Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

...we all know that self-professed Righties do exactly the same thing...

1) Examples, please;

2) Sorry, but for real world, double-standard double-thinking hypocrisy, Haymarket is the hands down winner. If you have a challenger, do tell!

3) You didn't notice the tag line until now?!

---
Back to Haymarket':

I'd still love to know: Who paid Haymarket's Military Service Tax? Come on, I know you're retired, Haymarket. I'd think it'd be easy to go check out the old county draft records from 1969. You can look the guy up, and thank him for his inconvenience...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

People like this scare the bejeezies out of me.

I'm sure this moron had no problem with paying taxes for Bush's wars. Oh, but now there is a n***** in the White House, so it's different. These people wouldn't understand "liberty" if it bit them in the rear. Christo-Fascists trying to look like libertarians.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I just wrote a letter to my local paper. I'll let you know if it gets published.

Took them a while, but it appeared in today's edition:

The debate over health care reform in this country is long overdue, and I welcome the opportunity to explore the various options that have been offered. While I personally favor a single-payer system, I would also support other plans that would expand basic coverage, allow people to continue choosing their own doctors, and lower the overall costs of health care.

I am dismayed by how the tone of the debate has deteriorated over the past several weeks. There have been distortions and outright lies told about these proposals. The most outrageous of these statements (hawked by ex-Gov. Palin) claims that President Obama wants to set up "death panels" to screen out "unproductive" members of society. Some letter-writers to this very newspaper cry out about the prospect of "forced euthanasia."

None of this is in the actual health care legislation - only one small passage about reimbursing doctors for providing counseling on end-of-life care for their patients. This is not tantamount to forced euthanasia, however much the president's opponents would like it to appear so. Unfortunately, as Winston Churchill once said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on.

Doesn't The Journal Times have a responsibility to correct these distortions and untruths on the letters page? People may have a right to their opinions, but they don't have a right to twist the facts.

Next stop, Congressman Paul Ryan's "listening sessions."

Originally Posted by Odin

People like this scare the bejeezies out of me.

I'm sure this moron had no problem with paying taxes for Bush's wars. Oh, but now there is a n***** in the White House, so it's different.

So funny that you think this guy had a problem with a melanin-enhanced dude in the white house.



Do you even try to get to primary sources, or must all your news be pre-digested for you?

Originally Posted by Odin

I don't care if it's not in the constitution or not...

-Yeah, I know, you aren't a fan of limited government.

Originally Posted by Odin

...The Teabaggers are mental midgets that simply regurgitate what Rush and Beck and O'Reilly tell them, facts be damned. They are like rabid dogs.

You mean, a mental midget who would post something like this:

Originally Posted by Odin

People like this scare the bejeezies out of me.

I'm sure this moron had no problem with paying taxes for Bush's wars. Oh, but now there is a n***** in the White House, so it's different. These people wouldn't understand "liberty" if it bit them in the rear. Christo-Fascists trying to look like libertarians.

...to which Justin replied:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So funny that you think this guy had a problem with a melanin-enhanced dude in the white house.



Do you even try to get to primary sources, or must all your news be pre-digested for you?

or how about this:

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, more shameless lies.

...from which you were forced to recant:

Originally Posted by Odin

Really? I guess I must have misremembered what I've read about [Father Coughlin] in a book on the Depression I have.

...to which I'd still like to know:

1) What book?

2) What are the quotes?

3) Sources?

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Frank Rich of the New York Times writes The Guns of August, a decent summary of the state of the spiral of violence from a liberal point of view. For discussion purposes...

“IT is time to water the tree of liberty” said the sign carried by a gun-toting protester milling outside President Obama’s town-hall meeting in New Hampshire two weeks ago. The Thomas Jefferson quote that inspired this message, of course, said nothing about water: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That’s the beauty of a gun — you don’t have to spell out the “blood.”

He reviews recent rhetoric and violence. There is a lot more rhetoric than violence. He emphasizes that the main thrust is from the conservative side. He seems to be making a case that it is Republicans upset that the country is moving on. While he complains in passing about conservative commenters making a good living being outrageous, his is more displeased by elected officials fanning the fires. He ends it by linking the violent talk to the more general political issues.

The G.O.P., whose ranks have now dwindled largely to whites in Dixie and the less-populated West, is not even a paper tiger — it’s a paper muskrat. James Carville is correct when he says that if Republicans actually carried out their filibuster threats on health care, it would be a political bonanza for the Democrats.

In last year’s campaign debates, Obama liked to cite his unlikely Senate friendship with Tom Coburn, of all people, as proof that he could work with his adversaries. If the president insists that enemies like this are his friends — and that the nuts they represent can be placated by reason — he will waste his opportunity to effect real change and have no one to blame but himself.

