This argument isn't even necessary, because the excuse that the Constitution authorizes the government to "promote the general welfare" is bogus.
Those words are in the Preamble to the Constitution. They're there to explain what the document is trying to do; that is, provide a framework for understanding WHY the founding fathers designed the system the way that they did.
Now consider that in the Constitution, specifically Article I Section 8 (which lists the powers of Congress), there is no mention of SocSec. We can only infer that the founding fathers believed (right or wrong) that EXCLUDING the power to enact social security, etc., is precisely what would be guaranteeing our general welfare.
You may disagree with their philosophy, but there really is no question that this was their intent.
Actually, you've fallen into Statist thinking yourself: "the Constitution puts some specific limits on what the federal government can do".
That's actually not true, because it's not necessary. The US Government, at least as defined by the Constitution, starts with ZERO. Then the people, by way of the Constitution, delegate a short list of powers to the government.
So saying that the govt's powers is limited is actually meaningless. You have to recognize that we, the people, have all the power except those few things we've explicitly GIVEN to the government.
Social Security fits the Founding Father's idea of justice
This is absurd. You've made a bald assertion, and it's demonstrably incorrect.
Consider James Madison, frequently called the "Father of the Constitution". Surely his opinions would carry some weight regarding what the intent of that document was. Well, perhaps his most famous statement is the following:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Given Madison's plain statement, the words you've put into the Founding Fathers' mouths are bollocks.
the constitution does give congress the power to make laws to deal with the problems of society
I notice you don't cite the article that does so, and that's because there is no such power granted to Congress. The only thing vaguely related is "...promote the general welfare", but that's not giving any powers, that's only expository text to illustrate what the Constitution is for.
In the body of the document, there is a list of specific powers delegated to the federal gov't, and those are its only powers. (If you don't believe me, see the 9th and 10 Amendments). If it ain't in Article I Section 8, then Congress does not have the power (intervening Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding)
either the FBI isn't telling the whole story or parts of the story is false
So is the press sensationalizing, or is the DHS/FAA empire building? I think the press has its hands full with other stories at the moment, so what does that leave....?
You are misinterpreting this statement. "Lowering the emission levels" is like easing off the accelerator in a car. That's hardly an attempt to travel backwards, is it?
You'd be right if the system were otherwise static, but it's not. Natural activity fixes CO2 from the air, as in the growth of young trees or oceanic algal blooms. The goal is to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that would happen by (putatively) decreasing total emissions level below what nature is fixing. And BTW, Kyoto will demonstrably NOT accomplish that, or anything near it.
there is no reason to assume that the change in the environment will magically just stop when it reaches the edge of human tolerance. In fact, it could well increase
things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake
This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:
the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Consequences of Kyoto
You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful
Previous post continues:
I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.
This is wrong for two reasons.
We already enjoy rewarding lives through a fantastic range of environments, from arctic to tropic, rainforest to desert. Climate change will only redistribute what portion each of these makes of the total. We're not talking about post-WWIII nuclear wasteland.
Kyoto in particular is ill-conceived. It would have a disproportionate effect on our lifestyle, significantly damaging the GDP (i.e., our ability to create wealth). For example, its effect on countries that happen to have great area is exaggerated. See the following
First, this is a hideously complex phenomena that no one really understands. From TFA:
"Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don't, we should be extremely cautious in how much we 'tweak' the system," [Thompson] said.
What I get from this is that we'd better stand very still, because we don't know what changes will do what. For now, the safest course of action is to change NOTHING, i.e., maintain current levels without significant decrease until the science is better understood.
It's entirely conceivable that, as nature has tried to correct for the changes (via algal blooms in the ocean, for example), significant *decreases* could have a recoil effect. It's entirely possible that blindly trying to undo things can get us into more trouble. There are plenty of phenomena (most?) that can't run backwards the same way they ran forwards (you can't pull a nail out of a board and have the board return to where it had been pre-nail; a girl in a skirt jumping man-show style on a trampoline exhibits completely different behavior on the way up than coming down).
Second, why are we so self-centered that we believe that the status quo at the time of our grandfathers is the CORRECT natural balance? Earth doesn't care. She's equally happy with ocean levels a foot higher. Why do we feel that one set of temperatures/precipitations/set of species is inherently better than another?
