Then again... you'd better watch what you say TK, or the Left will put a fatwa out on you. You've just espoused the concept of Natural Law.

Then again... you'd better watch what you say TK, or the Left will put a fatwa out on you. You've just espoused the concept of Natural Law.

Now the Bush vermin does not even want to give you the freedom to leave if you have had it with them:



http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/normal.htm

(Usual disclaimers. Excerpted)



Letters to Nuremberg

"Everything is chaos, and the situation is excellent"

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

11/26/02



... Does life feel normal? Everything?s pretty much the same as it was before the coup, right? Oh, liberals are het up about it, but aren?t we always pretty much het up about some damn thing or another?

OK, there?s a few more cameras here and there, and ok, maybe they?ll start tracking your purchases and what books you borrow from the library. But hey, you?ve got nothing to hide, so why should it bother you? And the media has nothing but bad news anyway. If they leave something out that isn?t going to interest you anyway, what?s it going to hurt?

To give you an idea of how bad it is, reflect on this little news squib that came out once about two weeks ago, and was never repeated in the cyclic news of cable newscasts. The White House announced that due to the large number of Americans ? over 100,000 ? who have applied for asylum in Canada, the White House is going to ask Congress to pass a bill requiring that citizens desiring to leave the country as political refugees get permission from Washington first.

If I decide to flee at some point, I think I?ll pass on notifying the authorities. Somehow, I don?t think that would be healthy.

But you aren?t one of the ones trying to get out, right? So why should you care about some emigration regulation? Everything?s hunky-dory, right?

Everything?s normal.

Startlingly normal.

Now the Bush vermin does not even want to give you the freedom to leave if you have had it with them:



http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/normal.htm

(Usual disclaimers. Excerpted)



Letters to Nuremberg

"Everything is chaos, and the situation is excellent"

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

11/26/02



... Does life feel normal? Everything?s pretty much the same as it was before the coup, right? Oh, liberals are het up about it, but aren?t we always pretty much het up about some damn thing or another?

OK, there?s a few more cameras here and there, and ok, maybe they?ll start tracking your purchases and what books you borrow from the library. But hey, you?ve got nothing to hide, so why should it bother you? And the media has nothing but bad news anyway. If they leave something out that isn?t going to interest you anyway, what?s it going to hurt?

To give you an idea of how bad it is, reflect on this little news squib that came out once about two weeks ago, and was never repeated in the cyclic news of cable newscasts. The White House announced that due to the large number of Americans ? over 100,000 ? who have applied for asylum in Canada, the White House is going to ask Congress to pass a bill requiring that citizens desiring to leave the country as political refugees get permission from Washington first.

If I decide to flee at some point, I think I?ll pass on notifying the authorities. Somehow, I don?t think that would be healthy.

But you aren?t one of the ones trying to get out, right? So why should you care about some emigration regulation? Everything?s hunky-dory, right?

Everything?s normal.

Startlingly normal.

Now the Bush vermin does not even want to give you the freedom to leave if you have had it with them:



http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/normal.htm

(Usual disclaimers. Excerpted)



Letters to Nuremberg

"Everything is chaos, and the situation is excellent"

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

11/26/02



... Does life feel normal? Everything?s pretty much the same as it was before the coup, right? Oh, liberals are het up about it, but aren?t we always pretty much het up about some damn thing or another?

OK, there?s a few more cameras here and there, and ok, maybe they?ll start tracking your purchases and what books you borrow from the library. But hey, you?ve got nothing to hide, so why should it bother you? And the media has nothing but bad news anyway. If they leave something out that isn?t going to interest you anyway, what?s it going to hurt?

To give you an idea of how bad it is, reflect on this little news squib that came out once about two weeks ago, and was never repeated in the cyclic news of cable newscasts. The White House announced that due to the large number of Americans ? over 100,000 ? who have applied for asylum in Canada, the White House is going to ask Congress to pass a bill requiring that citizens desiring to leave the country as political refugees get permission from Washington first.

If I decide to flee at some point, I think I?ll pass on notifying the authorities. Somehow, I don?t think that would be healthy.

But you aren?t one of the ones trying to get out, right? So why should you care about some emigration regulation? Everything?s hunky-dory, right?

Everything?s normal.

