Just look what deregulation did for California's electricity customers...
Horsepucky.
California did something they called "deregulation," but it was actually screwed-up re-regulation. They actually forbade local power companies from entering into long-term contracts. This forced them into the spot market, where prices rise fast. Enron took advantage of that -- they were under no long-term contracts for that power, so let the buyer beware. Negotiated, long-term contracts would have saved the CA public $Billions, but the legislature said "no,"
The government set the rules in a way that ensured somebody would get rich off the taxpayers. Isn't that how it always works?
Don't blame "deregulation" when real deregulation had nothing to do with it.
I have what I tell visitors is "My Whatzit." Then, I aske them: Whatzit?
It's the head unit from an old Apollo system that head-crashed around 1988. It has two heads per arm, so the head seek movement only had to travel half the distance (And this thing is MASSIVE--it weighs as much as a modern desktop-sized drive), so that reduction in movement is even more significant.
By the way: Computer Science types figure it out MUCH more often than do those with a EE. Go figure!
Sure, the idea of making money by riding Gibson's coat-tails is a factor...but these quotes may shed some light:
Distributor Rainbow said it hoped the film would "serve as an antidote to all the hysteria about Mel's movie".
. .. Rainbow president Henry Jaglom said: "We decided this is an important time to re-release this film, to provide some counter-programming to The Passion."
1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)
2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.
Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!
3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!
I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.
I don't see where anyone slammed you in this thread. Sometimes, our points of view cloud our "logic." Sometimes we're just being a TROLL. Yes, I have been guilty of both, too...we ALL do it at times!
Seriously, man--lighten up with those who are not your foes!
Before THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934, any American could own darn near anything -- sawed-off shotguns, big & small machine guns, anti-tank weapons, the works! Absent some gangland murders (more due to prohibition) there weren't many problems.
But, the government finally got the willies -- can't have them commoners with guns (gasp)!
Oh, yeah. Great Britain and their gun-control paradise...Riiiiight!
Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime.
Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.
(Footnoted by: "Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001") Gun Facts, version 3.2
The chart on that page (49 of 78) shows the "Contact Crime Victimization Rates" for 1999, giving "% vitimized."
FURTHER: On page 50 of 78, they graph the sharply rising violent crime & robebry rates, and the declining gun ownership rate. There is certainly a strong positive correlation, implying there might be causation.
YET FURTHER: They point out
In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there
is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.
with footnotes crediting Gallant , Hills, Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independence Institute, July 18, 2000, and Daily Telegraph, 1996. (Same link as above.)
That would be an interesting (but not necessarily desireable) way to settle those frivolous suits against gun manufactures. (GRIN!)
Say someone steals your car (you left the keys in it) and uses it in a crime. The victim then sues you and the manufacturer and the dealer!
Luckily, most folks in "the gun culture" would rather avoid using weapons. They are all too aware of how serious guns are. Those on the other side often envision the Hollywood gun-nut stereotype. Thank the Lord that is not how it is, or we'd have had a blood-bath long ago.
Actually, here in Sna Antonio, TX, they now use the Devil-spawned touchscreens with no paper audit trail.
You enter your votes; the machine says "thanks." And off you go.
You can hope it stored your votes correctly. You can hope it will copy the votes into the data transmission devive they use to collect those votes. You can hope the central system that reads that device correctly collects and reports all the votes.
But you cannot *know*.
And not a blind, ignorant, tottering ex-NYC Floridian in sight to blame it on.
Hell, I would LOVE paper ballots over this system!
Starship Troopers (one of my favorites) would have been a short story without the Mein Kampf-esque rants...
What?! The military and society are the polar opposite of Naziism/Socialism!
Yes, the military veterans "took over," but he has them as having designed an extermely free society. Service (which might be military) is the only path to citizenship, but it is not glorified in and of itself. The needs of the state are not taught as overriding free will. Ever read Mein Kampf? Uhg! What a hate fest.
