Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment objectively with your mind open?

The problem for you with me is that I recognize the militia clause. The sorts of people that a militia would never want (lunatics, idiots, addicts, drunkards, and criminals) have no right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not mean "even for brigands" or, in its time, "even for slaves". Militias were then deemed necessary for the suppression of any possible slave revolts. (We need remember what "original intent" means).

The States certainly have the right to form militias (typically the National Guard, state police, etc.) and defend themselves against clear and present dangers (including lawlessness). At the time of the Founding the states also had legitimate fear of a strong central government under a Caesar-like figure gutting States' rights in the usurpation of despotic power. (In theory even I can justify secession as the ultimate defense against a despotic President or against a military junta... just hope that we never see such happening. Simply disliking the President? That has been tried, and it worked out badly -- the American Civil War). To protect themselves from a dictator or tyrant, then States would need to be able to defend the legislative bodies and the Governor's Mansion.

So -- the States have the right to defend themselves even before the Federal government can respond (as in early days, against pirates, brigands, Indian attacks, and slave revolts... now more likely against a Seven Days in May scenario). Persons old enough to vote who cannot be deemed lunatics, idiots, addicts, habitual drunkards, and criminals must be allowed the right to buy, keep, and bear arms. (If one is a 16-year old member of MS-13... no firearm!) One conceivable exception to a permissive gun law might be that someone adjudicated a danger to a spouse might be denied a right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

She believes that 2016 is her 'turn'. But 2016 is also the 'turn' for Jeb Bush; how is that working out?

He's been reduced to begging people to "please clap", LOL!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I lost all respect for Steinem with the "that's where the boys are" comment. She must think herself to be the only woman on the planet with a functioning brain.

You could tell how shocked Maher was when she said that.

Originally Posted by B Butler

No. For most of your life and a long time before that, the Jim Crow Collective Rights interpretation was held to be correct. It sunk deep into the culture and the values of many. That sort of thing isn't changed by mere scholarship. I can quote the text, reference the intent of the authors, cite legal papers covering the issue, point out the Supreme Court precedents, and you and many others remain immune to the obvious. I know. I have done all of the above repeatedly to no effect.

The belief of the authors was that a well armed and trained population was necessary to the security of a free nation. One can well argue that their belief is now incorrect. One can easily argue that changes in weapons, communications, and transportation technology coupled with very different population density might cause one to reevaluate the merit of the justification clause of the 2nd. One cannot reasonably claim their intent was anything other than a well armed and trained populace. One should not interpret the 2nd in a way that conflicts with their firm belief in an armed trained populace.

But I hold this to be an example of how humans think. It's not unique to a particular issue, age group, gender, race or political affiliation. It's human. It's no different from fundamentalists rejecting evolution or conservatives rejecting global warming. Humans can just lock into a perspective and become immune to fact.

I think that basically, you are right. John Loewens basically says so in "Lies My Teacher Told Me". And it also applied to Native Americans. Which was why and how this Jim Crow interpretation penetrated the Midwest and West.
It was the War of 1812 that cemented the idea that people of darker races were an enemy to be suppressed rather than fellow citizens to be embraced. The whole thing came about (along with the War of 1812) because the British supplied arms to Native American nations to make war on American settlers. And this translated into insurgency and terror attacks on settlers in the Midwest especially. When Tecumseh and Tenskatawa organised Native Americans in an organised ISIS like rebellion against the US, the die was cast. The War of 1812 actually began with the campaign of William Henry Harrison against Tecumseh in 1811.
And during the War of 1812, as during the American Revolution, the British also gave amnesty and freedom to African American slaves who would take up arms against their masters. And a much higher percentage of African-Americans in the North and South (Slavery had not been completely abolished in the North) answered this call than contemporary Muslims answer the call of jihad. Not surprisingly, when the war was over, any semblance of cooperation between whites and Native Americans vanished. Towns in which whites, African American freedmen and Native Americans lived together in harmony (and intermarried!) were burned to the ground. The push to kick Native Americans out of the US east of the Mississippi began. And the South clamped down on African Americans, free and slave, collectively in a way they had not done so before the War of 1812.
And it was THIS mindset of continuing moral panic against non-whites that really got white Americans not only owning arms but drilling as militia as a civic duty every Saturday. And in the South, organising militia into "slave patrols" to control and terrorise African-Americans, slave and free, and which became the first American police forces.
It was this mindset that brought Jim Crow to the Midwest sooner than it came to the South, and which made town after town north of the Ohio River "sundown towns", in which African-Americans were not permitted to settle.
And, though this fact is DEFINITELY not emphasised in our histories, which made the US a tinder box in which a political crisis could spark a Civil War; in which those militias would turn against each other.
THAT is the context of the 2nd Amendment as it first evolved.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The problem for you with me is that I recognize the militia clause. The sorts of people that a militia would never want (lunatics, idiots, addicts, drunkards, and criminals) have no right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not mean "even for brigands" or, in its time, "even for slaves". Militias were then deemed necessary for the suppression of any possible slave revolts. (We need remember what "original intent" means).

