Should I win the lottery . . . how much does a team of, umm, educators cost? Say, ex-special forces, perhaps. To find these folks, and "discuss" why they should consider a better, less dangerous career. Yeah, discuss, that's the ticket!
Anyone know what the PowerBall and MegaMillions are up to now? One ticket counts as "entertainment."
So, it's OK to drive a guy out for supporting a belief shared by 40+ percent of Americans? Is it then OK for folks who believe as he does to fire all those on the other side?
Reproduce the content now blacked out. So it's not what is in the FBI's copy? Oh well, let them prove otherwise. Imagine the fun--making up stuff about how the FBI is abusing other rights and planning to plant evidence. Go wild! Just make sure it fits in with what little text they do provide.
10 U.S.C. 311 : US Code - 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.
China? ***MORE*** civilized? Been there. The Great Wall, the Forbidden City, and the terracotta warriors are all very impressive. Their modern culture was not all that impressive. I felt sorry for them, trapped in that tyranny.
All I could think of in Tiananmen square was tanks and squashed protestors. That'd be their answer to both Tea Parties and "Occupations."
So, any society that doesn't protect the rights you assert to be inalienable is, by your definition, uncivilized. Got it. I don't agree, but at least now that I understand your unique and non-standard definition of "civilized" I can understand your position.
Would we agree that any country that does not allow Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, the Right to Remain Silent, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, etc. (minus gun rights, on which we seem to have agreed that we disagree) is "less civilized" than a country that does?
It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized.
I was, but only in a direct response to your comments. "In a civilized society... In an unarmed society..." Where the implication was that an armed society is civilized and an unarmed society is uncivilized. I find such statements to be provably false (how "polite" are war zones? How "polite" was the Old West?), and as such, I was trying to say "you are provably wrong in an absurdly obvious manner" without being uncivilized. Unfortunately, every comment I made was responded to without continuity of context (is that polite enough for "you only post non sequiturs, so I couldn't stick to the topic at hand").
Civilized is also relative. Shaking hands is civilized to Americans, and offensive in other cultures. So, "civilized" is whatever the speaker at the time wants it to be, and implies that anyone who disagrees isn't. Sort of hard to hit a moving target.
Unarmed societies are uncivilized IN THAT the inalienable right (Delaration of Indepence term) of self defense (see McDonald vs Chicago and the earlier Heller decison) is suppressed by the government, leaving The People (term as used in the US Constition) defenceless against miscreants. When the police are not present, the strong may do as they will to the weak, even to breaking into their domicile while they are home. For instance, I prefer a society where a lady can own a gun ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 ) to one where she is not allowed to keep a gun in her home or is effectively blocked by onerous over-regulation ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jan/23/miller-i-bought-gun-dc/ ).
In my view, a society that allows a woman to protect herself in her own home is more civilized than one that insists she cannot.
That is the fundamental question and if you disagree, you disagree. That's fine...it's a free country!
Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me. The US Constitution and the US Supreme Court both say it's her right to be armed, especially in her home.
It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized. If that is not true, you have my apology.
I did discuss the issues, and quoted source documents to support my position.
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights with which our Creator has endowed us (Declaration of Independence).
Self defense is one of those rights so protected (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald vs Chicago).
That is MUCH more civilized than when governments deny their citizens their basic human rights.
You would not tolerate restriction on other rights, like those enumerated in the First Amendment, yet you disparage the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.
In a civilized society the criminal puts himself at risk when doing his crime. In an unarmed society the criminal can freely harm you just for the hell of because he can and there's nothing you can do about it when he's kicking in your daughter's bedroom door.
It's "funny" what you think falls into the category of "reasonably believes...would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury!"
Yeah, if he brandishing a knife or gun, then yeah, you can reasonably believe he might kill you. Absent that, not so much.
The real lesson is getting lost here: We have a right to self defense.
In the wilds of NYC, DC, Chicago, Detroit, et al, the bad guy is free to do as he will. In civilized areas, the right to defend yourself is recognized. Don't like it? Move to the wild, wild, inner city in a gun-controlled "paradise." Hey, why not put up "gun free zone" signs in the windows of your home? Better yet, wear a "sandwhich board" ad that says "gun free zone" instead of "Eat at Joe's."
That's a reductio ad absurdum almost as outrageous as your invocation of Bush.
Hell, you can shoot them for looking like they are going to let the air out of your tires.
You knew that was BS when you type it, right? Nice reductio ad absurdum (however that's spelled).
In UN-civilized places, you're not even allowed to shoot the thugs breaking through your daughter's bedroom door--you aren't even allowed to have a gun in your own home! I'll take civilized San Antonio over the wilds of Detroit, DC, NYC and Chicago ANY day!
As a self defense system, especially in the city, they are GREAT! Criminals in civilized areas don't know who is licensed to carry. Crime goes down. In un-civilized areas where the carry of weapons by honest people is prohibited (Chicago, NYC, Detroit...) big, tough criminals *KNOW* the smaller guy or gal is unarmed and crime runs rampant. That's why our cities are generally safer. And no, we don't have those shoot-outs at every car accident that guys like you used to envision!