Didn't you see the movie "The Core?" (It stars the lucious Hillary Swank and shows the devastation that awaits a loss of the magnetosphere. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/)
People with pacemakers will all die! Pigeons will get confused and fly into buildings! Electrical Superstorms will destroy ancient Roman Colosseums!
U.S. Code : Title 10: Section 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. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts _search.pl ?title=10&sec=311
As noted in a earlier post, the Supreme Court has the Silvera before it. They may take it. They haven't taken a 2nd Amendment case since Miller (1939 - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=307&invol=174). Miller is especially interesting because there was NO defense presented.
Before you opine further as to whether it's a right or not: READ the legal briefs the Supremes are considering.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf Amicus ("Friend of the Court") brief by Women Against Gun Control: http://www.wagc.com/WAGC-AMICUS-BRIEF.pdf
Amicus by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO): http://www.jpfo.org/jpfobrief.pdf
Amicus by the NRA (finally joining the effort after trying to stop--yes, STOP--it): http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/NRA_amicus.pdf
Amicus by The Pink Pistols (a gay group): http://www.pinkpistols.org/sjc/SilveiravLockyer.ht m
Amicus by The Second Amendment Sisters: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SAS_amicus.pdf
Amicus by Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (for some reason given in peices:
(cover) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_cover.pdf
(brief) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_amicu s.pdf
(table) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_table.pdf
(proof of service) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_pos.p df
Now, here's where it gets REAL interesting. The State of California didn't respond. They filed no brief! For some reason, the Supremes didn't just refuse to hear it (like they did the Emerson case), they required California to file a brief. This indicates they are thinking of taking this case up! http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SCtReq.asp
So, California filed their brief: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/OppCert.pdf
and, finally, The Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment Lawsuit: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/CAreply.pd f
Now, whichever side you're on: READ before you opine, please!
Oh, Ye of little brain! If you had the brain the size of a mustard seed, you'd know that Larry Niven has invented or co-invented or examined thoughtfully many amazing ideas:
The organ banks and organ leggers. See what China is doing now--selling organs taken from "criminals."
The Integral Trees: Life in a huge gas torus in orbit around a star.
Free Parks (with & without CopsEyes): The fragility of society to anarchy.
The Kzinti: Am I the only one who sees how much of the "new" Klingons was lifted from the Kzin?
The UN ARM: One world govt. suppressing anything dangerous. WE ARE ON THIS PATH!
Etcetera, Etcetera, Et-bloody-cetera! Niven has seen the future. What he wrote about in the 70's & 80's we are living to see.
Larry, where do these ideas all come from?! And what trend do you see coming next to the fore?
You live in Minnesota and complain it's *not* cold enough? Sheesh! I moved to Texas to get aways from those sub-zero months.
Seriously: in weather, there is no normal. There is just the average. Average it over some periods, and today's weather may look unusually cold in comparison. It got quite warm during the other interglacial periods, and without the help of any SUVs.
As an aside, although I strongly disagree with you, I have not marked you as a "foe". That's something I reserve for those who are abusive, stupid, and illogical.
My marking criteria are, I guess, a bit looser. You have not been abusive, stupid, or illogical--except that you are my foe on what I consider a core issue of freedom. All who seek to deny that I have the right are by my definition, a foe. One can still respect other aspects of a foe, however!
With that, I guess I'll close. Neither of us is going to convince the other.
I had already given a specific link to the Dred Scott decision. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? navby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393) That decision was in 1856. 1776-1856 qualifies as a long time, especially since the founders thought they had long had that right as Englishmen and most everyone else thought so, too, until just recently. (Might be interesting to do Google searches for early 20th century quotes, if I EVER find the time.)
In what legal sense was it a "bad ruling"? Perhaps you just meant it was a ruling with which you disagreed.
A court proceeding where only one side presents arguments is a bit too kangaroo-ish to bring about a sound ruling. (And I already gave a link to that, too.) Recall, I noted parts of it that support my position. I do not disagree with the Miller decision at all! Miller ruled there was no evidence to show that a sawed-off shotgun was a soldier's weapon. Read it again, folks:
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.