The States certainly have the right to form militias (typically the National Guard, state police, etc.) and defend themselves against clear and present dangers (including lawlessness). At the time of the Founding the states also had legitimate fear of a strong central government under a Caesar-like figure gutting States' rights in the usurpation of despotic power. (In theory even I can justify secession as the ultimate defense against a despotic President or against a military junta... just hope that we never see such happening. Simply disliking the President? That has been tried, and it worked out badly -- the American Civil War). To protect themselves from a dictator or tyrant, then States would need to be able to defend the legislative bodies and the Governor's Mansion.

So -- the States have the right to defend themselves even before the Federal government can respond (as in early days, against pirates, brigands, Indian attacks, and slave revolts... now more likely against a Seven Days in May scenario). Persons old enough to vote who cannot be deemed lunatics, idiots, addicts, habitual drunkards, and criminals must be allowed the right to buy, keep, and bear arms. (If one is a 16-year old member of MS-13... no firearm!) One conceivable exception to a permissive gun law might be that someone adjudicated a danger to a spouse might be denied a right to bear arms.

Yes. It's the militia tradition that is the reason that police forces in this country are local police instead of state police. In Canada, provinces like Ontario have Provincial Police and the Prairie Provinces rely on the RCMP, the Mounties for day to day policing. Australia has state police (who can and are transferred anywhere in Australian states and Federal Police. Our FBI was justified as a back-up to state and local police when it was conceived. The US had not really fully embraced the concept of NATIONAL policing (despite agencies like DEA and Secret Service) until 9/11 panicked us into bringing in Homeland Security (US Marshals were only for territories).
When I see the conflict over police shootings, I can see communities point about police acting as an occupying army for the rich but I also wonder what true community policing (think street committees in Cuba and China) would look like. Such policing would likely be far more pervasive and likely would provide a lot rougher justice--and quite likely more overtly corrupt justice. It costs much less to bribe an unpaid reserve police man or woman than a city cop with adequate pay and benefits. And in such a situation, it becomes a lot easier for gang leaders to melt into the community and become community leaders. Some grow into the role. Some remain corrupt and sociopathic. Some as a mixture of the two.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As someone who came of age during the women's movement, I have always admired Gloria Steinem--until now. I found her comment about young women gravitating to the campaign of Bernie Sanders because that's "where the boys are" to be utterly patronizing. An ironic adjective for a feminist icon, don't you think? The comment by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wasn't much better. It's as if they think the many crowning achievements of women in recent decades are all for naught if female Millennials fail to cast their votes for anyone other than a woman in this election, namely Hillary Clinton. Shame, shame. That's identity politics at its narrowest--and worst. And so 3T.

It goes a bit further than that, I'm afraid. It's about women from the first generation to get a piece of The System shaming younger women for not protecting their elder's System that is not benefiting Millennials.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As someone who came of age during the women's movement, I have always admired Gloria Steinem--until now. I found her comment about young women gravitating to the campaign of Bernie Sanders because that's "where the boys are" to be utterly patronizing.

Actually, Gloria Steinem become post seasonal come the 3T. She's one of the 60's types who never moved on from "movement feminism" to realizing that become passe. Xer's accepted the new sexual norms pretty much from the get go such that Gloria's stuff came out as nagging. I'd say the same goes for race relations as well. It works like this in my family.
GI's and elder Silents were aghast when my '43 cousin did genealogy and confirmed Native American blood. Boomers and younger pretty much accepted it as an OK thing. The N African blood thing I got with 23andme.com will be the next interesting moment in the family.

An ironic adjective for a feminist icon, don't you think? The comment by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wasn't much better.

I agree. This sullying of their own achievements on the alter of post seasonal identity politics is just breathtaking.

It's as if they think the many crowning achievements of women in recent decades are all for naught if female Millennials fail to cast their votes for anyone other than a woman in this election, namely Hillary Clinton. Shame, shame. That's identity politics at its narrowest--and worst. And so 3T.