The First Amendment protects "the free exercise of religion," but does not protect religions involving cannibalism or human sacrifice or refusing children medical treatment.

The Second Amendment originally protected the right to bear arms for a speciffic purpose: to allow communities to maintain "a well-regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a free state." A year or two ago the Supreme Court added a second purpose (by a 5-4 vote): self-defense in one's home.

Now coming to a presidential event with a firearm, I would suggest, has nothing to do with either of those purposes--absolutely nothing. There is no reason why it could not be banned. There are numerous reasons why it should be. Yet as Rich's column shows, the practice is now endorsed by leading Republican officeholders. The only thing that will start a serious effort to ban it is if those weapons are discharged. Even then I am far from sure that it would be successful.

And that, I would argue, is because in the 1970s the Republican Party embraced a strategy of forming a coalition of single-issue groups, who henceforth could do no wrong. If pro-lifers or NRA members feel they are entitled to commit or threaten murder, many Republican office-holders (or flacks like Ann Coulter) will not challenge those views. (Coulter: "I don't kill abortion doctors, but I don't condemn those who do.") The Nazis, of course, sent their supporters to intimidate oppposition meetings before they got into power. But I don't think they carried guns--you see, in Weimar Germany, I doubt you would have been allowed to.

Neither the gun-toters nor their Republican flacks represent anywhere near a majority of the US people, but they represent terrible dangers nonetheless.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Second Amendment originally protected the right to bear arms for a speciffic purpose: to allow communities to maintain "a well-regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a free state." A year or two ago the Supreme Court added a second purpose (by a 5-4 vote): self-defense in one's home...

-It was not "added"; it was always part of the Original Intent.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If pro-lifers or NRA members feel they are entitled to commit or threaten murder...

-No one has been harmed, or even threatened, by someone carrying a firearm at these meetings.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Nazis, of course, sent their supporters to intimidate oppposition meetings before they got into power...

-FWIW, so did every other Partei in Germany.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

...But I don't think they carried guns--you see, in Weimar Germany, I doubt you would have been allowed to...

-So, according to you, firearms aren't neccessary to intimidate the unarmed. You are correct. The Union and ACORN-type thugs who attacked the protesters at the St. Louis & Tampa town hall meetings were unarmed, but I don't think that's the point you wanted to make, was it?

---
Back to Playwrite:

I'd still love to know: When PW was supposedly visiting SE Asia, did he bother to check out the "Anti-War" movement's handiwork in the re-education camps, and in the killing fields? The answer seems to be NO...

Back to Haymarket':

I'd still love to know: Who paid Haymarket's Military Service Tax? Come on, I know you're retired, Haymarket. I'd think it'd be easy to go check out the old county draft records from 1971. You can look the guy up, and thank him for his inconvenience...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

[QUOTE=jamesdglick;275307-No one has been harmed, or even threatened, by someone carrying a firearm at these meetings.


What??!! No one is threatened by someone carrying a firearm?? In what universe is a stranger nearby, carrying a deadly weapon in the midst of an event filled with emotional content, not a threat? That's why policemen wear uniforms, so that, in principle at least, we can hope that they are trained in the use of their weaponry, and hopefully have the public's best interests at heart.

If you carry a gun, don't have a heart attack in Albuquerque. We who drive the ambulances and FD Rescues and respond to the 911 calls, sit patiently a couple blocks away, waiting for the police to clear scenes where guns are likely present. We EMTs and Firefighters certainly consider the mere presence of a civilian weapon on a scene as a threat. I don't envy the cops that have our backs.

[QUOTE=TnT;275346][QUOTE=jamesdglick;275307-No one has been harmed, or even threatened, by someone carrying a firearm at these meetings.


What??!! No one is threatened by someone carrying a firearm?? In what universe is a stranger nearby, carrying a deadly weapon in the midst of an event filled with emotional content, not a threat? That's why policemen wear uniforms, so that, in principle at least, we can hope that they are trained in the use of their weaponry, and hopefully have the public's best interests at heart.

If you carry a gun, don't have a heart attack in Albuquerque. We who drive the ambulances and FD Rescues and respond to the 911 calls, sit patiently a couple blocks away, waiting for the police to clear scenes where guns are likely present. We EMTs and Firefighters certainly consider the mere presence of a civilian weapon on a scene as a threat. I don't envy the cops that have our backs.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for a welcome reality check.

Family and friends are of course the majority of the victims of firearms people keep in their homes, but thanks to the victories of the NRA no politician would dream of even mentioning that in public any more.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The First Amendment protects "the free exercise of religion," but does not protect religions involving cannibalism or human sacrifice or refusing children medical treatment.

The Second Amendment originally protected the right to bear arms for a speciffic purpose: to allow communities to maintain "a well-regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a free state." A year or two ago the Supreme Court added a second purpose (by a 5-4 vote): self-defense in one's home.

