Lots of stuff happening today, from the SCOTUS decision on the 2nd amendment to the possible final FISA legislation passage.
Also in the news Bush to lift sanctions, terror label on N. Korea - about time.
And Obama, McCain back death for kid rape - for once I actually agree with both of them. It is a tragic day when a Supreme Court meddles in a moral issue and a law that is fully constitutional in the context of constitutionality of the Death Penalty.
Have a great Thursday.
__________________________
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've actually been very sick the last few days
with a fever and what doctor says something like a flu and hopefully not worse. So I am sitting at home. I was trying to upgrade a 2nd older computer with a SATA hard drive and found out that it has only a new 15 pin SATA power connector that I do not have. So I started looking online for places I can maybe drive to (close by in my weakened state :)) to buy a converter.
Not finding it on RadioShack's website I decided to give a nearby store a call anyways just for the hell of it... Below is the approximate conversation:
-me- Hello, I am looking for a computer hard drive power cable converter from the old 4 pin style to the newer 15 pin SATA power.
-female voice- excuse me, I didn't understand anything you said, hold on
...put on hold, hoping someone that has an idea about the products RS sells would come on the phone - I did have ok, technically aware conversations with them before.
...Same voice comes on
-RS- Hi, ok, now could you please repeat what you said slower.
-me- Ok, well I got a new hard drive, but the old style 4 pin power connections that I have in my computer don't work for it so I need to buy an *adapter* to convert from the 4 pin to the new 15 pin SATA power.
-RS- Ah, adapter, well sir we do have many adapters - they are these things that go into other small things - yes we have many and I am sure if you came in you could find it. This is for a laptop right?
-me- No, well I am looking for a very specific one. (still hoping she will pass off the phone - I guess I should've asked)
-RS- Just bring in your computer and I am sure we can find what you are looking for.
-me- Ok -- hang up.
Why are stupid people working in moderately technical stores????? Sigh.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe you hallucinated the whole thing
what with the fever and all :)
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
heh yea yea
I mean usually I know better, but for some reason I still sometimes ask questions that most people working in these national stores have no clue about... Even when it relates to the products they carry, when it gets slightly technical.
I did get very lucky once asking a question about a particular cable in Walmart - the guy was young, probably high school and actually had a clue on technical issues.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
individual right to own a gun upheld 5-4
and the DC Ban of course overturned.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeah, the result was expected, and
some people (myself included) were anticipating even a larger majority. Legally the ban is too stringent to justify if you accept an individual right to bear arms.
Haven't read a lot about the decision yet so I don't know how sweeping the ruling was, but I imagine there will be a lot of room for states to impose requirements and regulations and restrictions of specific weapons that fall short of outright bans on all handguns.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
basically the ruling states
that there is an individual right to own guns for personal protection (in home), hunting, sports, etc. However that right like all other rights is not unlimited, meaning reasonable restrictions could be passed by legislatures - buck passed.
It does state of course that the DC Ban is fully unconstitutional, including the requirement of trigger locks oh yeah and the requirement to keep a gun a home unloaded and dismantled. That's at least two regulations that are also struck down.
I guess the gist is that law abiding citizens should have no hurdles in front of defending themselves in their own homes.
The fact that this decision recognizes that the intent of our founding fathers was to have an individual right to bear arms is all that matters. The militia part is not primary to it.
Decent decision.
I am amazed that there were 4 people on the court willing to disarm US Citizens.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I haven't read the ruling or
I haven't read the ruling or much about it yet, but here's something I don't get:
Strong opponents of gun control generally concede that the right to bear arms is not absolute (a person can't walk around with a "suitcase" nuclear weapon or hang out near an airport with a Stinger missile on his shoulder).
It seems, therefore, that:
(1) the 2nd Amendment guarantees only the right to bear some types of arms, or in some way, or under some conditions, or for some purposes, AND
(2) to the extent that some rationale or purpose lay behind the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of this right, restrictions on keeping and bearing arms cannot be so great as to defeat or excessively jeopardize this purpose.
Given the above (if the above is valid), then we cannot just rely on the operative clause as if it stated some absolute right, and we have to ask what was the purpose or rationale (intent) of the Founders (to apply originalism). And it seems that the Founders indicated in the 2nd Amendment what that purpose and rationale was -- to serve, or to at least be available to serve, in a militia for the defense of a free state.
So how does one reach a conclusion that the individual right to bear arms has nothing to do with service or potential service in a militia?
I think
that "be available to serve" is interpreted broadly.