Certainly agreed. That another subset of Silent/Boomers who I think need to reflect on what sort of legacy they desire to leave behind. Should it be one of sacrificial stewardship or one of self indulgent narcissism ? The other subset is of course the fat cat brigade. I'm sure there are Boomers/Silents who of course are doing right.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

GI's and elder Silents were aghast when my '43 cousin did genealogy and confirmed Native American blood. Boomers and younger pretty much accepted it as an OK thing. The N African blood thing I got with 23andme.com will be the next interesting moment in the family.

As someone who grew up right next to a reservation and have many relatives who are part White Earth Ojibwe the idea of Native ancestry being a scandal is incomprehensible to me.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

As someone who came of age during the women's movement, I have always admired Gloria Steinem--until now. I found her comment about young women gravitating to the campaign of Bernie Sanders because that's "where the boys are" to be utterly patronizing. An ironic adjective for a feminist icon, don't you think? The comment by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wasn't much better. It's as if they think the many crowning achievements of women in recent decades are all for naught if female Millennials fail to cast their votes for anyone other than a woman in this election, namely Hillary Clinton. Shame, shame. That's identity politics at its narrowest--and worst. And so 3T.

Pretty poor choice of words, admittedly. Not an excuse, but Bill Maher's show is a constant romp of sarcasm and sometimes guests get caught up in it and say something they regard later. Steinem has done so much in her lifetime; frankly, I find it odd the willingness of so many to throw her under the bus with a single mistake - pretty dainty skin.

I can also emphasis with the frustrations a lot of us older Progressives are having with younger Progressives' locking onto Sanders much like they did in '08 with Obama. Again, it seems like its all visionary with little regard to how to make it actually happen. It seems we're headed to exactly the same frustration and soon abandonment of President Sanders that we got with President Obama when progress on the Progressive agenda (e.g., no single payer or public option) but I believe it will be much worse because the GOP will not be awe of Sanders for the first couple years and will continue to control the Congress, and the promises Sanders is making eclipse even those that Obama promised - Bernie has a lot farther to fall from grace with his supporters.

At the risk of digging myself a little deeper into inter-generational friction, it's this mostly-unstated assumption that President Sanders will make a real difference, i.e., Progressive progress, by bringing "people power" to Washington. I think this is what grates on older generations, particularly Boomers who were actually involved in the 1960s movements. They marched, they fled to Canada, they protested, they got jailed, they got beat up, some even gave their lives. It took years for Civil Rights (more a Silents endeavor), stopping the war, equality for women, getting the environment movement started, and much is left to do.

It seems the younger Progressive believe if they can only get a new savior in the WH, one who is just more to the Left that Obama, and everything will just fall into place - Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and the Freedom Caucus will either behave or be shown the door. Push the younger Progressive on the unlikelihood of that and most will just tell you that your just missing the "Bern." Those few that can get beyond their sanctimonious "discovery" of Progressivism, provide some version of people power but are pretty vague about what that is - they give you that look of pity of not understanding the latest social networking device or trend.

I walk away with the sense that they are assuming that unrelenting shxtstorms of blogs, posts, tweets, videos, podcasts, even polls are going to make it really happen. Maybe President Bernie will provide the perfect People Power App so you can dial it up just like Uber or AirBnb - instantaneous protest with instantaneous political movement.

I don't think anyone actually involved in the movements of the 1960s believes that. I think that they would find it humorous except its not only pitiful, it is dangerous to the Progressive agenda. I think that is what is frustrating enough to Steinem to make her misspeak.

Not that long ago, the big stink about Millies was their assumption in the workforce that they just needed to show up in the morning for their first day and expected to be promoted that afternoon - that's basically what their Boomer parents raised them to expect. The Great Recession has disabuse any Millie that may have actually had that particularly outlook. But perhaps that sense of deserving without a lot of effort has transferred itself to the political world?

Then there are the Boomers that have jump on the Bernie bandwagon; maybe those, particularly the younger ones, that didn't get the chance to be part of something in the '60s? Maybe even a few Xers who want to be part of some 'revolution' other than slam dancing and the Beastie Boys. Last chance?

But keep the faith -

the old get older and the young get stronger
it might take a week or it might take longer
they got the guns
but we got the numbers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tHPsphg9xc

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Yes. It's the militia tradition that is the reason that police forces in this country are local police instead of state police. In Canada, provinces like Ontario have Provincial Police and the Prairie Provinces rely on the RCMP, the Mounties for day to day policing. Australia has state police (who can and are transferred anywhere in Australian states and Federal Police. Our FBI was justified as a back-up to state and local police when it was conceived. The US had not really fully embraced the concept of NATIONAL policing (despite agencies like DEA and Secret Service) until 9/11 panicked us into bringing in Homeland Security (US Marshals were only for territories).

