"Clearly there needs to be a list of people who are in the militia (and therefore are allowed to own guns)."
The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question.
No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.
First, it does not stipulate a well ordered militia, it specifies a well regulated militia. This refers at the time to military discipline, not laws. To understand the context of the debate, see Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper 29 quoting one of his critics:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
The phrase well regulated clearly is being used in the sense of having good military discipline, not in the sense of legally restricted. Requiring citizens to actively participate in a militia all the time was discussed and rejected, but this discussion contributed to the inclusion of the explanatory clause of the second amendment. In addition, the seventeenth clause of Virginia's initial proposal for what would become the Bill of Rights is similar to the final form second amendment, but reverses the clauses- it reads:
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
It wasn't ratified verbatum, but it does give insight as to what the thinking was at the time.
I also think that their expansive definition of militia is heavily coda'ed by the state involvement in the militia. I don't think (US v. Miller) talks about a militia that isn't run by the state.
I suggest you read this portion of Us v. Miller again:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
universal registration of guns, similar to the registration of cars now, and
Okay, so just like a car, you would not have to register it at all to purchase it and to operate it on private property. You would be legally allowed to transport it on public roads as long as you were not operating it. Registering of a gun would be optional, and would allow its use on public roads.
universal licensing of those who keep and bear arms, similar to driver licensing now.
No license whatsoever would be required to operate a gun on private land, just as no driver's license is required to operate a car on private property. In order to use a gun on public roads, that gun must be registered and the user must be licenced.
Why exactly do you want to allow the use of guns on public roads? Your proposal is far more permissive of gun use than even the NRA's stance.
... or the 19-year old committing suicide using a gun. (The statistics kept by CfDC use 15-19 as an age group. These statistics, which include adults, are often falsely claimed to refer to children.)
The only Calvin and Hobbes item that was licenced by Bill Watterson other than books of reprints of his comic strips was a single calendar in... 1987? Which he was forced into by his contract and agent fairly early in his career, and regretted. Everything else is illegal use of his characters, and Watterson doesn't get a dime. The problem is that because of his never licence stance, he can't successfully claim any monetary damages for the illegal use (he's not competing in those markets) and there are no teams of corporate lawyers to defend his copyright (There's no cash cow of merchandising to support them.) This makes his works about the worst defended copyrighted works out there, and spawns many, many sleazy and illegal merchandise makers, whom you have unfortunately been supporting. Did you really think Watterson wanted a large line of Calvin pissing on things window stickers?
This is one of the few cases where copyright in my opinion is too weak in the current system; only if you are profiting from a work is it practical to defend it.
This site has the only interview Watterson has given, and two speeches he gave (the latest in 1990.) The forward of one of his collections (I'm blanking on which one) describes the legal battles he had to not licence his work in greater detail.
See this document from the Washington state department of utilities and transportation.
Verizon serves 923,000 residential and business customers in the state, including Everett, Kirkland, Redmond, Anacortes, Camas-Washougal, Ferndale, Lynden, Mount Vernon, Westport, Pullman, Newport, Richland, Kennewick, Wenatchee, Chelan, Quincy, Republic, Naches and Tonasket.
I live in Washington state, and my local phone service is with Verizon.
Re:Old but good light bulb jokes
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 1
Q: How many Solipsists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One.
Q: How many Politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Three. One to screw in the light bulb, and one to confuse the issue.
Q: How many Psychiatrists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One, but it has to really want to change.
Q: How many Californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Californians don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in hot tubs.
I can't quite decide if it's more likely that you mean Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books or Arthur C. Clarke's Rama books. Or maybe Rumiko Takahashi's Ranma books.
I'm generally willing to try new authors, and in fact I did read a few of Kevin J. Anderson's Star Wars books. They were so horrible I'm unlikely to read any of his other books, the only reason I read a second is that I had such high expectations for the series after Zahn's trilogy. It's worse to make a bad book out of a previously good franchise then to write your own bad books. The fact that he latched on to another franchise didn't surprise me, but it did sadden me. So, I can't make an informed decision on the specific book because I have already made an informed, and very negative, decision on one of its authors, so I will not be reading it.
But that is in no way my point. The reason of Halloween here is *purely* commercial and it crushes our *own* culture. What you like about Europe will die when corporatism takes over hard. We have our own ways, and Halloween is just one way of brainwashing our kids into American ideals.
I think I understand this, to a point. The part I don't really understand is the brainwashing comment- are the Americans forcing kids to wear costumes? If you don't like the American-culturally-influenced-activity, don't do it. Blame the people abandoning their own culture, not the other culture for failing to stop others from emulating it.
Several of my coworkers grew up in Europe, many in what are now EU countries, and I know many academics who came to the US from Europe. No Americans I've known personally have moved to Europe permenently (though some have gone temporarily, I know an American who's currently a graduate student in Germany for example.)