In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:
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.
More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths
As a former chair of a Tea Party, I was often saddened by the coverage the various tea parties received: "They are dangerous! They are violent! They are racists!!"
Compare that to the coverage these guys get. It's so positive!
Yet no tea party people had to be pepper sprayed to stop them from pushing the guards around at any facility, much less the Air and Space Museum!
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Agreed! Good grief people...can't you manage to at least suspend the disbelief that a conservative might just possibly be right about something long enough to consider the facts of the arguments? We have to do that every day, since we're bombarded with your position from all sides. It can't ALL be wrong, so we must discern the truth therein. How come so many of you can't manage this?
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Indeed--Gingrich has no chance. He tried to get out in front of the Tea Parties in 2009. Nobody followed.
As for Palin, how many more times will we go through the following cycle? 1. Palin says something 2. Liberal media goes nuts saying it shows how stupid she is 3. Turns out she was more right correct than them, making them look like idiots 4. Palin smiles, pockets big bucks, and plans her next "gotcha" pseudo-gaffe
Don't forget the purpose of that -- It's actually an anti-slavery item. It limited the slave owners' number of seats in the House, which is based on population. Having slaves counted in their census gave them extra seats. Talk about "buying votes!" This limited that.
(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.
I believe the founded/did/ expect us to be able to own and operate cannons, for example... but, I could always be wrong.
Why did the British march on Lexington & Concord? To grab cannons. Why did the Mexicans attack the town of Gonzales? To grab a cannon--see it on the "Come and Take It" flag! The first battles of both American and Texan independence were fought over the right of the citizens to posess field artillery.
Had a chance to get to know Brian Snow many years ago. The guy is not only so smart it's scary, he's also a very kind man. He cares for those around him and shows that in how he relates to those of "lesser stature." Never talked down to any of us, always polite, and very creative with a thoughtful going away gift when I left. NSA technical director? Wow! Glad to see he rose t the heights he deserved.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I win the lottery . . . how much does a team of, umm, educators cost? Say, ex-special forces, perhaps. To find these folks, and "discuss" why they should consider a better, less dangerous career. Yeah, discuss, that's the ticket!
Anyone know what the PowerBall and MegaMillions are up to now? One ticket counts as "entertainment."
So, it's OK to drive a guy out for supporting a belief shared by 40+ percent of Americans? Is it then OK for folks who believe as he does to fire all those on the other side?
Where does that end? Let's BURN THE WITCH!
Reproduce the content now blacked out. So it's not what is in the FBI's copy? Oh well, let them prove otherwise. Imagine the fun--making up stuff about how the FBI is abusing other rights and planning to plant evidence. Go wild! Just make sure it fits in with what little text they do provide.
Can you rise to the challenge?
10 U.S.C. 311 : US Code - 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.
"The Black Cloud," by Sir Fred Hoyle
Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero" still gets me thinking.
"Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank (real name: Harry Hart Frank)
"Star Maker," by Olaf Stapledon
China? ***MORE*** civilized? Been there. The Great Wall, the Forbidden City, and the terracotta warriors are all very impressive. Their modern culture was not all that impressive. I felt sorry for them, trapped in that tyranny.
All I could think of in Tiananmen square was tanks and squashed protestors. That'd be their answer to both Tea Parties and "Occupations."
Ever read Larry Niven's stories about "organ legging?" The Chinese execute people and sell their organs just because they spoke out, or had a prayer group in their home, or joined the wrong religion. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/27/chinese-accused-of-vast-trade-in-organs/?page=all
Poor buggers.
(Off topic: The RomancingAlaska.com site looked interesting)
So, any society that doesn't protect the rights you assert to be inalienable is, by your definition, uncivilized. Got it. I don't agree, but at least now that I understand your unique and non-standard definition of "civilized" I can understand your position.
Would we agree that any country that does not allow Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, the Right to Remain Silent, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, etc. (minus gun rights, on which we seem to have agreed that we disagree) is "less civilized" than a country that does?
It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized.
I was, but only in a direct response to your comments. "In a civilized society... In an unarmed society..." Where the implication was that an armed society is civilized and an unarmed society is uncivilized. I find such statements to be provably false (how "polite" are war zones? How "polite" was the Old West?), and as such, I was trying to say "you are provably wrong in an absurdly obvious manner" without being uncivilized. Unfortunately, every comment I made was responded to without continuity of context (is that polite enough for "you only post non sequiturs, so I couldn't stick to the topic at hand").
Civilized is also relative. Shaking hands is civilized to Americans, and offensive in other cultures. So, "civilized" is whatever the speaker at the time wants it to be, and implies that anyone who disagrees isn't. Sort of hard to hit a moving target.
Unarmed societies are uncivilized IN THAT the inalienable right (Delaration of Indepence term) of self defense (see McDonald vs Chicago and the earlier Heller decison) is suppressed by the government, leaving The People (term as used in the US Constition) defenceless against miscreants. When the police are not present, the strong may do as they will to the weak, even to breaking into their domicile while they are home. For instance, I prefer a society where a lady can own a gun ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 ) to one where she is not allowed to keep a gun in her home or is effectively blocked by onerous over-regulation ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jan/23/miller-i-bought-gun-dc/ ).