Regarding what kind of weapons, the old precedent was Miller, in which the court said of a sawed off shotgun "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" implying that a weapon that was standard military does fall under the protections of the 2nd. Not that that's a clear bright line either, but at least it covers the suitcase nuke scenario.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yes, I can see the logic of
Yes, I can see the logic of an individual keeping arms to be "available to serve" in a militia (or equivalent). But it seems that some, including perhaps Scalia and the majority, are asserting that there is NO dependent relationship at all between the individual's right to keep and bear arms and even potential service in a militia (or equivalent), hence my question.
You are correct that there is no link between the milita
clause and the scope of the rights being protected, not conferred, by the second amendment. People are presumed to have the right to keep and bear any "arm" that someone would carry for "lawful purposes" but most specifically for "self-defense". Suit case nukes are hard the type of thing that people would be carrying for a lawful purpose or for self-defense.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you think it would be
Do you think it would be unconstitutional if the NYC government made it illegal for me to walk around Times Square with a loaded Uzi in my hand?
No.
n/m
Why not?
Why not?
Here's why:
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that these guns really have no business what. so. ever in civilian hands. The dangers are too great. Moreover, the recent striking down by the SCOTUS of the handgun ban, coupled by many extremely stressed-out vets coming home from Iraq, some after their third or fourth deployment over there, is a recipe for disaster. There'll be more Columbines, Virginia Tech's, etc. I see it coming.
"Extremely stressed-out vets coming home from Iraq"
Don't you mean there'll be more University of Texas Clock Tower's
and Book Depositories. 
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, Brutus14,
My answer to this:
is a definite yes, in addition to what we've already got in the ways of mentally, psychologically and emotionally unstable people having access to firearms.
Well, first, when I asked
Well, first, when I asked GoRight that question about the Uzi in Times Square, I was hoping to get his answer or that of someone else who believed in an absolute (or near absolute) right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
Second, as for your position at the other extreme, a utilitarian argument (or any argument that merely points out that allowing people to do something would harm others more than you think is justified by whatever benefit people get from being allowed to do that something) might be good enough as a normal policy argument, but seems to be an insufficient basis for denying rights that are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (if they are indeed guaranteed). Right?
I mean, you wouldn't say that about First Amendment rights, would you? If, say, some guy on Air America was talking about how bad Republicans in Congress are for the country (not suggesting in any way at all that people get violent), and a few crazy left-wing radicals responded by starting to assassinate a few Republican congressmen, would you say that that effect would justify the government criminalizing criticism of Republican congressmen? I would hope not.
There are limits
to rights in relation to harm. For example yelling fire in a crowded theater is a no no.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
More or less the 2nd
More or less the 2nd Amendment is worded horribly by todays vernacular.
State constitutions adapted the 2nd Amendment but clarified it has right to bear arms for self defense too. With that in mind, thats why Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles aren't allowed.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But if one accepts that the
But if one accepts that the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment does not confer an absolute right, what in the U.S. Constitution (or other writings related to interpreting the intent of the Founders) indicates that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms independent of service or potential service in a militia (or equivalent)?
If right to bear arms was dependent on militia service...
Where will the weapons needed for the militia be kept then, in a Bastille?
__________________________How would the government decide who may or may not join a militia if a militia was ever called up. Should people that might join a militia or were in a disbanded militia, but aren't currently in one, be included?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
As I've said upthread, I
As I've said upthread, I would understand the logic of the argument that individuals must be allowed to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the potential for their service in a militia, or to preserve the chance of effectiveness of such a militia.
But that's not reflective of my premise or my question. My premise -- and someone please correct me if it's invalid -- is that some, quite possibly including Scalia in the opinion he issued, argue that the individual right to keep and bear arms is independent of any need for a militia (or equivalent). And my question is how one can draw that conclusion if they accept that the operative clause does not confer an absolute right.
2nd amendment, 9th amendment
See the ninth amendment.
For one thing, many state constitutions (PA among them) recognize the right to bear arms for self defense.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Well, I think the question
Well, I think the question (at least my question) is NOT
"Can a state guarantee certain weapon ownership/possession rights?"
but rather
"Does the U.S. Constitution prevent a state (or municipality, etc.) or Congress from restricting weapon ownership/possession to the extent that it impedes or jeopardizes the current or future existence or effectiveness of militias (or equivalent) in defending "a free state?"
I am just pleased
that Republicans are using the word 'rights' and the constitution in the same sentence.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
ban on unusual weapons
I just finished looking over the decision
(I HATE that reporters almost never link to the primary source!), and have a bit of an answer for you.
This issue of what weapons are permissible seems to have been decided in "Miller", where they developed the prinicple of "usual" weapons (The rule seems to be the same as that applied to the eigth amendment--cruel and unusual punishment).