So--since it's not ordinary military equipment it doesn't fall under the class of the objects posession of which could contribute to the common defense. The ruling does not imply "Miller has no right," it implies "we haven't been shown that this gun is one that Miller's right includes possession of."
Playing my game with the Fifth Circuit Court's Emerson decision, are you? That was a better ruling than Miller because it was fairly argued. Everybody got to make a say. Even though I dislike more of what they said (which I do!) http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/ 99-103 31-cr0.htm
Back to Dred Scott. I use it because I am *not* advocating the anti-black position; far from that, it shows the horrors of what blacks went through! They couldn't move about freely; they couldn't assemble freely; they had no free speech; they couldn't even carry guns anywhere they went!
Modern jerks want to continue to deny them their freedoms. They couldn't carry guns then and they can't now. But by the grace of having white skin I could then. It was a commonly and clearly recognized right of white men back then. Just like the freedoms of speech and assembly.
You ask Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"? Sadly, because it was constitutionally correct at that time! It was an evil thing to hold people as slaves, but we needed the Fourteenth Amendment to fix that. And Thank God we got it.
I already noted the Fourteenth Amendment in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&thre shol d=3&commentsort=3&tid=126&mode=thread&pid=4950156# 4952898
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights to free speech, fredom of religion, etc. have all been applied to limit state's authorities
and in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&threshol d=-1&commentsort=3&tid=126&mode=thread&pid=4953698 #4954595
That was back when they were still arguing FOR slavery. But, the Fourteenth Amendment that made the several states respect the people's rights protected under the rest of the Bill of Rights (and which solved slavery once and for all)....
And the Fourteenth is a good thing! Most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states now. Blacks can speak freely and assemble peacefully. But, some folks still don't want to trust them with guns.
You seem to insinuate that I am one of those BASTARDS who want to keep blacks down by asking Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"? Now, at that I take some insult. I have been an EOT (Equal Opportunity and Treatment) rep in the military. I wasn't assigned to the position, I volunteered for the additional duty.
I use Dred Scott because it shows the freedom we have lost. It's a terrible trend. And I fear it continues. (Got free speech at an airport? Where next will you lose it?)
The aside on moderation values was not a dig at you, it was a dig at the moderators. I believe their opinions on this heated issue color their judgement. Please, take no insult from this; 'tis not directed at you. If I want to insult you, I'll do so directly....:-)
For hours of intersting reading, may I recommend http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.ht ml? He has links to absolute gobs of intersting historical stuff on this subject.
Some more recent Supreme Court cases have mentioned some of the terms used, and are interesting:
There's the ruling in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.
as well as the dicta therin:
The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
There is interesting stuff and a footnote or two of interest in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898:
This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantiveright safeguarded by the Second Amendment. 1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. 2 As the parties did not raisethis argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries 1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.
and in the footnotes at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?c ourt=US&vol=000&invol=95-1478#f1f4:
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
All in all, the subject can consume a great deal of time and generate a great deal of passion, no?
Since it was long considered an individual right, and only recently supressed under mis-application of a what was a bad ruling to begin with, I will not consider such an impossibility.
It's a right; it started as a right and it remains a right; the Fifth Circuit Court, under which I fall, has ruled it a right; the Supremes did NOT say it wasn't in Miller, but certainly DID note it as a right in Dred Scott.
You seek to deny me my right as an individual and duty as a member of the militia (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=10&sec=311) to own firearms.
Sorry -- you are wrong.
Aside: Why do your postings, giving few specific quotes & citations, get modded up as "informative?"
If no one was there to say it, it cannot be accepted as fact and is not within judicial notice. Still, 'Tis a nit. The fact of no defense being presented makes Miller a bad case.
If you seek to deny me what I cleary see as my right, I feel no pain at calling you "anti-rights."
