep did we start letting the cops and the military write our laws or tell us what had to be in them?
They work for us, not the other way around.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Justice Stevens' judicial philosophy during his entire judicial career was basically that it didn't matter what the Constitution said, it only mattered what he felt it should have said. Over the years, his opinions said that the "commerce clause" was intended to eviscerate any retrains on Congressional authority (US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, Gonzales v. Raich) that freedom of speech applies to a lot of things, but apparently political speech is not one of them (Citizen's United v. FEC). At least he's admitting in this case that we should change the Constitution rather than simply ignoring it, but why on earth would the Constitution need a clause saying essentially that you have the right to arms except you don't?
The Gospel according to lolcat
You have retired from the bench and that means you are to take it easy, please don't fret yourself with such heavy matters as gun control. You had the ideal situation when you were on the nation's highest bench to do something about this and well obviously none of you did. So please just don't worry about making big changes to the Constitution now, however you right on the mark in regard to the legalization on marijuana, you may proceed full bore on that issue.
The "Standing Army" of which you speak has been crushing liberty and preventing freedom since 1898.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.