Basically, if a weapon is common in the population, then it is protected; if it is uncommon, then it may be banned.
I guess it isn't perfect, but it is reasonable.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
It is not at all hard to draw this conclusion ...
The fact that they list the need for a militia as being the rationale for having the amendment does NOT imply that that is the ONLY purpose that the right encompasses. It was never stated to be an exhaustive list of the lawful purposes that are covered.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
5-4? Woot!
My oracular guesses cannot be stopped.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
David Addington & John Yoo are scheduled to testify today
before the House Judiciary Committee this morning on interrogation practices at Guantanamo.
Why do I have this nagging feeling that they won't show and it'll become one more Executive Priviledge notch in bush43's belt? Those two are fully confirmed Kool-Aid swillers. I really don't see them saying anything even if they do show.
I would
love to watch that, but it's on CSPAN3 which I don't get.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
My brain hurts
Oww.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
do you own a pink pistol? n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No, but...
I do own a laptop with hello kitty stickers (former owner put them on and I left them because my daughter likes em).
Hrrrm. Considering that there are Hello Kitty vibrators it isn't impossible that HK pistols exist.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Please tell me you're kidding...
....re: Hello Kitty vibrators.
Not at all.
Japan is a strange place.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sounds like a task for Google!
I would
but looking for vibrators at work is probably not a great idea.
On the other hand I probably shouldn;t have looked up this either.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Pfff. The Pink Lady....
Is it anadized on or painted? Really, considering current trends...it's only got 5 rounds. You can get a little pistol that packs 10.
That plus..I never had an impression that Charter Arms makes a great product. They always seemed kind of cheap to me, but I'm not the expert here.
Back to your comment though....a couple of years ago I went to look something up on the local Craigslist and mistakently put in .com (it's .org). Well that extension used to be owned by a hardcore porn site and wasn't I embarrassed to have that pop up on my computer at work. Luckily, no one saw but I hyperventalated a bit. I think Craigslist owns both extensions now so you'll just have to find a different one. On that note, the best female owned & run shop here in the Bay Area is called Good Vibrations
and they ain't talkin' about any Beach Boys tunes....
5 chambered...
...that'll only let you kill three workers (plus boss and yourself naturally).
What happened to our explicit constitutional right to banana clips?
(BTW Good Vibrations is famous far beyond the bay area and Whitehouse.com used to lead to a porn site, too)
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm sure the Texas GOP is
I'm sure the Texas GOP is pleased with the SCOTUS ruling on the death penalty for child rape. It more closely follows the Old Testament values of an eye for an eye.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I've been wikipedia'ing again.
If you ever thought of Wikipedia as we reliable and accurate resource, you need to stop it because it simply isn't ... at least not for articles with more than 1 person who cares about it. :)
For a glimpse into the machinations that go on over there, just read my recent discussions on the following pages:
Most of this is the result of my wanting to use an article by Lawrence Solomon
at the National Post in enter some criticism of Mr. Connolley and to defend Mr. Singer.
If you want to understand Wikipedia culture from the perspective of a Global Warming Skeptic, then that article gives you a pretty good idea of what it is like. Solomon has written two other pieces critisizing Wikipedia along these lines:
All three are pretty good reads, IMHO.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
MissL pointed your efforts out yesterday.
Don't you think you'd have better luck with Conservipedia's article on An Inconvienient Truth?
MissL is WikiStalking me? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't understand
the codes of html at all, but I think the award was for extreme persistence (patience) with so many different identities, as GR tried to misinform the public by being a wikipedia troll. I think he finally got kicked out for good, the same way he did at dKos.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
LOL, nope. I've been well behaved over there ...
no sock puppets needed, although it sure would be handy sometimes.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You're so right about Wikipedia
and so wrong about almost everything else =)
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Well, it's a start ...
1 topic down, N to go! I'll convert you yet. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Guns don't kill people, apparently irony does...
Thursday morning: SCOTUS strikes down DC gun ban, a great victory for law abiding gun owners and self defense
The day before: formerly law abiding gun owner uses his .45 caliber hand gun to murder five coworkers. Shooting was motivated by a disagreement with boss over safety glasses, thankfully he was able to bear a lethal weapon and ammo in sufficient quantity to allow him to kill not only himself and his boss but another four coworkers who just happened to be there. Oh and I think another was wounded but is expected to survive.
Obviously the founding fathers intended us to possess the capability to slaughter indiscriminately at will as a God given right.