(and, to completely stray from the topic, why do we feel so rooted to the current environment but not the same way to the Constitution?)
In proprietary closed code, it's impossible for an outside party to determine the number of bugs.
The best you can hope to do is to count the number of *symptoms*, but that's not the same thing as bugs. It's possible, even likely, that a single bug in the code manifests itself as 100 apparently different external symptoms.
So this comparison is apples to oranges and completely meaningless.
No, I think you ignore the fact that there still exists a market (however much the government might try to suppress it), and this will cause the price to level. In the optimal case, those paying less would resell to those willing to pay more, making the profit themselves rather than the pharma companies. Thus the price level stabilizes itself.
Of course, the government HAS broken the above-ground market. This creates a black, underground market. The result is 1) Above-ground, there is effectively a dual currency system, in which customers must pay (a) regular dollars; and (b) what might be considered ration coupons, which is what they can get their insurance provider or Medicare/Medicaid to approve. 2) Rampant crime in smuggling. Consider the case last week where the Dept of Homeland Security raided a house in NJ because they were trying to import flu vaccine. Note that the vaccine was produced by a perfectly reputable manufacturer, and the shortage itself was caused by gov't single-source supply (and why is it the gov't that takes charge of procuring vaccines, anyway?) 3) Guess what the source of the product behind all of those v.i.a.g.r.a. spams that we get? It's the broken market that creates the marketing opportunity the spammers are exploiting.
In conclusion, there really is more to economics than just a supply/demand curve, and you shouldn't enter into arguments on the subject without understanding how the entire market functions as a whole.
Again, you're contradicting yourself (assuming you're the same anon coward). If pharma companies wanted only to maximize profit, then wouldn't they apply this argument globally?
You can't have it both ways. Either direction you make the argument in, your attacks will cut equally on both sides. And since the two sides are being handled differently, there must be some factor at work other than the simple greed that you oversimplify to.
I don't think you're looking into the the economics with sufficient depth. The question isn't whether they return on investment (although I'd question even that). The question is if they deliver the BEST return, compared to the other ways the moeny could be invested.
We'll never know for sure, because when the gov't takes the decisions out of the hands of the market, those that would benefit are no longer able to communicate their needs/desires via pricing (as F.A. Hayek won a Nobel prize for demonstrating). What actually happens may be *nice*, but the chances of it being the *optimal* outcome are quite slim.
As a concrete example, consider the disproportionate amount that's spend on AIDS/HIV research in the USA. I don't have exact figures handy, but per sufferer of the disease, AIDS research gets something like 50 *times* more funding than, say, heart disease or cancer. There's no reason that sufferers of AIDS deserve more research, but since AIDS activism is politically correct, it gets funded regardless of the vastly larger numbers who will die due to cancer or heart disease. If the gov't controlled (i.e., socialist) system worked as efficiently as a market can, the masses of cancer victims would be able to use their collectively larger buying power to get proportionately more research into their maladies.
Huh? Your conclusion is completely unrelated to the facts. If the pharma companies were so greedy, why WOULD they sell to poorer countries at lower prices. It stands to reason that if they're greedy pigs as you say, they'd insist on high prices globally.
You're missing one of the distinctions. To wit, withholding federal funding is quite a bit different from banning anyone from conducting privately-funded research.
The USA may seem more socialist than otherwise, but we do still allow *some* capital investment.
What is the job of a journalist? Is that person merely creating a log of events by recording lie1, lie2? I submit that the real responsibility of the journalist is to investigate Senator X and Senator Y's statements, providing background for the reader (viewer, etc) to see whatever truth might lie behind all of those statements.
If the journalist was doing his job, not only would the raw statements be presented, but so would the factual foundations (or lack thereof) of them be given. Of course, doing this adequately requires that the journalist obtain a significant degree of understanding of the underlying topics.
There are a few fields -- software development, law, accounting -- in which the practicioner must know not only the field itself, but also a separate field to which it's applied (e.g., building an order entry system, judging a patent, budgeting at a hospital). Perhaps that the talent necessary to embrace all of this makes those really qualified to do so quite rare.