To show how much we have lost, again I quote from the 1956 Dred Scott decision:
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
That was back when they were still arguing FOR slavery. But, the Fourteenth Amendment that made the several states respect the people's rights protected under the rest of the Bill of Rights (and which solved slavery once and for all) still hasn't been used to secure the Second? Sheesh!
As for the putzes in the NRA, two points: First, I am not a member because they are TOO willing to see my rights infringed. Senator Frist got a lot of money from them, yet he's no protector of my right to keep and bear arms. Second, they DO file friend of the court briefs, upon ocassion. See http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/Legal/EmersonNRAbrief. htm to read their brief in the Emerson appeal. But, they still don't put nearly enough effort and money into it. They're too into the power/money game of Washington D.C. politics. It ain't that they know they'll lose.
Yes, the NRA mostly whines and plays-along to get-along politics. But there are some much more adamant about this. Take the folks at Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.keepandbeararms.com), the Second Amendmenment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/), etc.
I know some who are damned near ready to start shooting. (Not me--I have both a child to raise and hope yet for a legal solution!) Image a dozen "Beltway Snipers," all across the country, each going after those they perceive as too liberal. NOT a pretty picture.
Still, what was the Battle of Lexington & Concord fought over? Guns. (Cannon, actually.) What was the first battle for Texas's independence fought over? A small brass cannon.
Let's not go that route again--just respect my rights!
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/get case.pl?n avby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393
So -- I have fewer rights than some suggested ex-slaves should have? I should have to get a license to exercise my rights now? That my gun must have some feature that doesn't yet exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Horsepucky.
California did something they called "deregulation," but it was actually screwed-up re-regulation. They actually forbade local power companies from entering into long-term contracts. This forced them into the spot market, where prices rise fast. Enron took advantage of that -- they were under no long-term contracts for that power, so let the buyer beware. Negotiated, long-term contracts would have saved the CA public $Billions, but the legislature said "no,"
The government set the rules in a way that ensured somebody would get rich off the taxpayers. Isn't that how it always works?
Don't blame "deregulation" when real deregulation had nothing to do with it.
For more info, go to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's EXCELLENT site and do a search on "THOR." He helped develop the idea. There are 32 hits, one of which is MEGAMISSIONS AND SPACE POWER. Another is for the book he co-authored with Dr. Possony and Dr. Kane called THE STRATEGY OF TECHNOLOGY, which was a required text at the USAF Academy for YEARS.
Multiple heads per arm? Been done!
I have what I tell visitors is "My Whatzit." Then, I aske them: Whatzit?
It's the head unit from an old Apollo system that head-crashed around 1988. It has two heads per arm, so the head seek movement only had to travel half the distance (And this thing is MASSIVE--it weighs as much as a modern desktop-sized drive), so that reduction in movement is even more significant.
By the way: Computer Science types figure it out MUCH more often than do those with a EE. Go figure!
Uh-huh. An "Antidote" and "Counter Programming."
Hmm--"Can't have people actually believing the Son of God came to us to die for our sins! Nope, can't STAND them Chrisitians!" Is THAT their attitude?
Sigh.
1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)
2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.
Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!
3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!
I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.
And THAT attack comes from the guy who unloaded on ME after I said I didn't like Martha's politics BUT that I thought she got a raw deal.
See The Exchange HERE
I don't see where anyone slammed you in this thread. Sometimes, our points of view cloud our "logic." Sometimes we're just being a TROLL. Yes, I have been guilty of both, too...we ALL do it at times!
Seriously, man--lighten up with those who are not your foes!
The last time this was done was not the 1700s, either. Read about The Battle of Athens, Tennessee, for instance:
Before THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934, any American could own darn near anything -- sawed-off shotguns, big & small machine guns, anti-tank weapons, the works! Absent some gangland murders (more due to prohibition) there weren't many problems.
But, the government finally got the willies -- can't have them commoners with guns (gasp)!
Gun Facts, version 3.2
The chart on that page (49 of 78) shows the "Contact Crime Victimization Rates" for 1999, giving "% vitimized."
