Wednesday Open Thread
Bush wants $50 billion more for Iraq - "Planned request signals confidence that Congress won't prevail on pullout"
Oh really? This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Wed, 2007-08-29 09:16
Tags:

Comments :
Healthcare in the US.
Two articles that make me question all those who champion US Healthcare as the world leader.
Patients seeking an appointment with a dermatologist to ask about a potentially cancerous mole have to wait substantially longer than those seeking Botox for wrinkles, a study published online on Tuesday by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology said.
It also gave this as one of several examples:
"In Boston, the median Botox wait was 13 days, versus 68 days for a mole examination."
Guess it just goes to show what the biggest concern of the Medical Profession is right now, quick easy cash versus ruling out cancer in a patient. But that is only one symptom of the malise we all face.
The nation's poverty rate declined last year for the first time this decade, but the number of Americans without health insurance rose to a record 47 million, according to annual census figures released yesterday.
Some may not like a single payer system. But no one here can argue that those nations that have it have better average healthcare than we do here in the US, and in most cases it costs HALF what we pay for here.
bush43 wants to attack Iran and he's willing to do so
whether you consent to it or not. Again, two articles today:
U.S. soldiers released eight members of an Iranian delegation on Wednesday, a day after the group was arrested at a hotel in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military and an Iraqi government spokesman said.
"Associated Press Television caught blindfolded men being escorted from a Baghdad hotel. Yassin Majid, an aide to Iraq's prime minister, said the Iranians who were detained were employed by Tehran's power ministry and were invited by Iraqi government officials to the capital to sign an electricity supply contract. They were released Wednesday morning, he said." So we arrest diplomats, again.
This is the same day that dubya gave a speech demanding Tuesday that Iran end any support for extremists in Iraq "at once" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East.
curiously, the same article stated the obvious:
"The United States has expressed its discomfort over the increasingly strong relationship between Iran and Baghdad, disapproving of comments made by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on a recent visit to Tehran. Some Western analysts have argued that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the US invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, helping Tehran to boost its influence in the region."
The ramp up to war with Iran was begun a while back. bush43 is just starting to use the very same methods and reasons they used to get us to invade Iraq. Can we stop them? God I can only hope so.
everyone
including all the main Dem candidates know that we have to strike Iran if they get on the verge of acquiring nukes. That's the only case in which we will bomb them. You, and the rest of the left "netroots" disagree with the consensus of our entire political system that if negotiations fail and Iran is about to get nukes, we attack.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We can't ender.
We have no realistic means by which to prevent them acquiring nukes if they so desire.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
bullsh*t
of course we have realistic means. It's called attacking them.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The people who say that we CAN'T attack Iran are right.
It would be a disaster in every respect, and would make an already-unstable, volatile and dangerous part of the world, the Middle East, even more so.
With what, Ender?
What specifically do we attack them with?
The army and Marines are out. They are barely managing to hold onto Iraq and according to the pentagon by april they won't even be able to maintain the "surge."
There's no way they can spare the hundred thousand of men needed for a real land invasion.
So that leaves us with the Air Force and Navy. Iran has a very good anti-aircraft network but I believe we could take it out over the course of a few weeks. Then we could start sending bombers.
But to what end? Airpower has never won a war. It has only assisted ground forces to win a war. Air superiority is an enormous advantage for the one side but without the ground troops it cannot win. We can blow up some of their infrastructure and radicalize their population but that doesn't help us.
What is this winning gambit you think we can unleash?
The best I can think of is a combination of airstrikes to keep them busy while special forces go in to attack nuclear infrastructure. But that's still a loser. In the first place out SOF haven't excatly done great of late. In the second place we don't seem to have the vaguest clue where their alleged nuclear weeapons infrastructure is.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
we went over this multiple times
This would not be a war in that we do not need to invade. All we really need is to destroy their nuclear capabilities. We do NOT need ground forces and NO ONE is contemplating using them aside from the small special forces units to assess the results of the strikes.