12 years ago a shotgun-armed robot was used at the siege of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge:
The FBI had sent a robot vehicle with a telephone to Weaver, which he refused to answer, and was later criticized for it. But besides the telephone, the robot was armed with a shotgun, pointed directly at the door.
http://www.specialoperations.com/Domestic/FBI/Ops. htm
and
As part of their efforts to make contact with the Weavers, the FBI sent a robot with a telephone to the cabin. But the robot also had a shotgun pointed at the door, so the Weavers feared that reaching for the phone could result in death or injury.
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/weaver.shtml
1: > in practice was an alliance of monarchies in > all but name, the office of statholder being > for life
How does this differ from America (serious question, not just baiting)? Exhibit A: Teddy Kennedy. Exhibit B: Gerrymandering to strengthen incumbent's chances of reelection. Exhibit C: the McCain-Feingold incumbency protection act.
There are many other examples of pre-American representative democracy, like Rome. Indeed, the idea of the divine right of kings is fairly modern. Pre-renaissance, the nobility were obligated to the peasants very strongly.
In any case, you still haven't refuted my point about democracy being equivalent to mob rules, and therefore being anything BUT proof against the need for revolution.
2: So all these predecessors to modern arms were known at the time, yet you believe that none of the Framers would have expected further development of the technology -- not even noted inventor Ben Franklin?
It's odd to believe that they wouldn't foresee any changes in military machinery or tactics, when they were so careful to look forward with the rest of the Constitution.
And as an aside, of course there were privately held cannon in America. All Yankee cannon MUST have been private property. Clearly they were not owned by the British. Yet there was no formal American government that *could* have been the owner (remember, we're talking about militias and stuff). So who owned the cannon that the colonial army fought with?
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment is bizarre. Despite the plain language, it's not binding for any particular right until that right has been explicitly incorporated (as you noted) into the record.
To date, the 14th Amendment has not been incorporated.
Whether you're for or against self defense rights, it's very frustrating that the Court won't make an explicit decision one way or the other.
So what you're saying is that the phrase "the people" as appears in Amendments I, IV, X, all refer to individual humans, but when written in the 2nd Amendment, the definition changes, without explanation, to refer to collectives of people and NOT individuals? That's absurd.
And the Courts realize this. In a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court acknowledged it in the Dred Scott decision:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized 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."
1) Just plain wrong. Extant at the time was the Netherlands, for example. And the concept of democracy has been around at least since the Athenians. The thing that was, well, revolutionary about the USA was the idea of limiting the gov't's power to a short list of explicitly enumerated powers, something that seems to have been forgotten.
To the extent that Constitutional limitations have been eroding, replaced by democratic rule, the need for violent revolution is certainly not past. Democracy without limitation is nothing but mob rule, and when 51% of the voters decide to take the property of the minority (as happens every day in the USA, whether or not you believe it justified), a violent revolution is the logical conclusion.
2) The fact that the most common firearm was a smoothbore is a complete red herring, for at least three reasons. First, while in the minority, rifles were still common in the late 18th century. Second, shotguns were common as well, and these afford the power to damage a large number of people in a single shot, so although the number of discharges per unit time may have been limited, the amount of total carnage was still high. Third, what about cannon?
> Can we restrict the kind of gun? In my > opinion, we can restrict the type of gun > to what is reasonable to use in training > and practicing shooting skills.
The Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision said essentially that -- it's intent is for arms of the type useful to the infantry. Interestingly, the reasoning may have been correct but the conclusion was wrong. Because the defendant had skipped town, there was no one to present the fact that a short-barrelled shotgun is useful to the infantry (which it clearly is, as they were used in WWI). This misunderstanding is the only reason Miller, the defendant, lost the case.
> Can we restrict where you can take a gun? > Why not -- the 2nd Amendment protects the > right to own guns, not the right to wave > them around.
I must disagree: "keep AND BEAR arms". Bearing arms means taking them with you.
This is a key distinction, because it's much STRONGER than the restriction in the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment, the only restriction is that Congress can't make a law, but apparently my employer, say, can do so.
Contrast this to the 2nd, which says that the RKAB "shall not be infringed" -- period. When juxtaposed with the 1st, it's easy to read into this that NO ONE can infringe on my RKBA -- including my employer.