Austrilia (sic): 4.1%
England and Wales: 3.6%
Scotland: 3.4%
Canada: 3.4%
Finland: 3.2%
Poland: 2.8%
Northern Ireland: 2.4%
Denmark: 2.3%
France: 2.2%
Sweden: 2.2%
Switzerland: 2.1%
Netherlands: 2.0%
USA: 1.9%
Belgium: 1.8%
Spain: 1.5%
Portugal: 1.4%
Japan: 0.4%
FURTHER: On page 50 of 78, they graph the sharply rising violent crime & robebry rates, and the declining gun ownership rate. There is certainly a strong positive correlation, implying there might be causation.
YET FURTHER: They point out with footnotes crediting Gallant , Hills, Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independence Institute, July 18, 2000, and Daily Telegraph, 1996. (Same link as above.)
There's more. Follow the link.
Oh, and why were the first shots fired in the American Revolution? Because the Brits wanted to take away our guns! Battle of Lexington & Concord Abstract, That Memory May Their Deed Redeem, The Continental Congress; Lexington, Lexinton & Concord, etc.
Oh, and the first battle of Texas's independence? TAKE a GUESS what that was about!
That would be an interesting (but not necessarily desireable) way to settle those frivolous suits against gun manufactures. (GRIN!)
Say someone steals your car (you left the keys in it) and uses it in a crime. The victim then sues you and the manufacturer and the dealer!
Luckily, most folks in "the gun culture" would rather avoid using weapons. They are all too aware of how serious guns are. Those on the other side often envision the Hollywood gun-nut stereotype. Thank the Lord that is not how it is, or we'd have had a blood-bath long ago.
Satisfied, I hit the flashing red Vote button and viola my votes have been cast.
Cast for whom? You don't really know.
A quote usually attributed to Stalin: It doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.
You are far more trusting than I, to say the least!
Actually, here in Sna Antonio, TX, they now use the Devil-spawned touchscreens with no paper audit trail.
You enter your votes; the machine says "thanks." And off you go.
You can hope it stored your votes correctly.
You can hope it will copy the votes into the data transmission devive they use to collect those votes.
You can hope the central system that reads that device correctly collects and reports all the votes.
But you cannot *know*.
And not a blind, ignorant, tottering ex-NYC Floridian in sight to blame it on.
Hell, I would LOVE paper ballots over this system!
Starship Troopers (one of my favorites) would have been a short story without the Mein Kampf-esque rants...
What?! The military and society are the polar opposite of Naziism/Socialism!
Yes, the military veterans "took over," but he has them as having designed an extermely free society. Service (which might be military) is the only path to citizenship, but it is not glorified in and of itself. The needs of the state are not taught as overriding free will. Ever read Mein Kampf? Uhg! What a hate fest.
I just don't see it....
Time to panic!
Didn't you see the movie "The Core?" (It stars the lucious Hillary Swank and shows the devastation that awaits a loss of the magnetosphere. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/)
People with pacemakers will all die! Pigeons will get confused and fly into buildings! Electrical Superstorms will destroy ancient Roman Colosseums!
Nice theory . . . but.
I tried "lying bastard," but didn't get a Clinton Bio.
I tried "commie traitor" and "communist traitor," but didn't get a Jane Fonda Bio.
re: Can you give a single example where a functioning democracy has become a communist, dictatorship, or kingdom?
YES! Hitler, banner of guns and killer of Jews, Gypsies, "defectives," and homosexuals was ELECTED to office.
Enough arguing. Go to the law.