We can take out their anti-aircraft network in days, not weeks. You are not very familiar with what we can do apparently with just our airforce against a country that is quite inferior with their russian tech.
The whole thing would take less than a week.
Of course there would be severe repercussions and oil prices would rise, but Iran's nuclear ambitions will be set back at least 10 years.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We HAVE been over it
and you've been wrong each and every time.
The military has acknowledged that they cannot take out Iran's nuclear capabilities with a bombing campaign. Iran has rough mountainous terrain, some of the most advanced tunneling technology in the world, and over one and a half million square killometers of land in which to hide and bury their infrastructure.
WE CANNOT BOMB THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
That's a fact. You need to accept it and move on.
You aren't paying attention. Russian anti air defense capabilities have gitten a hell of a lot better since the cold war. Consider:
source
That supposedly lousy Russian military tech is severely outclassing comparable brit and french models, and yes that's the same system the Iranians bought almost thirty of a few years back.
The Chinese have also been buying this system as part of their modernization, and they are very serious about that. They fully intend to have the capacity to hold us off if they should choose to take taiwan by force. These are not crappy soviet tech. It's quite modern, and very dangerous. Yes, I believe out grossly bloated military can take their air defense out, but not as easily as you suggest.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not only does Iran have air defense...
...they could disrupt the global economy by removing their oil production from the market, and attacking shipping through the Straight of Hormuz. It was shown in various recent war games that littoral warfare in a tight environment like the Persian Gulf could be very dangerous for our largest ships (including carriers). Iran could also leverage their influence in Iraq and Lebanon to make our lives truly miserable.
Attacking Iran is a surefire way to drive the Iranian population into the waiting arms of the unpopular mullahs; it's precisely the wrong approach to take. There's no telling how serious the international political repercussions could be; we are already viewed as the biggest threat to world security, if we initiate another elective war... I shudder to think of it.
We are courting disaster by even contemplating this insanity.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
For the record,
In fact, that is what O'Reilly said about Iraq
.
Iran is a much, much larger country.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
apples and oranges
No one is talking about ground invasion, holding territory, or attacking populated centers. Why would you make this meaningless comparison?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What do you think would happen after the bombing?
By your comments, you seem to think that nothing would happen.
I can't believe you're really so blind. We'd be in the biggest pile of dung that this nation has ever been in. And you seem to think that's nothing.
Diplomacy Ender. Not creating bigger problems.
we'd be fine
This is flat out false on its face:
we fought Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan who were 1000 times stronger than Iran and you are whining about us having the biggest problem ever because of Iran. Let's not overbloviate here.
Diplomacy also only works when the other party is interested in it. When you pretend to have diplomacy while the other country is laughing at you all the same doing exactly what you are trying to prevent with this "diplomacy" your answer is still more diplomacy while my answer is enough is enough.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Redux:
I'd imagine it's logic like that that got the Soviet Union into Afghanistan. And that certainly turned out well!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Oh, c'mon now:
you think Iran is just going to sit there and let itself be bombed? Really?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Exactly. One huge difference between Iran and Iraq...
...is that Iran is not defenseless. Thus, it does not meet the usual criteria for American "intervention." The people alacritously beating war drums would do well to consider that.
"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Those quotes are funny
The irony of many of them smacks one across the face. It is the exact opposite of what they all said.
Thanks for the afternoon laughs.
War with Iran
The drum beat by the warmongers has been going on for a while, and yes it is very similar to allthe stuff they said about Iraq. All of which was BS.
However the situation is rather more complicated with Iran. With the bulk of our land forces tied up in Iraq or exhausted after multiple tours of duty in same there is no possibility of a land invasion of Iran. None. Iran is much larger than Iraq (about 4x), much more populous (about 3x Iraq), and it's military isn't worn down by over a decade of sanctions and bombings.
The current government of iraq is friendly with Iran and would likely forbid the use of their country for attacks. A serious attack on Iran would almost certainly lead to losing Iraq as the only people working with us, the ones we've dumped hundredsof billions of dollars into would become hostile to us.