In my view, a society that allows a woman to protect herself in her own home is more civilized than one that insists she cannot.
That is the fundamental question and if you disagree, you disagree. That's fine...it's a free country!
Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me. The US Constitution and the US Supreme Court both say it's her right to be armed, especially in her home.
It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized. If that is not true, you have my apology.
I did discuss the issues, and quoted source documents to support my position.
Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights with which our Creator has endowed us (Declaration of Independence).
Self defense is one of those rights so protected (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald vs Chicago).
That is MUCH more civilized than when governments deny their citizens their basic human rights.
You would not tolerate restriction on other rights, like those enumerated in the First Amendment, yet you disparage the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.
How very uncivilized.
While I don't believe they are unrelated, I wish you good luck in finding such a land. Meanwhile...
Here in the USA, the Constitution protects our right to be armed for self protection.
In a civilized society the criminal puts himself at risk when doing his crime. In an unarmed society the criminal can freely harm you just for the hell of because he can and there's nothing you can do about it when he's kicking in your daughter's bedroom door.
I know which I prefer!
It's "funny" what you think falls into the category of "reasonably believes...would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury!"
Yeah, if he brandishing a knife or gun, then yeah, you can reasonably believe he might kill you. Absent that, not so much.
The real lesson is getting lost here: We have a right to self defense.
In the wilds of NYC, DC, Chicago, Detroit, et al, the bad guy is free to do as he will. In civilized areas, the right to defend yourself is recognized. Don't like it? Move to the wild, wild, inner city in a gun-controlled "paradise." Hey, why not put up "gun free zone" signs in the windows of your home? Better yet, wear a "sandwhich board" ad that says "gun free zone" instead of "Eat at Joe's."
That's a reductio ad absurdum almost as outrageous as your invocation of Bush.
You knew that was BS when you type it, right? Nice reductio ad absurdum (however that's spelled).
In UN-civilized places, you're not even allowed to shoot the thugs breaking through your daughter's bedroom door--you aren't even allowed to have a gun in your own home! I'll take civilized San Antonio over the wilds of Detroit, DC, NYC and Chicago ANY day!
Do read Mc Donald vs. Chicago, by the way, and look at the arguments the city made: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
As a self defense system, especially in the city, they are GREAT! Criminals in civilized areas don't know who is licensed to carry. Crime goes down. In un-civilized areas where the carry of weapons by honest people is prohibited (Chicago, NYC, Detroit...) big, tough criminals *KNOW* the smaller guy or gal is unarmed and crime runs rampant. That's why our cities are generally safer. And no, we don't have those shoot-outs at every car accident that guys like you used to envision!
In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:
More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths
As a former chair of a Tea Party, I was often saddened by the coverage the various tea parties received: "They are dangerous! They are violent! They are racists!!"
Compare that to the coverage these guys get. It's so positive!
Yet no tea party people had to be pepper sprayed to stop them from pushing the guards around at any facility, much less the Air and Space Museum!
How about just a little fairness...?
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Agreed! Good grief people...can't you manage to at least suspend the disbelief that a conservative might just possibly be right about something long enough to consider the facts of the arguments? We have to do that every day, since we're bombarded with your position from all sides. It can't ALL be wrong, so we must discern the truth therein. How come so many of you can't manage this?
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Indeed--Gingrich has no chance. He tried to get out in front of the Tea Parties in 2009. Nobody followed.
As for Palin, how many more times will we go through the following cycle?
1. Palin says something
2. Liberal media goes nuts saying it shows how stupid she is
3. Turns out she was more right correct than them, making them look like idiots
4. Palin smiles, pockets big bucks, and plans her next "gotcha" pseudo-gaffe
God how I love watching that play out again!
"...the tea party is nothing but a group of griefers" Sure. Yeah. Right. Just keep telling yourself that!
If the middle left were judged by similar standards, they'd all be branded as the bomb-throwing lunatics we see rioting when the WTO meets.
Guess it all depends on your notion of where the center is, eh?
Don't forget the purpose of that -- It's actually an anti-slavery item. It limited the slave owners' number of seats in the House, which is based on population. Having slaves counted in their census gave them extra seats. Talk about "buying votes!" This limited that.
The militia is defined in the law -- US Code Title 10, section 311
Why did the British march on Lexington & Concord? To grab cannons. Why did the Mexicans attack the town of Gonzales? To grab a cannon--see it on the "Come and Take It" flag! The first battles of both American and Texan independence were fought over the right of the citizens to posess field artillery.
Had a chance to get to know Brian Snow many years ago. The guy is not only so smart it's scary, he's also a very kind man. He cares for those around him and shows that in how he relates to those of "lesser stature." Never talked down to any of us, always polite, and very creative with a thoughtful going away gift when I left. NSA technical director? Wow! Glad to see he rose t the heights he deserved.