:
s _search.pl ?title=10&sec=311
U.S. Code : Title 10
Section 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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/t
As noted in a earlier post, the Supreme Court has the Silvera before it. They may take it. They haven't taken a 2nd Amendment case since Miller (1939 - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=307&invol=174). Miller is especially interesting because there was NO defense presented.
s .pdf
t m
s .pdf
r .pdfu s.pdfe .pdfp df
p
d f
Before you opine further as to whether it's a right or not: READ the legal briefs the Supremes are considering.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf
Amicus ("Friend of the Court") brief by Women Against Gun Control: http://www.wagc.com/WAGC-AMICUS-BRIEF.pdf
Amicus by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO): http://www.jpfo.org/jpfobrief.pdf
Amicus by the NRA (finally joining the effort after trying to stop--yes, STOP--it): http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/NRA_amicu
Amicus by The Pink Pistols (a gay group): http://www.pinkpistols.org/sjc/SilveiravLockyer.h
Amicus by The Second Amendment Sisters: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SAS_amicu
Amicus by Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (for some reason given in peices:
(cover) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_cove
(brief) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_amic
(table) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_tabl
(proof of service) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/DSGL_pos.
Now, here's where it gets REAL interesting. The State of California didn't respond. They filed no brief! For some reason, the Supremes didn't just refuse to hear it (like they did the Emerson case), they required California to file a brief. This indicates they are thinking of taking this case up! http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/SCtReq.as
So, California filed their brief: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/OppCert.pdf
and, finally, The Reply to California's Opposition Brief in Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment Lawsuit: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/CAreply.p
Now, whichever side you're on: READ before you opine, please!
Oh, Ye of little brain! If you had the brain the size of a mustard seed, you'd know that Larry Niven has invented or co-invented or examined thoughtfully many amazing ideas:
The organ banks and organ leggers. See what China is doing now--selling organs taken from "criminals."
The Integral Trees: Life in a huge gas torus in orbit around a star.
Free Parks (with & without CopsEyes): The fragility of society to anarchy.
The Kzinti: Am I the only one who sees how much of the "new" Klingons was lifted from the Kzin?
The UN ARM: One world govt. suppressing anything dangerous. WE ARE ON THIS PATH!
Etcetera, Etcetera, Et-bloody-cetera! Niven has seen the future. What he wrote about in the 70's & 80's we are living to see.
Larry, where do these ideas all come from?! And what trend do you see coming next to the fore?
You live in Minnesota and complain it's *not* cold enough? Sheesh! I moved to Texas to get aways from those sub-zero months.
Seriously: in weather, there is no normal. There is just the average. Average it over some periods, and today's weather may look unusually cold in comparison. It got quite warm during the other interglacial periods, and without the help of any SUVs.
As an aside, although I strongly disagree with you, I have not marked you as a "foe". That's something I reserve for those who are abusive, stupid, and illogical.
My marking criteria are, I guess, a bit looser. You have not been abusive, stupid, or illogical--except that you are my foe on what I consider a core issue of freedom. All who seek to deny that I have the right are by my definition, a foe. One can still respect other aspects of a foe, however!
With that, I guess I'll close. Neither of us is going
to convince the other.
I had already given a specific link to the Dred Scott decision. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl
In what legal sense was it a "bad ruling"? Perhaps you just meant it was a ruling with which you disagreed.
A court proceeding where only one side presents arguments is a bit too kangaroo-ish to bring about a sound ruling. (And I already gave a link to that, too.) Recall, I noted parts of it that support my position. I do not disagree with the Miller decision at all! Miller ruled there was no evidence to show that a sawed-off shotgun was a soldier's weapon. Read it again, folks:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p
So--since it's not ordinary military equipment it doesn't fall under the class of the objects posession of which could contribute to the common defense. The ruling does not imply "Miller has no right," it implies "we haven't been shown that this gun is one that Miller's right includes possession of."
Playing my game with the Fifth Circuit Court's Emerson decision, are you? That was a better ruling than Miller because it was fairly argued. Everybody got to make a say. Even though I dislike more of what they said (which I do!)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99
Back to Dred Scott. I use it because I am *not* advocating the anti-black position; far from that, it shows the horrors of what blacks went through! They couldn't move about freely; they couldn't assemble freely; they had no free speech; they couldn't even carry guns anywhere they went!
