by Cog » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 16:34:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'K')eep saying it Cog. And then read up on the Milgram experiment yikes
So when the drone pilot goes home in the evening, after a nice day of droning Americans, and finds his wife's and kid's heads mounted on a stick, you don't think that will give him some pause on killing other Americans.
Read Milgram
Changes nothing. I know full well what humans are capable of doing. But you need to understand that a military occupation of the USA by either foreign or domestic troops is impossible. You never confront the pointy end of the stick in an insurgency. An army marches on its belly. You remove the logistical chain, the solider is just another guy with a rifle.
by careinke » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 17:48:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')f course I do. But the constitution must be interpreted by legal scholars. A very important group of those legal scholars just decided that said constitution legalizes and defends gay marriage.
Jeez Cog, you walked right into that. How does it feel to be amputated just below your man pride. Game. Set. Point. lol
It's a pretty simple document, unless you are trying to bend for your own self interest. Your a smart man, you should be able to understand it.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
-
careinke
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Pacific Northwest
-
by dinopello » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 18:50:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')f course I do. But the constitution must be interpreted by legal scholars. A very important group of those legal scholars just decided that said constitution legalizes and defends gay marriage.
Jeez Cog, you walked right into that. How does it feel to be amputated just below your man pride. Game. Set. Point. lol
It's a pretty simple document, unless you are trying to bend for your own self interest. Your a smart man, you should be able to understand it.
So maybe this will spur a breakoff of this off topic stuff to a constitutional discussion.
The constitution may be simple but laws and situations aren't always. Can Congress pass a law banning civilians from bearing certain types of arms ? Well, of course they can and have. Is it consistent with the constitution? That's up to the SCOTUS. Have the bans on civilians possessing chemical and biological arms ever been adjudicated in the court? I don't know.
by Sixstrings » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 20:41:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'T')hat's up to the SCOTUS. Have the bans on civilians possessing chemical and biological arms ever been adjudicated in the court? I don't know.
Case law on gun control, goes back centuries:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irearm case law in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States There was a 1939 ruling that upheld gun control regarding the size of "shotguns."
Basically, gun control has swung back and forth and I'm not a lawyer nor expert on it but the state of things and rules as they are now has all been hashed out by the courts. If more conservative judges are appointed, then conceivably the rules drift further right, if you get more liberal judges, they will drift further left.
Really, the SCOTUS and courts have always been a legislative review branch. That's their function. The law is a set of words that can't cover every conceivable situation, and may conflict with other laws, and may conflict with other parts of the constitution, or may just be -- in the mind of the justices -- not addressing some pressing common good need in society.
I think the system works. If the executive and legislative branches are failing, then the judicial can step in and be the wise gray haired men to do the right thing about something. Or, if the Court is off the rails and wrecking things, then one or both of the other branches can assert themselves.
So that's what a court does, it rules and explains its reasoning in an "opinion." Is it "legislating from the bench?" Yes, in a way. But that's the nature of courts, and it's been that way for over a thousand years now going all the way back to English judges and common law.
The bottom line about it, the 2nd amendment says:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So what does that actually mean, in objective honest plain english? It's saying:
* The only reason for citizens to have a right to arms, is just that they need to know how to use a gun in case called upon by the GOVERNMENT for defense. That's it. It doesn't say so that folks have a constitutional right to hunt, or just enjoy it for sporting, or self defense, nothin'. The only reason the state's right is somewhat limited in regulation, is just so that the people can know how to shoot a gun in case they need to be drafted.
* It specifically says, "WELL REGULATED" militia. That's very specific, plain english. Well regulated means "well regulated," that means it has a lot of regulations on it.
So that's what the second amendment says. The farthest right conservatives may not like how courts interpret it, but the constitution also set up those courts as the interpreter of the constitution.
If the People would like a much more specific gun law amendment, to prevent broad judicial interpretation, then the People can get a movement going and elect reps to congress to pass an amendment and then state reps to approve the amendment.
That's how our system works, branches of government and checks and balances. Legislative, judicial, executive, and the people. It's a system designed for incremental change and designed to make sweeping, fast change difficult. It actually is, an inherently "small c" conservative governmental system.
(although the judicial branch actually does have "fast sweeping change" power more than the other two branches. But it usually works out for the best. On things like gay marriage, they'll finally decide after it's clear which way the wind is blowing. So what's better, really? Having 40 years of state law battles on marriage and a divided union, or just have the court rule on the darn thing once it's become clear in society where things are headed?