So the most Bush could really do is to launch some air sorties and cruise missiles, probably from the carrier group that's in the persian gulf. I suppose the other possibility would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike but I can't believe even bush is that dumb. I know, I know, his record speaks volumes of his stupidity but I don't see it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Everything you point out is correct.
Those that support attacking Iran don't care about the consequences even though they argue we must attack Iran because of the consequences. Hello irony & paradox.
The reasons you point out are all true. We don't have the manpower to invade Iran, let alone occupy it. Just throwing bombers and cruise missiles at it will only make the situation worse world wide for the US (also convienently ignored by the pro attack folk).
Any offensive move made by Iran with regard to the use of nuclear weapons will result in the annialation of Iran. So what's the fuss? They want nukes, we can't really stop them, we can only slow them because they have everything they need to do it and don't need to buy anything from foreign sources.
Better judgement is a casualty among the people who want to use the military like this.
The use of nukes would endanger the entire world, including the
United States, imo. Total madness!!
Good news? Bad news?
I'm not sure what to make of this.
story
I hate to see pakistan in the headlines, frankly, because one day that place is going to start WWIII. At the same time making a clear break between the office of president and the military seems potentially good.
Anyone know more about the situation?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Doh, beat me to it
I know Bhutto was supposed to be the future of Pakistan way back when but got pulled down by rampant corruption. Musharraf seems to be our bad guy except when he's not. That's about it =(
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Oh, really!?!?!?!
Bush wanting yet another 50 billion dollars for Iraq?!?!? This is absolutely insane. Let's hope congress grows a backbone, puts its foot down and says a resounding no to Bush's demands!! They've caved into G. W. Bush's demands far. too. often, imo.
I'd guess not.
Most likely scenario seems to be that the surge will continue til early next year then subside. We'lll keep somewhere around 120,000 troop sin Iraq until Bush leaves office and then whoever follows on will pick up the pieces.
Of course since Iraq will still be an albatross around the GOP come nov 2008 it makes it very likely the next pres will be a dem.
I suppose I should get pissed off about the people who will die in the meantime but I can;t muster the indignation. Bush is determine to screw us, and he's succeeded, aided and abetted by republican perfidy and democratic callowness.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Consulting dictionary:
perfidy...perfidy...
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Perfidy
"The act of violating faith or allegiance; violation of a promise or vow; faithlessness; treachery. "
Yes, I scored a 780 on my english portion of the SAT.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Small disagreement
which I have seen evidence for in the news lately
: we will pull out some troops to assuage the masses and to make it look like we are making progress and can now afford to pull some troops out of Iraq.
All in a disingenuous effort to try to make lessen the calamity the Republicans face in the next election, mind you, as you can see by the proposed timing (August of 2008).
Good point. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
On Larry Craig
I like John Cole's assessment
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Cole's half right
He's certainly right that what Craig got caught doing is minor. He was charged with disorderly conduct and that's appropriate.
Cole's wrong when he suggests that propositioning a cop for public sex is meaningfully different than having public sex. You might as well claim that soliciting an undercover posing as a hooker is different legally than actually seeing a hooker. The reason no sex happens is because that's asking way too much of the cops. once the intent is established it's done, the badge comes out and the arrest is made.
Craig is guilty of acting out his sexual impulses in inappropriate ways. If he had wanted gay sex in the privacy of a hotel he'd be fine, legally. That he had to act out these impulses in public knowing the damage it could cause him means he's compulsive. He's also guilty (although not legally) of rank hypocrisy, which is no surprise seeing as he's a crusading moralist republican.
He's unfit to be a senator. But that problem looks to be resolving itself.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, I'm not a huge fan of sting operations
in any context, to be honest. But I agree that the way our laws are written demonstrating intent to commit an illegal act is often illegal.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't know how this works ...
but you seem to be an expert in these areas, Tlolac, so let me ask the following to get your read...