And as an aside to a sibling of this post, please consider the etymology of the word "regulated". It didn't mean that it was subject to restrictions as we would read that today. Rather, it means that the militia should be made regular, as in, they should be train in similar exercises, understand commands the same way, etc.
At first blush it seems like a "so what?", but in the context of current events, I wonder if it does give us a little insight.
As quoted above, we see that there are a few winners who got there only by making other players siphon their own potential into the designated winner.
Does this differ significantly from the US presidential elections? I mean, here we have two people who have convinced a nation that one of these two are the only ones who can be winners, and all of us other players can only playing our game their way. They're ensuring their own success, and for some reason we peons are going along with the game.
Slashdot Mirror
This argument isn't even necessary, because the excuse that the Constitution authorizes the government to "promote the general welfare" is bogus.
Those words are in the Preamble to the Constitution. They're there to explain what the document is trying to do; that is, provide a framework for understanding WHY the founding fathers designed the system the way that they did.
Now consider that in the Constitution, specifically Article I Section 8 (which lists the powers of Congress), there is no mention of SocSec. We can only infer that the founding fathers believed (right or wrong) that EXCLUDING the power to enact social security, etc., is precisely what would be guaranteeing our general welfare.
You may disagree with their philosophy, but there really is no question that this was their intent.
Actually, you've fallen into Statist thinking yourself: "the Constitution puts some specific limits on what the federal government can do".
That's actually not true, because it's not necessary. The US Government, at least as defined by the Constitution, starts with ZERO. Then the people, by way of the Constitution, delegate a short list of powers to the government.
So saying that the govt's powers is limited is actually meaningless. You have to recognize that we, the people, have all the power except those few things we've explicitly GIVEN to the government.
This is absurd. You've made a bald assertion, and it's demonstrably incorrect.
Consider James Madison, frequently called the "Father of the Constitution". Surely his opinions would carry some weight regarding what the intent of that document was. Well, perhaps his most famous statement is the following:
Given Madison's plain statement, the words you've put into the Founding Fathers' mouths are bollocks.
I notice you don't cite the article that does so, and that's because there is no such power granted to Congress. The only thing vaguely related is "...promote the general welfare", but that's not giving any powers, that's only expository text to illustrate what the Constitution is for.
In the body of the document, there is a list of specific powers delegated to the federal gov't, and those are its only powers. (If you don't believe me, see the 9th and 10 Amendments). If it ain't in Article I Section 8, then Congress does not have the power (intervening Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding)
So is the press sensationalizing, or is the DHS/FAA empire building? I think the press has its hands full with other stories at the moment, so what does that leave....?
How in the world does one use radar to determine the source of a laser?
You'd be right if the system were otherwise static, but it's not. Natural activity fixes CO2 from the air, as in the growth of young trees or oceanic algal blooms. The goal is to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that would happen by (putatively) decreasing total emissions level below what nature is fixing. And BTW, Kyoto will demonstrably NOT accomplish that, or anything near it.
there is no reason to assume that the change in the environment will magically just stop when it reaches the edge of human tolerance. In fact, it could well increase
Pure speculation, and not worth discussing
things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake
This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:
You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful
Previous post continues:
I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.
This is wrong for two reasons.
What I get from this is that we'd better stand very still, because we don't know what changes will do what. For now, the safest course of action is to change NOTHING, i.e., maintain current levels without significant decrease until the science is better understood.
It's entirely conceivable that, as nature has tried to correct for the changes (via algal blooms in the ocean, for example), significant *decreases* could have a recoil effect. It's entirely possible that blindly trying to undo things can get us into more trouble. There are plenty of phenomena (most?) that can't run backwards the same way they ran forwards (you can't pull a nail out of a board and have the board return to where it had been pre-nail; a girl in a skirt jumping man-show style on a trampoline exhibits completely different behavior on the way up than coming down).
Second, why are we so self-centered that we believe that the status quo at the time of our grandfathers is the CORRECT natural balance? Earth doesn't care. She's equally happy with ocean levels a foot higher. Why do we feel that one set of temperatures/precipitations/set of species is inherently better than another?
(and, to completely stray from the topic, why do we feel so rooted to the current environment but not the same way to the Constitution?)
And don't forget the machines designed to run Pascal p-code.