Modern jerks want to continue to deny them their freedoms. They couldn't carry guns then and they can't now. But by the grace of having white skin I could then. It was a commonly and clearly recognized right of white men back then. Just like the freedoms of speech and assembly.
You ask Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"? Sadly, because it was constitutionally correct at that time! It was an evil thing to hold people as slaves, but we needed the Fourteenth Amendment to fix that. And Thank God we got it.
I already noted the Fourteenth Amendment in
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&thr
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights to free speech, fredom of religion, etc. have all been applied to limit state's authorities
and in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&thresho
That was back when they were still arguing FOR slavery. But, the Fourteenth Amendment that made the several states respect the people's rights protected under the rest of the Bill of Rights (and which solved slavery once and for all)....
And the Fourteenth is a good thing! Most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states now. Blacks can speak freely and assemble peacefully. But, some folks still don't want to trust them with guns.
You seem to insinuate that I am one of those BASTARDS who want to keep blacks down by asking Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"? Now, at that I take some insult. I have been an EOT (Equal Opportunity and Treatment) rep in the military. I wasn't assigned to the position, I volunteered for the additional duty.
I use Dred Scott because it shows the freedom we have lost. It's a terrible trend. And I fear it continues. (Got free speech at an airport? Where next will you lose it?)
The aside on moderation values was not a dig at you, it was a dig at the moderators. I believe their opinions on this heated issue color their judgement. Please, take no insult from this; 'tis not directed at you. If I want to insult you, I'll do so directly....
For hours of intersting reading, may I recommend
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.h
Some more recent Supreme Court cases have mentioned some of the terms used, and are interesting:
There's the ruling in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
as well as the dicta therin:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p
There is interesting stuff and a footnote or two of interest in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p
and in the footnotes at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase
All in all, the subject can consume a great deal of time and generate a great deal of passion, no?
Since it was long considered an individual right, and only recently supressed under mis-application of a what was a bad ruling to begin with, I will not consider such an impossibility.
It's a right; it started as a right and it remains a right; the Fifth Circuit Court, under which I fall, has ruled it a right; the Supremes did NOT say it wasn't in Miller, but certainly DID note it as a right in Dred Scott.
You seek to deny me my right as an individual and duty as a member of the militia (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.p
Sorry -- you are wrong.
Aside: Why do your postings, giving few specific quotes & citations, get modded up as "informative?"
If you seek to deny me what I cleary see as my right, I feel no pain at calling you "anti-rights."
To show how much we have lost, again I quote from the 1956 Dred Scott decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p
Sounds pretty clear and settled then, huh?
That was back when they were still arguing FOR slavery. But, the Fourteenth Amendment that made the several states respect the people's rights protected under the rest of the Bill of Rights (and which solved slavery once and for all) still hasn't been used to secure the Second? Sheesh!
As for the putzes in the NRA, two points: First, I am not a member because they are TOO willing to see my rights infringed. Senator Frist got a lot of money from them, yet he's no protector of my right to keep and bear arms. Second, they DO file friend of the court briefs, upon ocassion. See http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/Legal/EmersonNRAbrief
Yes, the NRA mostly whines and plays-along to get-along politics. But there are some much more adamant about this. Take the folks at Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.keepandbeararms.com), the Second Amendmenment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/), etc.
I know some who are damned near ready to start shooting. (Not me--I have both a child to raise and hope yet for a legal solution!) Image a dozen "Beltway Snipers," all across the country, each going after those they perceive as too liberal. NOT a pretty picture.
Still, what was the Battle of Lexington & Concord fought over? Guns. (Cannon, actually.) What was the first battle for Texas's independence fought over? A small brass cannon.
Let's not go that route again--just respect my rights!
. . . check out the old 1856 Dred Scott decision
t case.pl?n avby=case&court=us&vol=60&page=393
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge
So -- I have fewer rights than some suggested ex-slaves should have? I should have to get a license to exercise my rights now? That my gun must have some feature that doesn't yet exist?
Well, SCREW THAT!