Technically in the case of a hooker, doesn't the money have to actually change hands before intent is established? So anything up to that point is just talk. But when you hand her the money that's when you have technically committed to the purchase.
Now that seems pretty unambigous and straight forward to me, but this whole he made magic hand signals business seems pretty flimsy by comparison. Demonstating intent-wise I mean. Just sayin'.
Is there really some super secret gay handshake out there that lets them know when they are asking for sex in a public restroom? Do you know what those are, Tlolac, because if you do I want to know them too so I can avoid them like the plague!
And the foot tapping thing? I don't know. I've been known to tap my foot occasionally and I know for sure I wasn't intending to ask for gay sex at the time! I guess I need to be more careful.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You can tap your foot all you want
...even in a public restroom, and I'll bet you never run into any problems.
Entirely different story, once you throw in the "wide stance", start "picking up paper", and eyeball people in other stalls for minutes on end. So just don't do all those things in combination.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
How many people you figure
started deliberately tapping their foot after the story broke to mess with the guy in the next stall?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
LOL
good one.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Here in the "homophobia belt"?...
Not very many :-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Answers
No. All that has to happen is you offer to pay them for sex. Once you've done that you're guilty of soliciting (notice the name of the crime). In a sting operation they don't arrest the johns for engaging in prostitution but for soliciting it.
Yes, apparently there are.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Do Bill and Hillary have an Open Marriage?
This is an interesting question. Only they can say for sure, but do we have any evidence one way or the other by which to judge?
During the whole Monica flap and the subsequent revelations regarding others, if they actually had an open marriage would they not have been able to put a stop to the whole "affair" (no pun intended, well maybe a little bit) simply by declaring that they did, in fact, have such a marriage?
I mean if Bill had said, "hey look, Hillary doesn't care if I sleep around" and then Hillary backed him up with "yea, that's right. Bill can sleep with whomever he wants, no skin off my back (oops, another pun)!", wouldn't the whole investigation have just ended right there?
Why wouldn't they just bring that out into the open and squash the whole complaint, if in fact that was the case? It would have saved everyone a whole lot of problems, right?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
well...
most likely they don't have an open marriage, simply playing the odds, but if they did they might not have brought it up because, oh I don't know... it was nobody else's business.
Maybe they didn't want to fan all the "hillary is a lebian" rumors from the right. Maybe they didn't want the backlash from the perverts in the moral majority who would decry the moral sin of others having an open relationship (right before they snuck off with a twenty and a page into the closest bathroom).
Who knows? Who cares? It was a stupid thing to investigate since it was the ultimate case of private business. it was stupid of Clinton to lie about it. he should have just said "I banged her, the economy is doing well and we're living in a time of peace and stability and the young lady wanted to gobble my knob. Boohyah!"
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Iraqis have to flee Iraq to get help fleeing Iraq
NYT
both John Cole and James Joyner comment on the hideous catch 22.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More on our "rockin" economy
from Kevin drum:
Typical for republican presidencies.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
All of which is consistent with
our observation from your last attempt to complain about the economy, which is the the top of the middle is moving up to the good life (3.4 million moved up), as is the top of the low end moving into the middle (3.2 million moved up). Rising tides float all boats as they say!
As Ender pointed out poverty has decreased by 0.3%
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Continuing to obfuscate, huh?
Ah well, I'm betting others got the point even if you can't.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Obfuscating?
Stating the obvious facts given previous analysis.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"Facts" and your "analysis" have nothing in common. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
They're YOUR facts.
RE: Rockin economy
Good news! Seems like the middle class is moving up!
More good news, so are the poor!
America Rocks!
And you even agreed that its good news!
Well, John
And of course let us not forget Ender's little bit of corraborating news:
U.S. poverty rate dips 0.3 percentage points
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Strangely...
...facts, once they pass through your partisan filter are no longer facts.
For instance you claim that an increas in the number of people making over 100,000 means the middle class is moving up when it means no such thing. A person who made 98,000 a year one year and 102,000 a year the next is not some one who was middle class. They were already wealthy and simply popped over an arbitray line that was chosen because it was a round number.