Startlingly normal.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

the fact is, i am not of a mindset that is terribly similar to yours, though i am open to what you have to say, and don't deny that you may be right about some things. despite this, i do believe that, if you wish to convince me (which is suppose you may very well not -- more on that later) of the "truth" as you see it, the burden of proof is yours.

perhaps you don't care to convince me. perhaps your points are aimed at convincing others. but i know from observation that others feel as i do. so you're not convincing them, either.

and since you yourself stated that you were attempting "via words, to lay one mind set upon another", i can only conclude that you must be trying to convince someone. perhaps it's the proverbial choir. :wink:

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

Originally, it was not thought a Bill of Rights would be necessary. As Congress was given no police powers, Congress could not write laws that would limit freedom as it had been given no authority to regulate the lives of citizens. Thus, advocates of gun control might also wish to explicitly create a power of Congress to regulate arms, and consider eliminating the 9th Amendment as well. But, no, they will go the expanded commerce clause route. Since guns are sold in interstate commerce, Congress has the power to ban guns? As newspapers are also sold in interstate commerce, Congress may also censor the press?

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit. I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

Still, the time for a rewrite of Constitutions is the cusp of Crisis to High, when the lessons learned from the Crisis are fresh, and the sense of consensus is still strong. Nothing is apt to happen on that front for a decade or two.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

Originally, it was not thought a Bill of Rights would be necessary. As Congress was given no police powers, Congress could not write laws that would limit freedom as it had been given no authority to regulate the lives of citizens. Thus, advocates of gun control might also wish to explicitly create a power of Congress to regulate arms, and consider eliminating the 9th Amendment as well. But, no, they will go the expanded commerce clause route. Since guns are sold in interstate commerce, Congress has the power to ban guns? As newspapers are also sold in interstate commerce, Congress may also censor the press?

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit. I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

Still, the time for a rewrite of Constitutions is the cusp of Crisis to High, when the lessons learned from the Crisis are fresh, and the sense of consensus is still strong. Nothing is apt to happen on that front for a decade or two.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

does this right exist solely because of the second amendment? if the amendment were repealed (which i realize is unrealistic), would americans no longer have that right?


TK

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

Originally, it was not thought a Bill of Rights would be necessary. As Congress was given no police powers, Congress could not write laws that would limit freedom as it had been given no authority to regulate the lives of citizens. Thus, advocates of gun control might also wish to explicitly create a power of Congress to regulate arms, and consider eliminating the 9th Amendment as well. But, no, they will go the expanded commerce clause route. Since guns are sold in interstate commerce, Congress has the power to ban guns? As newspapers are also sold in interstate commerce, Congress may also censor the press?

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit. I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

Still, the time for a rewrite of Constitutions is the cusp of Crisis to High, when the lessons learned from the Crisis are fresh, and the sense of consensus is still strong. Nothing is apt to happen on that front for a decade or two.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

I agree with Bob here. Amendment 9 clearly means that the people have rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

Without Article 9, writing the Bill of Rights would have been well-nigh impossible. The spirit of the founders was to bypass the inevitable disagreements about minutia and list the most important rights, to give posterity the gist of what they intended, and hope posterity could successfully work out the minutia as issues arose.

However, Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist.

The hard job of determining what the unenumerated rights are is something the founders handed off to us, so that the Bill of Rights could be completed quickly.

I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

In my opinion, the American approach is that, rather than having a limited set of rights, we have instead a limited number of forbidden activities in a sea of rights.

This puts us in the position of defining what is forbidden, rather than defining what freedoms we have.

All not explicitly forbidden is allowed.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

I agree with Bob here. Amendment 9 clearly means that the people have rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

Without Article 9, writing the Bill of Rights would have been well-nigh impossible. The spirit of the founders was to bypass the inevitable disagreements about minutia and list the most important rights, to give posterity the gist of what they intended, and hope posterity could successfully work out the minutia as issues arose.

However, Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist.

The hard job of determining what the unenumerated rights are is something the founders handed off to us, so that the Bill of Rights could be completed quickly.

I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

In my opinion, the American approach is that, rather than having a limited set of rights, we have instead a limited number of forbidden activities in a sea of rights.

This puts us in the position of defining what is forbidden, rather than defining what freedoms we have.

All not explicitly forbidden is allowed.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What are other sources of rights retained by the people? I would propose that state Bills of Rights (which often include rights to bear arms), English Common Law at the time of the Founding Fathers and the writings of the major Enlightenment philosophers as possible sources of rights. The argument has also been made that the Enlightement philosopher's list of "natural rights" were given by God, and what God gave let no congress set aside.