Almost all of the toll roads I've been on in the US were automated. (I've never been on a toll road west of the Mississippi, where I've been most of my life; the toll roads in Illinois and New York I've driven on were all automated, I recall only once traveling on a non-automated toll road, in Boston, and I suspect it wasn't automated only because it was a temporary bypass during construction) Your anecdotal evidence is all at odds with my anecdotal evidence. But, more to the point, I suspect that the per capita number of government jobs (as private industry doesn't often support such waste) is generally higher in Europe.
I lived in Canada for a few years, I was quite happy to move back to the US.
Personally, I drive a little Toyota Echo. I live in an urban area, it gets me from point A to point B quite well. My father, on the other hand, drives a big pickup truck. Apparently he's one of the 1%, driving a large, heavy vehicle is quite handy when hauling a large, heavy trailer. I suspect that if you attached a 30ft trailer to his vehicle and to yours his would far outperform yours, including on the turns you stress. The 4WD is practically required during winter months to use an icy, uphill access road he drives up easily. I have seen plenty of little 2WD vehicles on the side of that road or parked at the bottom of that road.
Oh, did I mention? The big truck is a Toyota Tundra.
It's post-crisis as well, Supes gave Batman Luthor's kryptonite ring, after Lex got sick from it. Pre-crisis, kryptonite was much more common, it wouldn't surprise me if Bats had some then, but it was certainly far from unique.
I can recall only four times when both the captain and the first officer left B5 at the same time during the series. Two of them were during the final showdowns with the First Ones and with Earth; in each case one had already left/been called away when the other left in order to command a fleet- not exactly an away mission. In "A Voice in the Wilderness" both left to negotiate a first contact situation in which the alien knew who both of them were and requested their presence. Only one other sort of fits the away mission mold- "War Without End", at which point the officers were concealing their actions from the crew, requiring them to do it themselves. Far short of the "all the away missions" claim.
If you view those statistics for legal immigration in light of the existing populations of those countries, Australia has a more open door than the US does.
I disagree that a ratio to existing population is the most meaningful measure of this. Nonetheless, you're wrong again in your new claim. Australia admitted 63,515 in the last reported year(see previous link) and has a population of about 19.7 million or about 0.321% immegrant/population ratio. The US hadmitted 1,064,318 immigrants (see previous link) with a current population of 288 million , or about a.369 % immigrant to population ratio.
Besides, the original post referred to Southeast Asia - the "leaky boat" scenario - which was a phenomena during the epoch of the killing fields, but not now, so recent statistics are besides the point.
I see no reference to killing fields, people in leaky boats attempt to go to Australia fairly frequently, but the Australian military doesn't allow them to land. Here's a quote from that article: "The government's policy of turning away boat people -- which has bipartisan support from the opposition Labor party -- has attracted a phalanx of high-profile detractors within Australia as well as international condemnation." Is this what you mean by an open door policy? Australia has an actively hostile stance to immigration from non-Commonwealth countries.
As to your second paragraph, I don't see your point. Is there some particular significance to Indian immigrants? There may be a Commonwealth issue for Australians, but the US doesn't much care about that. Each immigrant is counted only once; some with certain temporary visas have been physically present in the US for some length of time, in effect delaying their enumeration- but all that affects is the timing of the count. I hope you'd agree that such immigrants should be counted at some point, and I think the time when they get permenent residence status is the correct choice.
Here are Canada's official numbers and US offical numbers Note that the number of LEGAL immigrants to the US hasn't been less than double the number of canadian immegrants in a decade, and is generally 3-4 times as much. Apparently you haven't checked in decades.
It's clear that, to use your own words, 'it's YOU that's the "fucking idiot".'
False. Here's the Australian statistics for calendar year 2000 and the US Fiscal year 2001 data Note in particular that the US accepted 349,776 legal immigrants from Asia that year, to Australia's 63,515 total legal immigrants from all countries in 2000 (only about half of whom were from asia).
Switzerland, that country right there in the middle of Europe? Where nearly every adult male possesses and maintains a military rifle? All these rifles in the hands of the people... and a death rate from violence there is similar to other european nations.
Reconcile that with your contention that firearms are the problem.
It may help to look at the most recent 2nd amendment case heard by the Supreme court, which was in 1939- United States vs. Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Furthermore, the current legal definition of militia is in Title 10, section 311 of the US code:
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.
Neither the supreme court nor the current US code agrees with your selective definition of the word militia.
Let's take a look at automobile licences and gun licences, shall we?
Simple purchase: No legal requirements for a car; to purchase a gun typically requires a background check, a waiting period, etc.
To operate on your own private property: Car use is unrestricted, and requires no licence or registration; guns involve numerous restrictions.