And the rest of your argument is the same BS. In response to a claim that a given data point could be seen as positive you lie and say I called it positive. The wierd thing is you actually quote my words so that your lie is incredibly obvious. Can't you at least make this a tiny challenge for me? I'm getting bored, man.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not so strangely ...
you are having to fabricate excuses.
I didn't come up with the lines that were drawn, I merely made the obvious observation. The lines in question create three groups do they not?
Less than $25K | Middle | Over $100K
So what should we call those people between $25K and $100K, if not the middle? And the fact that the poverty level declined just backs up my whole observation even more.
Set the lines wherever you want, the result will be the same because everyone is improving.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oil Shale
This thread on redstate is interesting only because of the poster Vladimir. He makes good valid points and discusses the differences between Tar Sand and Oil Shale in easy to understand terms.
Unforutunately most of the posters are too busy baldly claiming that we can use oil shale to actually pay attention to the realities of the situation (oh and attacking liberals and wanting ANWR opened, but that's par for the course).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I understand why you would find this comforting.
Usually if the sites don't have pictures you get lost. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Greenland , and the war on Wingnuts
Apparently a bunch of wingnut hacks from the National Review got stranded in greenland.
sweet
I'd like to particularly thank the nation of Greenland for preventing them from having internet access. Thank you.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
hahahaha -
that made my day. Thank you.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Fascinating article on AQI vs Sunnis
OTB highlights this article about how AQI and the Sunnis in Iraq started killing each other. Not surprising it has exactly nothing to do with US or our surge.
There's a lot more to the post that is interesting but given the shameful attempts recently by the right to lay the credit for sunni's working against AQI at the feet of the surge I wanted to highlight this portion.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This must be why GoRight has been defending Senator Widestance:
It took weeks to learn the true reason for the frontal assault on Senator Feinstein, and now the motive behind the defense of Senator Craig becomes clear.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
crud.
Now I feel sort of bad about the viagra jokes.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Interesting.
I actually didn't know this. While I am a life member of the NRA I don't pay them much attention.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you support the NRA's desire to keep teflon coated
bullets legal?
Seriously. I'm a liberal who does support gun ownership rights. But I part ways with the NRA when they think we should all be able to own fully automatic weapons (I think semi-automatic are just fine) and when they come out for stuff like teflon coated bullets (they go right through bulletproof vests).
In terms of firearms and ammo ...
I believe that civilians should have access to everything that the Police and Military have (small arms, so don't go off on some you want people to have Nukes meme).
So, yes I think that teflon coated or anything else in terms of ammo is fine. I trust the American citizenry at least as much as I trust governmental agencies.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Just shows what an idiot you are.
Obviously you have no cops in your family.
Civilians don't need machine guns for any sporting or defense needs.
Civilians don't need cop killer bullets.
Sometimes buddy you crap in your own pants and then shout how proud you are about it.
Watch the
personal attacks please.
Ettiquite of an open blogging site.
My bad. I guess by the standards here I should have said that people who support civilians owning machine guns and cop killing teflon coated bullets are idiots, rather than directing my ire at GoRight.
Here's my point. I support anyone's ability to say whatever notion they have. I also support anyone elses ability to comment on the merits of said notion.
I'm far from a bomb throwing far left wild radical. In this instance, I took a rather moderate position advocating citizens owning firearms with some minor limitations. A position still well within the bounds of the the Second Ammendment which states:
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.
When I'm confronted with someone who offers up the most far right wing interpretation imaginable on the subject (as GR consistently does with every subject), I'm within my bounds to be able to point out that that person isn't moderate, that that person isn't reasonable, and that I think that position is batsh*t insane.
So, please bare with me and forgive me for calling GR an idiot. Let me more properly say that I feel the views he expressed are idiotic and quite outside the bounds of what the vast majority of Americans think as reasonable.
How's that? Any better?