Carry on.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Given that it is difficult to be BORN a criminal ...
all criminals make that transition at some point in their careers.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You're slipping. The better response (from your point of
view) would have been if his co-workers would have been armed he would have only been able to off one or two of them, not five.
C'mon buddy....get with the program.
How's the baby & wife btw?
I'd say your chances
of being a criminal are about 97.325% IF you are born to a 17 year mother addicted to crack who lives in an abandoned building with her boyfriend who sells crack and his wife for a living.
So in some cases the circumstances of your birth increase your chances of looking to the 'free (black) markets' to make a living. In such circumstances I would say it is difficult not to be born a criminal.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Small correction ...
I'll accept the 97.325% number but state the obvious, this is their probability of BECOMING a criminal after being born, not of BEING a criminal WHEN you are born. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What will happen when/if Colin Powell announces his
support for Barack Obama for President?
It will be intersting to see what the VIllagers from the Talking Head MSM & his ex-repub buddies say. I'll bet heads spin and they immediatly start rumors about "poor old Colin", just like they've done with everyone else that come out and said negative things about the current regime.
Myself,.....I still have respect for Colin. But ever since he gave that speech at the UN, where he knew what he was saying wasn't true, I have a great deal less respect for poor poor Colin.
Well...
Its only a matter of time before someone in the Barack corner preemptively declares that attacks will come at Colin claiming that Colin only supports Obama because they are "black." [I had to beat GR to the punch]
Colin & Picasso
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
wait..what...hold on there. What do you mean Colin Powell
is black?!? I never noticed.
I will be curious to see the repubs pull the character assassination routine on Colin. That will be sickly fun.
Funny...Yesterday McCain met (secretly) with the Log Cabin
Republicans (as per Pam's House Blend
) and:
"A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week. This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain's published schedule in advance and the meeting." to which Pam says:
"Is this what we call -- ahem -- back-door diplomacy?"
que cymbal crash.
If you are freaking over FISA
consider this.
At present the President can issue a search without a warrent. The compromise bill would at least reinstate part of the requirement that there is some FISA oversight. And it also calls for an Inspector General to evaluate the legalities.
Continuing to postpone the vote allows the President more time with this ridiculously absurd abuse of power.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Inotherwords, missliberties, what you're saying here is
that the fact that BHO fell into line and capitulated to it, like most of the other politicians of all stripes is no big deal. I say: considering all BHO's lofty talk about change, hope, unity, etc., it's rather hypocritical, to boot . I also say "Kudos to the 15 or so politicians who refused to knuckle under and fall in line behind the politicians who did capitulate to the FISA Bill. One can't say that it's no big deal. It involves the U. S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, which advocates protection against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as our rights t o privacy. Tampering with the U. S. Constitution, no matter who does it, is a disaster, imho. I say...leave the U. S. Constitution as it was originally written! Don't mess with it anymore!
Messy business
Looking for perfection, in the name of what is good, we tripped over the detail that the President at this time is completely unconstrained by the law. Not exactly delightful. I would prefer for now, to see at least the imperfect reinstitution of the FISA courts oversight.
I think much more pressing is the speculators that are jacking up the price of oil AND commodities continously, bringing up the possibility of a global depression.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
missliberties:
No, missliberties. This:
,
is completely wrong. One doesn't have to look for perfection to realize that BHO's capitulation to the FISA Bill was not only stupid and wrong, but hypocritical, to boot.
Bob Barr said that George Bush is a worse President than Bill
Clinton. Yup, just today Bob was interviewed by Jane Hamsher
of fdl & the two of them had quite a conversation.
It's funny, Bob Barr now lives what Republicans cried out for, till they reached the position of power. Now they're addicted to the piggy bank (money does come first really) and then the power of ruling.
Greedy Motherf***ing IDIOTS!
The very same people and mindset that brought us the equities failure that has led to BILLIONS in write downs on banks, (saved by your tax payer dollars) and blocks of empty unoccupied homes (and the newest subdivision, tent cities)
........ are wait for it....... now speculating in oil futures.
Say thank you to Wall Street investors for speculating the price of oil beyond any reasonable or tangible value.
It's absurdly irrational stupidity.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
maybe what you're saying is true, missliberties, but
our Constitution is also quite important, and, when that's unprotected, we're all screwed bigtime, in more ways than one. Our rights to privacy are equally important. Maybe you ought to bone up on some research about the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you think that Obama's capitulating to the FISA Bill is no big deal.
What this all goes to show is that, Obama, despite all his lofty talk of change, hope, unity, (which rings hollow) and his sayng that "voting for McCain is like voting for a third term of McBush( which may well be true), has proven himself as big a hypocrit as most of the rest of them , if one gets the drift.