Use on public roads: This is the case where licence and registration (and sometimes insurance) is required for a car; use of a gun in the same situation is a criminal offense.
In what situation, exactly, are licencing restrictions easier for guns than cars?
Slashdot Mirror
The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question.
No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.
First, it does not stipulate a well ordered militia, it specifies a well regulated militia. This refers at the time to military discipline, not laws. To understand the context of the debate, see Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper 29 quoting one of his critics:
The phrase well regulated clearly is being used in the sense of having good military discipline, not in the sense of legally restricted. Requiring citizens to actively participate in a militia all the time was discussed and rejected, but this discussion contributed to the inclusion of the explanatory clause of the second amendment. In addition, the seventeenth clause of Virginia's initial proposal for what would become the Bill of Rights is similar to the final form second amendment, but reverses the clauses- it reads: It wasn't ratified verbatum, but it does give insight as to what the thinking was at the time.It gets my vote for the best new arcade game of 1987!
Why exactly do you want to allow the use of guns on public roads? Your proposal is far more permissive of gun use than even the NRA's stance.
See the law in question
... or the 19-year old committing suicide using a gun. (The statistics kept by CfDC use 15-19 as an age group. These statistics, which include adults, are often falsely claimed to refer to children.)
This is one of the few cases where copyright in my opinion is too weak in the current system; only if you are profiting from a work is it practical to defend it.
This site has the only interview Watterson has given, and two speeches he gave (the latest in 1990.) The forward of one of his collections (I'm blanking on which one) describes the legal battles he had to not licence his work in greater detail.
The Scott McCloud book you refer to is Understanding Comics, which I also strongly recommend.
A: One.
Q: How many Politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Three. One to screw in the light bulb, and one to confuse the issue.
Q: How many Psychiatrists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One, but it has to really want to change.
Q: How many Californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Californians don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in hot tubs.
This sentence is false.
I'm generally willing to try new authors, and in fact I did read a few of Kevin J. Anderson's Star Wars books. They were so horrible I'm unlikely to read any of his other books, the only reason I read a second is that I had such high expectations for the series after Zahn's trilogy. It's worse to make a bad book out of a previously good franchise then to write your own bad books. The fact that he latched on to another franchise didn't surprise me, but it did sadden me. So, I can't make an informed decision on the specific book because I have already made an informed, and very negative, decision on one of its authors, so I will not be reading it.
Several of my coworkers grew up in Europe, many in what are now EU countries, and I know many academics who came to the US from Europe. No Americans I've known personally have moved to Europe permenently (though some have gone temporarily, I know an American who's currently a graduate student in Germany for example.)
Almost all of the toll roads I've been on in the US were automated. (I've never been on a toll road west of the Mississippi, where I've been most of my life; the toll roads in Illinois and New York I've driven on were all automated, I recall only once traveling on a non-automated toll road, in Boston, and I suspect it wasn't automated only because it was a temporary bypass during construction) Your anecdotal evidence is all at odds with my anecdotal evidence. But, more to the point, I suspect that the per capita number of government jobs (as private industry doesn't often support such waste) is generally higher in Europe.
I lived in Canada for a few years, I was quite happy to move back to the US.
Oh, did I mention? The big truck is a Toyota Tundra.
I feel I must point out that every one of your links spells the word aluminum, even though your link descriptions spell it aluminium...
It's post-crisis as well, Supes gave Batman Luthor's kryptonite ring, after Lex got sick from it. Pre-crisis, kryptonite was much more common, it wouldn't surprise me if Bats had some then, but it was certainly far from unique.
Lumping B5 in with ST is not justified here.
Upgrade?
As to your second paragraph, I don't see your point. Is there some particular significance to Indian immigrants? There may be a Commonwealth issue for Australians, but the US doesn't much care about that. Each immigrant is counted only once; some with certain temporary visas have been physically present in the US for some length of time, in effect delaying their enumeration- but all that affects is the timing of the count. I hope you'd agree that such immigrants should be counted at some point, and I think the time when they get permenent residence status is the correct choice.
It's clear that, to use your own words, 'it's YOU that's the "fucking idiot".'
False. Here's the Australian statistics for calendar year 2000 and the US Fiscal year 2001 data Note in particular that the US accepted 349,776 legal immigrants from Asia that year, to Australia's 63,515 total legal immigrants from all countries in 2000 (only about half of whom were from asia).
Reconcile that with your contention that firearms are the problem.
Simple purchase: No legal requirements for a car; to purchase a gun typically requires a background check, a waiting period, etc.
To operate on your own private property: Car use is unrestricted, and requires no licence or registration; guns involve numerous restrictions.
Use on public roads: This is the case where licence and registration (and sometimes insurance) is required for a car; use of a gun in the same situation is a criminal offense.
In what situation, exactly, are licencing restrictions easier for guns than cars?