Ontario has Toronto, a world-class city, and some boreal forest where people still hunt and trap for a living, and about everything that you could expect in between those different milieus. Contrast Ohio, where forests are either swamps or hills to steep for farming. So practically anything north of a line from Thunder Bay to Sault-Ste. Marie to Sudbury in Ontario is still frontier, and the police are obviously scattered.

The FBI is largely assigned the duty of enforcing the law that prohibits interstate flight to avoid prosecution. Offenders rarely get convicted of interstate flight, but the arrest for interstate flight makes a perpetrator vulnerable to what are usually more severe state laws (murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, large-scale larceny). Thus the FBI has the reputation of being the law-enforcement least likely to get a conviction on the charges for which it officially makes an arrest. The FBI also has a great crime lab which can seal a conviction or establish non-guilt on trace evidence.

The US Marshals Service has its own story. A hint: it enforces a wide variety of federal laws that the FBI doesn't touch; it protects courts and witnesses; it has been present at Civil Rights rallies and marches to see that nothing goes awry. The FBI might not be able to apprehend a fugitive from Brownsville, Texas who chooses to go to Amarillo or El Paso -- but the US Marshals Service can.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/index.html

When I see the conflict over police shootings, I can see communities point about police acting as an occupying army for the rich but I also wonder what true community policing (think street committees in Cuba and China) would look like. Such policing would likely be far more pervasive and likely would provide a lot rougher justice--and quite likely more overtly corrupt justice. It costs much less to bribe an unpaid reserve police man or woman than a city cop with adequate pay and benefits. And in such a situation, it becomes a lot easier for gang leaders to melt into the community and become community leaders. Some grow into the role. Some remain corrupt and sociopathic. Some as a mixture of the two.

I prefer a well-trained, well-paid, highly-professional police force, the sort that even with extreme firepower is less likely to make mistakes that kill innocent people even if the killing proves justifiable homicide. Underpaid, ill-trained police are the ones most likely to end up on the informal payrolls of local gangsters. The neighborhood police in China and Cuba are likely to be more politicized to see someone as an "Enemy of the People" to be rounded up and roughed up for what he is instead of for what he does. A thoroughly-honest cop is more likely to see meth paraphernalia scattered among children's toys and show concern about the welfare of the children than anger at the parents. The good cop says that all he does is arrest someone. The bad stuff that happens is the choice of a jury, a judge, and the criminal code.

Police work is one of the most attractive careers for sociopathic types. Why shouldn't it be? It gives great power over often-helpless people. (See also prison guards).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Ontario has Toronto, a world-class city, and some boreal forest where people still hunt and trap for a living, and about everything that you could expect in between those different milieus. Contrast Ohio, where forests are either swamps or hills to steep for farming. So practically anything north of a line from Thunder Bay to Sault-Ste. Marie to Sudbury in Ontario is still frontier, and the police are obviously scattered.

The FBI is largely assigned the duty of enforcing the law that prohibits interstate flight to avoid prosecution. Offenders rarely get convicted of interstate flight, but the arrest for interstate flight makes a perpetrator vulnerable to what are usually more severe state laws (murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, large-scale larceny). Thus the FBI has the reputation of being the law-enforcement least likely to get a conviction on the charges for which it officially makes an arrest. The FBI also has a great crime lab which can seal a conviction or establish non-guilt on trace evidence.

The US Marshals Service has its own story. A hint: it enforces a wide variety of federal laws that the FBI doesn't touch; it protects courts and witnesses; it has been present at Civil Rights rallies and marches to see that nothing goes awry. The FBI might not be able to apprehend a fugitive from Brownsville, Texas who chooses to go to Amarillo or El Paso -- but the US Marshals Service can.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/index.html



I prefer a well-trained, well-paid, highly-professional police force, the sort that even with extreme firepower is less likely to make mistakes that kill innocent people even if the killing proves justifiable homicide. Underpaid, ill-trained police are the ones most likely to end up on the informal payrolls of local gangsters. The neighborhood police in China and Cuba are likely to be more politicized to see someone as an "Enemy of the People" to be rounded up and roughed up for what he is instead of for what he does. A thoroughly-honest cop is more likely to see meth paraphernalia scattered among children's toys and show concern about the welfare of the children than anger at the parents. The good cop says that all he does is arrest someone. The bad stuff that happens is the choice of a jury, a judge, and the criminal code.