In proprietary closed code, it's impossible for an outside party to determine the number of bugs.
The best you can hope to do is to count the number of *symptoms*, but that's not the same thing as bugs. It's possible, even likely, that a single bug in the code manifests itself as 100 apparently different external symptoms.
So this comparison is apples to oranges and completely meaningless.
No, I think you ignore the fact that there still exists a market (however much the government might try to suppress it), and this will cause the price to level. In the optimal case, those paying less would resell to those willing to pay more, making the profit themselves rather than the pharma companies. Thus the price level stabilizes itself.
Of course, the government HAS broken the above-ground market. This creates a black, underground market. The result is
1) Above-ground, there is effectively a dual currency system, in which customers must pay (a) regular dollars; and (b) what might be considered ration coupons, which is what they can get their insurance provider or Medicare/Medicaid to approve.
2) Rampant crime in smuggling. Consider the case last week where the Dept of Homeland Security raided a house in NJ because they were trying to import flu vaccine. Note that the vaccine was produced by a perfectly reputable manufacturer, and the shortage itself was caused by gov't single-source supply (and why is it the gov't that takes charge of procuring vaccines, anyway?)
3) Guess what the source of the product behind all of those v.i.a.g.r.a. spams that we get? It's the broken market that creates the marketing opportunity the spammers are exploiting.
In conclusion, there really is more to economics than just a supply/demand curve, and you shouldn't enter into arguments on the subject without understanding how the entire market functions as a whole.
Again, you're contradicting yourself (assuming you're the same anon coward). If pharma companies wanted only to maximize profit, then wouldn't they apply this argument globally?
You can't have it both ways. Either direction you make the argument in, your attacks will cut equally on both sides. And since the two sides are being handled differently, there must be some factor at work other than the simple greed that you oversimplify to.
I don't think you're looking into the the economics with sufficient depth. The question isn't whether they return on investment (although I'd question even that). The question is if they deliver the BEST return, compared to the other ways the moeny could be invested.
We'll never know for sure, because when the gov't takes the decisions out of the hands of the market, those that would benefit are no longer able to communicate their needs/desires via pricing (as F.A. Hayek won a Nobel prize for demonstrating). What actually happens may be *nice*, but the chances of it being the *optimal* outcome are quite slim.
As a concrete example, consider the disproportionate amount that's spend on AIDS/HIV research in the USA. I don't have exact figures handy, but per sufferer of the disease, AIDS research gets something like 50 *times* more funding than, say, heart disease or cancer. There's no reason that sufferers of AIDS deserve more research, but since AIDS activism is politically correct, it gets funded regardless of the vastly larger numbers who will die due to cancer or heart disease. If the gov't controlled (i.e., socialist) system worked as efficiently as a market can, the masses of cancer victims would be able to use their collectively larger buying power to get proportionately more research into their maladies.
Huh? Your conclusion is completely unrelated to the facts. If the pharma companies were so greedy, why WOULD they sell to poorer countries at lower prices. It stands to reason that if they're greedy pigs as you say, they'd insist on high prices globally.
You're missing one of the distinctions. To wit, withholding federal funding is quite a bit different from banning anyone from conducting privately-funded research.
The USA may seem more socialist than otherwise, but we do still allow *some* capital investment.
Mod parent for insight.
What is the job of a journalist? Is that person merely creating a log of events by recording lie1, lie2? I submit that the real responsibility of the journalist is to investigate Senator X and Senator Y's statements, providing background for the reader (viewer, etc) to see whatever truth might lie behind all of those statements.
If the journalist was doing his job, not only would the raw statements be presented, but so would the factual foundations (or lack thereof) of them be given. Of course, doing this adequately requires that the journalist obtain a significant degree of understanding of the underlying topics.
There are a few fields -- software development, law, accounting -- in which the practicioner must know not only the field itself, but also a separate field to which it's applied (e.g., building an order entry system, judging a patent, budgeting at a hospital). Perhaps that the talent necessary to embrace all of this makes those really qualified to do so quite rare.
1:
> in practice was an alliance of monarchies in
> all but name, the office of statholder being
> for life
How does this differ from America (serious question, not just baiting)? Exhibit A: Teddy Kennedy. Exhibit B: Gerrymandering to strengthen incumbent's chances of reelection. Exhibit C: the McCain-Feingold incumbency protection act.