That's how it's always worked, when the Court is at its best. They're just a bit AHEAD of things and progressive, but only when the winds of change are blowing that way and you start to get a problem of half the states doing one thing and then the other half doing something else and then those laws are conflicting with the commerce clause and such, so then the SCOTUS has to step in between the states and make a ruling.)
by SeaGypsy » Thu 17 Sep 2015, 23:28:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'T')hat's up to the SCOTUS. Have the bans on civilians possessing chemical and biological arms ever been adjudicated in the court? I don't know.
Case law on gun control, goes back centuries:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irearm case law in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States There was a 1939 ruling that upheld gun control regarding the size of "shotguns."
Basically, gun control has swung back and forth and I'm not a lawyer nor expert on it but the state of things and rules as they are now has all been hashed out by the courts. If more conservative judges are appointed, then conceivably the rules drift further right, if you get more liberal judges, they will drift further left.
Really, the SCOTUS and courts have always been a legislative review branch. That's their function. The law is a set of words that can't cover every conceivable situation, and may conflict with other laws, and may conflict with other parts of the constitution, or may just be -- in the mind of the justices -- not addressing some pressing common good need in society.
I think the system works. If the executive and legislative branches are failing, then the judicial can step in and be the wise gray haired men to do the right thing about something. Or, if the Court is off the rails and wrecking things, then one or both of the other branches can assert themselves.
So that's what a court does, it rules and explains its reasoning in an "opinion." Is it "legislating from the bench?" Yes, in a way. But that's the nature of courts, and it's been that way for over a thousand years now going all the way back to English judges and common law.
The bottom line about it, the 2nd amendment says:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So what does that actually mean, in objective honest plain english? It's saying:
* The only reason for citizens to have a right to arms, is just that they need to know how to use a gun in case called upon by the GOVERNMENT for defense. That's it. It doesn't say so that folks have a constitutional right to hunt, or just enjoy it for sporting, or self defense, nothin'. The only reason the state's right is somewhat limited in regulation, is just so that the people can know how to shoot a gun in case they need to be drafted.
* It specifically says, "WELL REGULATED" militia. That's very specific, plain english. Well regulated means "well regulated," that means it has a lot of regulations on it.
So that's what the second amendment says. The farthest right conservatives may not like how courts interpret it, but the constitution also set up those courts as the interpreter of the constitution.
If the People would like a much more specific gun law amendment, to prevent broad judicial interpretation, then the People can get a movement going and elect reps to congress to pass an amendment and then state reps to approve the amendment.
That's how our system works, branches of government and checks and balances. Legislative, judicial, executive, and the people. It's a system designed for incremental change and designed to make sweeping, fast change difficult. It actually is, an inherently "small c" conservative governmental system.
(although the judicial branch actually does have "fast sweeping change" power more than the other two branches. But it usually works out for the best. On things like gay marriage, they'll finally decide after it's clear which way the wind is blowing. So what's better, really? Having 40 years of state law battles on marriage and a divided union, or just have the court rule on the darn thing once it's become clear in society where things are headed?
That's how it's always worked, when the Court is at its best. They're just a bit AHEAD of things and progressive, but only when the winds of change are blowing that way and you start to get a problem of half the states doing one thing and then the other half doing something else and then those laws are conflicting with the commerce clause and such, so then the SCOTUS has to step in between the states and make a ruling.)
by MD » Fri 18 Sep 2015, 03:17:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'I') think you guys are off topic.
The Fiorina-Clinton matchup has been talked about with glee for some time.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If Carly Fiorina gains any traction from her barbed attacks on Hillary Clinton, the right-wing cartoons will practically draw themselves: Carly and Hillary in a teeth-baring cat fight, Carly’s claws like a tiger’s, HRC’s eyes as red as a Demon Sheep’s, their hair seriously mussed, and Benghazi burning in the background.
As one man tweeted, “Let the Cat Fight begin!! Fiorina will tear Hillary to shreds.”
“Fiorina vs Hillary in 2016,” someone else raved. Why? “Because men love a cat fight.”
It is indeed a male dream, especially males who are Republican presidential candidates (and who isn’t?).
just a tad!
Oh well, it's too far gone to bother with splitting it off. I guess I should just change the title and go with it.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