Police work is one of the most attractive careers for sociopathic types. Why shouldn't it be? It gives great power over often-helpless people. (See also prison guards).

You make my point beautifully.

Originally Posted by Odin

He's been reduced to begging people to "please clap", LOL!

LOL!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

LOL!

I almost felt sorry for him.

Almost.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The N African blood thing I got with 23andme.com will be the next interesting moment in the family.

So you have Othello in your bloodline? Or at least the equivalent of Othello.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Actually, Gloria Steinem become post seasonal come the 3T. She's one of the 60's types who never moved on from "movement feminism" to realizing that become passe. Xer's accepted the new sexual norms pretty much from the get go such that Gloria's stuff came out as nagging. I'd say the same goes for race relations as well. It works like this in my family.
GI's and elder Silents were aghast when my '43 cousin did genealogy and confirmed Native American blood. Boomers and younger pretty much accepted it as an OK thing. The N African blood thing I got with 23andme.com will be the next interesting moment in the family.


I agree. This sullying of their own achievements on the alter of post seasonal identity politics is just breathtaking.



Certainly agreed. That another subset of Silent/Boomers who I think need to reflect on what sort of legacy they desire to leave behind. Should it be one of sacrificial stewardship or one of self indulgent narcissism ? The other subset is of course the fat cat brigade. I'm sure there are Boomers/Silents who of course are doing right.

Would you guys say all this if you liked Hillary?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Would you guys say all this if you liked Hillary?

Yes. Please refer to my .sig.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

So you have Othello in your bloodline? Or at least the equivalent of Othello.

Othello???! :: checks teh wikis :::
I didn't really do any reading of "The Classics". College was just an ends to end of getting a bigger,better paycheck. The early 1980's had the tuition time bomb ticking every year, so it was get yer degree and git out.
But to answer your question, yeah, it seems so. "N African" is vague. It could be Berber, Arab, or a catch all "Moor". "UK" is the same way. It's a catchall of Viking/Anglo Saxon/and Celtic/.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes. Please refer to my .sig.

No explanation there!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

(to Ragnarök_62) So you have Othello in your bloodline? Or at least the equivalent of Othello.

Berber? They probably entered through aristocratic Spanish lines. British nobility had much infusion from Spanish aristocrats before the Anglican schism. Less likely, Coptic... which would connect to the ancient Egyptian civilization.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The N African blood thing I got with 23andme.com will be the next interesting moment in the family.



So you have Othello in your bloodline? Or at least the equivalent of Othello.

None of this is surprising. Check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/ Even Saami (Lapps) in Lapland have Berber mitochondrial DNA. The first wave of human settlement that repopulated Europe after the last Ice Age came from the south (in this case, the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of Europe, about 9000 years ago. So everyone in Europe has Berber genes. Indo-Europeans from the East came much later.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No explanation there!

Yes there is. Identity politics is a subset of political correctness.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes there is. Identity politics is a subset of political correctness.

No it isn't. Political correctness is being polite toward different groups, or enforced politeness. Identity politics is group power plays.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No it isn't. Political correctness is being polite toward different groups, or enforced politeness. Identity politics is group power plays.

I do not agree. Political correctness is a pejorative term.

It's a pejorative because it is indeed often enforced. Only stupid folks agree to be bound by said enforcement. It's not only a favorite of the Left, but the Right has its own variant, "Red Baiting".

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I do not agree. Political correctness is a pejorative term.

It's a pejorative because it is indeed often enforced. Only stupid folks agree to be bound by said enforcement. It's not only a favorite of the Left, but the Right has its own variant, "Red Baiting".

It's only pejorative if you disagree with it

I disagree with enforcement too.

But I think a woman president would be a good thing. Yes I think Hillary and Gloria are too blatant about it.

But you guys carry on as if they were committing sins. You are too politically incorrect! Get over it. If they are too blatant about it, it will cost them votes. So why worry?

Updated Monday Feb.8 polls

New Hampshire: today's poll average:
Trump 32. from Sunday: -.2
Rubio 14.2 -.8
Cruz 12.2 -.6
Kasich 11.8 -.6
Bush 10.4 +.6

Sanders 56 +1.8
Clinton 39.5 -1.1


Average of 5 Sunday New Hampshire polls:
Trump 32.2
Rubio 15
Cruz 12.8
Kasich 12.4
Bush 9.8

Sanders 54.2
Clinton 40.6


Tuesday Feb.9:
1 poll so far:

Trump 33
Kasich 17
Rubio 14
Cruz 10
Bush 9
Christie 8

Sanders 53
Clinton 44