There are many other examples of pre-American representative democracy, like Rome. Indeed, the idea of the divine right of kings is fairly modern. Pre-renaissance, the nobility were obligated to the peasants very strongly.
In any case, you still haven't refuted my point about democracy being equivalent to mob rules, and therefore being anything BUT proof against the need for revolution.
2:
So all these predecessors to modern arms were known at the time, yet you believe that none of the Framers would have expected further development of the technology -- not even noted inventor Ben Franklin?
It's odd to believe that they wouldn't foresee any changes in military machinery or tactics, when they were so careful to look forward with the rest of the Constitution.
And as an aside, of course there were privately held cannon in America. All Yankee cannon MUST have been private property. Clearly they were not owned by the British. Yet there was no formal American government that *could* have been the owner (remember, we're talking about militias and stuff). So who owned the cannon that the colonial army fought with?
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment is bizarre. Despite the plain language, it's not binding for any particular right until that right has been explicitly incorporated (as you noted) into the record.
To date, the 14th Amendment has not been incorporated.
Whether you're for or against self defense rights, it's very frustrating that the Court won't make an explicit decision one way or the other.
So what you're saying is that the phrase "the people" as appears in Amendments I, IV, X, all refer to individual humans, but when written in the 2nd Amendment, the definition changes, without explanation, to refer to collectives of people and NOT individuals? That's absurd.
And the Courts realize this. In a bizarre twist, the Supreme Court acknowledged it in the Dred Scott decision:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized 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."
Numerous inaccuracies, to summarize:
1) Just plain wrong. Extant at the time was the Netherlands, for example. And the concept of democracy has been around at least since the Athenians. The thing that was, well, revolutionary about the USA was the idea of limiting the gov't's power to a short list of explicitly enumerated powers, something that seems to have been forgotten.
To the extent that Constitutional limitations have been eroding, replaced by democratic rule, the need for violent revolution is certainly not past. Democracy without limitation is nothing but mob rule, and when 51% of the voters decide to take the property of the minority (as happens every day in the USA, whether or not you believe it justified), a violent revolution is the logical conclusion.
2) The fact that the most common firearm was a smoothbore is a complete red herring, for at least three reasons. First, while in the minority, rifles were still common in the late 18th century. Second, shotguns were common as well, and these afford the power to damage a large number of people in a single shot, so although the number of discharges per unit time may have been limited, the amount of total carnage was still high. Third, what about cannon?
> Can we restrict the kind of gun? In my
> opinion, we can restrict the type of gun
> to what is reasonable to use in training
> and practicing shooting skills.
The Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision said essentially that -- it's intent is for arms of the type useful to the infantry. Interestingly, the reasoning may have been correct but the conclusion was wrong. Because the defendant had skipped town, there was no one to present the fact that a short-barrelled shotgun is useful to the infantry (which it clearly is, as they were used in WWI). This misunderstanding is the only reason Miller, the defendant, lost the case.
> Can we restrict where you can take a gun?
> Why not -- the 2nd Amendment protects the
> right to own guns, not the right to wave
> them around.
I must disagree: "keep AND BEAR arms". Bearing arms means taking them with you.
This is a key distinction, because it's much STRONGER than the restriction in the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment, the only restriction is that Congress can't make a law, but apparently my employer, say, can do so.
Contrast this to the 2nd, which says that the RKAB "shall not be infringed" -- period. When juxtaposed with the 1st, it's easy to read into this that NO ONE can infringe on my RKBA -- including my employer.
And as an aside to a sibling of this post, please consider the etymology of the word "regulated". It didn't mean that it was subject to restrictions as we would read that today. Rather, it means that the militia should be made regular, as in, they should be train in similar exercises, understand commands the same way, etc.
At first blush it seems like a "so what?", but in the context of current events, I wonder if it does give us a little insight.
As quoted above, we see that there are a few winners who got there only by making other players siphon their own potential into the designated winner.
Does this differ significantly from the US presidential elections? I mean, here we have two people who have convinced a nation that one of these two are the only ones who can be winners, and all of us other players can only playing our game their way. They're ensuring their own success, and for some reason we peons are going along with the game.