Thus, arguably, repealing the 2nd Amendment would do absolutely nothing.

I agree with Bob here. Amendment 9 clearly means that the people have rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

Without Article 9, writing the Bill of Rights would have been well-nigh impossible. The spirit of the founders was to bypass the inevitable disagreements about minutia and list the most important rights, to give posterity the gist of what they intended, and hope posterity could successfully work out the minutia as issues arose.

However, Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist.

The hard job of determining what the unenumerated rights are is something the founders handed off to us, so that the Bill of Rights could be completed quickly.

I'd prefer an explicit list of rights, an extended but firmly limited set of powers of Congress, and a firmly rewritten commerce clause. I figure the Constituion has been in effect long enough that current precedent could be made explicit.

In my opinion, the American approach is that, rather than having a limited set of rights, we have instead a limited number of forbidden activities in a sea of rights.

This puts us in the position of defining what is forbidden, rather than defining what freedoms we have.

All not explicitly forbidden is allowed.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

i must be kidding? you just said that this is exactly what you were doing. you know, when you said the part about serving "as a validator" for those who "already agree with" you.

sheesh.


TK

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

i must be kidding? you just said that this is exactly what you were doing. you know, when you said the part about serving "as a validator" for those who "already agree with" you.

sheesh.


TK

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

While I occassionally fool even myself into thinking I might convince anyone, in these threads, of something, this is not the case ninety-nine percent of the time. No, what happens is there might be something I write which someone might already agree with. Therefore I may serve merely as a validator.

As to the "choir" thing... you must be kidding.

i must be kidding? you just said that this is exactly what you were doing. you know, when you said the part about serving "as a validator" for those who "already agree with" you.

sheesh.


TK

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

<a snipped, but well-made point>

Originally Posted by Sanford

<another snipped, but well-made point>

see, marc.... it's not that hard. :wink:

but again, if you're only seeking to validate others you agree with, i guess it's not necessary to be clear. those others simply know you agree with them, and can assume that whatever cryptic point you're making validates their POV. so score 1 for efficiency.


TK

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

<a snipped, but well-made point>

Originally Posted by Sanford

<another snipped, but well-made point>

see, marc.... it's not that hard. :wink:

but again, if you're only seeking to validate others you agree with, i guess it's not necessary to be clear. those others simply know you agree with them, and can assume that whatever cryptic point you're making validates their POV. so score 1 for efficiency.


TK

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

<a snipped, but well-made point>

Originally Posted by Sanford

<another snipped, but well-made point>

see, marc.... it's not that hard. :wink:

but again, if you're only seeking to validate others you agree with, i guess it's not necessary to be clear. those others simply know you agree with them, and can assume that whatever cryptic point you're making validates their POV. so score 1 for efficiency.


TK

I guess I didn't make myself clear on the "choir" thing.

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

That there is a "truth" to be found, in our understanding of how this sun thing works, often becomes the "first casuality of the war" of words.

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

I guess I didn't make myself clear on the "choir" thing.

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

That there is a "truth" to be found, in our understanding of how this sun thing works, often becomes the "first casuality of the war" of words.

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

I guess I didn't make myself clear on the "choir" thing.

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

That there is a "truth" to be found, in our understanding of how this sun thing works, often becomes the "first casuality of the war" of words.

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

now you're just not making sense. first you say you're not trying to convince anyone-- that your posts are meant to serve as validation for those who already agree with you. then you say no one agrees with you here. so your posts are meant to neither convince nor validate any one here?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

actually, the sun doesn't rise at all. our planet's rotation just makes it seem that it does. 8)

but seriously, of course what seems to you to be an absolute truth is not perceived by others as the same. that's natural.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

you know, i never thought of it, but he does... he's fat and bulbous and tyrannical.... oh, wait, you mean brian rush, i was thinking of another rush. :wink:


TK

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

now you're just not making sense. first you say you're not trying to convince anyone-- that your posts are meant to serve as validation for those who already agree with you. then you say no one agrees with you here. so your posts are meant to neither convince nor validate any one here?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

actually, the sun doesn't rise at all. our planet's rotation just makes it seem that it does. 8)

but seriously, of course what seems to you to be an absolute truth is not perceived by others as the same. that's natural.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

you know, i never thought of it, but he does... he's fat and bulbous and tyrannical.... oh, wait, you mean brian rush, i was thinking of another rush. :wink:


TK