Yes, I feel better now! :)
I appreciate your consistency, Specter. Fair to all.
Kindness, let me ask you a question, what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you? To me it sounds rather clear cut: shall not be restricted, impaired, regulated, or controlled in any way.
I choose not to be moderate in my defense of freedom.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well...
turnabout:
What does "well-regulated" mean to you?
The text of the second amendment:
To me, "well regulated" means that the government has the right to put restrictions on the arms.
Your problem is that you only want to pay attention to the part of the amendment after the second "comma".
This is why the intent of the amendment has been in such dispute... contradictory terms:
"well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed" seem to be opposite ideas.
I own a rifle. I hunt. But I am not against reasonable limitations on who can own a gun and what kinds.
If we take the "shall not be infringed" to the extreme, then people with a history of mental illness would be permitted to own guns.
If we take the "well regulated" to the extreme, nobody would be able to own guns.
I definitely take a middle position on this...
People without criminal records and without mental illness, should be permitted to own handguns and hunting rifles. That provides the self-defense and sporting that 99% of gunowners want.
Only law-enforcement officials, national guardsmen, or active-duty military should be permitted to own military-grade weaponry.
I put more emphasis on the "well-regulated" part... you put more emphasis on the "shall not be infringed" part.
Unfortunate wording by the framers... left it up to wide array of interpretations. Oh well.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Two responses.
(1) It is only fair to interpret the term "well regulated militia" within the context of meaning of that phrase at the time it was written. In that context, there is reason to believe that the term does NOT mean what you suggest. A reasonable summary of this, with references, can be found at:
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
One example would be: *
(2) Let us also consider, given your reading of the word regulated, what each phrase is actually modifying. I would argue that the thing being regulated is the militia, and the thing that is not to be infringed is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Is this not the most appropriate and reasonable interpretation of the text? As such your argument is somewhat misguided (for lack of a better term).
This is not at all a far fetched notion given your reading of the word regulated. These are the very same people who argued against maintaining a standing army because such an army would be a threat to freedom. As such, government controls on the militia would likewise make sense.
EDIT:
----------------------------------------
* In rereading this passage I also make note of Hamilton's description:
This confirms two things, at least as far as Hamilton was concerned: (1) That he not only considered it a right for citizens to own arms, but an obligation, and (2) that this description of the relationship between citizens, their firearms, and the military is consistent with the gun proponents description of the meaning of the term militia.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My limitations?
I don't have a problem with a 2 week waiting period where a background check is done. I do not support having to get and renew a license to own guns.
I don't have a problem with a 10 round limit for magazines. That's plenty for targets, hunting and defense.
I think you should have to have a concealed weapons permit to be able to carry a gun (concealed). Although I admit, I'm not against Arizona's take that as long as the gun isn't concealed (ie - in a holster on your hip in plain sight), I'm not against that although I wouldn't carry a gun.
And as I stated, semi-automatic is the highest I'd go.
On the other hand, I'd allow 50 cal BMG rifles. I don't own one & now can't as Arnold S. made them illegal to buy in CA when he took over. Guess I'll have to make do with something smaller.
And yea, I do own guns. I mostly target shoot.
OK, so we agree more than not.
I object to a waiting period but not a background check. So the current instant check system is fine. I do support the ability of people to appeal and have corrected any records in such systems which are falsely denying purchases.
I don't see this as being an unreasonable position, I just don't personally want to accept the infringement. 10 rounds, 30 rounds, 100 rounds? It doesn't really matter as the bad guys can load up as many clips as they want so it isn't really restricting anything, IMHO. I object based on the simple notion of not wanting to pass useless laws.
I agree. I have long argued in favor of shall issue style concealed carry laws. I live in a state with such a law but, despite my support thereof, I have not bothered to take the training and obtain the permit. I do not carry, but I want the ability to do so if I decide I need to in the future. Ironically, my wife who would have been considered mildly anti-gun before she met me is now an avid shooter and does have a permit to carry concealed,