Now coming to a presidential event with a firearm, I would suggest, has nothing to do with either of those purposes--absolutely nothing. There is no reason why it could not be banned. There are numerous reasons why it should be. Yet as Rich's column shows, the practice is now endorsed by leading Republican officeholders. The only thing that will start a serious effort to ban it is if those weapons are discharged. Even then I am far from sure that it would be successful.

And that, I would argue, is because in the 1970s the Republican Party embraced a strategy of forming a coalition of single-issue groups, who henceforth could do no wrong. If pro-lifers or NRA members feel they are entitled to commit or threaten murder, many Republican office-holders (or flacks like Ann Coulter) will not challenge those views. (Coulter: "I don't kill abortion doctors, but I don't condemn those who do.") The Nazis, of course, sent their supporters to intimidate oppposition meetings before they got into power. But I don't think they carried guns--you see, in Weimar Germany, I doubt you would have been allowed to.

Neither the gun-toters nor their Republican flacks represent anywhere near a majority of the US people, but they represent terrible dangers nonetheless.

Speaking as one who takes the Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms quite literally, I find myself very concerned about the President's well-being at these events. There are two questions I want answered, and am somewhat afraid of what those answers may be:

(1) Why is the Secret Service allowing firearms, obviously-loaded or otherwise, within the Presidential defense perimeter?

(2) Why is the Republican Party leadership not condemning the brandishing of weapons at these events, as they would surely do if George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were speaking?

The answer to (2) is unfortunately obvious: They're not-so-secretly hoping that one of these people will take a shot at the President, perhaps even successfully. As bad as that is, the answer to question (1) is far more troubling. Forgive me for sounding like a Conspiracy Theorist, but does this imply a high-placed mole in the President's Secret Service detail? Or that the President himself is woefully naive about the intent of at least some of the protesters? (the latter I find difficult to believe).

This is a very, very troubling situation.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Thank you for a welcome reality check.

Family and friends are of course the majority of the victims of firearms people keep in their homes, but thanks to the victories of the NRA no politician would dream of even mentioning that in public any more.

Ya, I know, we need more liberal government to ensure that me and my family members aren't accidently killed or murdered by my or our own guns. I'm truely amazed that I survived the experience of being the child of a gun owner and my life as a gun owner. BTW, I don't know a person who doesn't own a gun and didn't grow up in a home with a gun either.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Speaking as one who takes the Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms quite literally, I find myself very concerned about the President's well-being at these events. There are two questions I want answered, and am somewhat afraid of what those answers may be:

(1) Why is the Secret Service allowing firearms, obviously-loaded or otherwise, within the Presidential defense perimeter?

(2) Why is the Republican Party leadership not condemning the brandishing of weapons at these events, as they would surely do if George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were speaking?

The answer to (2) is unfortunately obvious: They're not-so-secretly hoping that one of these people will take a shot at the President, perhaps even successfully. As bad as that is, the answer to question (1) is far more troubling. Forgive me for sounding like a Conspiracy Theorist, but does this imply a high-placed mole in the President's Secret Service detail? Or that the President himself is woefully naive about the intent of at least some of the protesters? (the latter I find difficult to believe).

This is a very, very troubling situation.

There has long been a mobile no-2nd-Amendment zone around the president. Long precedent. It may go all the way back to no firearms in the presence of the king under English common law. I would prefer to interpret the Bill of Rights literally as well, but the courts have a ton of precedents that put the common good ahead of individual rights. No yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is the common example involving free speech. The common standard is 'clear and present danger.' Thus, if plane hijackings are considered to be a clear and present danger, one can search for and remove weapons from airline passengers. If one took the Bill of Rights totally seriously, one wouldn't be to search or seize without probable cause that a specific passenger is apt to hijack the plane.

I don't know exactly what Roadbuilder means by taking the words of the Second Amendment literally. The text reads:

"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."



To me this means that we allow people to keep and bear arms in order that they may take part in the militia. Now the reason we have courts and judicial opinions in this country, of course, is that there are no texts whose meanings cannot be argued, and as I have mentioned, the Supreme court, 5-4, declared a year ago that this included self-defense as well. I blogged about that at great length at the time.

Yet it seems obvious, does it not, to anyone who has retained his rational facilities, that that is not an absolute right to bear arms, anywhere, anytime? The right was granted for a specific purpose: to keep strong militias in being. We have had restrictions on where and why you could bear and use weapons since the beginning of the Republic. Wyatt Earp, as I recall, tamed Dodge City partly by forcing cowboys to check their guns when they came into town. (The NRA would surely have put a stop to that!) We have had airport security for a long time and even the NRA doesn't want to take that one on.

There is no basis in law for an absolutist interpretation of the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We have had restrictions on where and why you could bear and use weapons since the beginning of the Republic. Wyatt Earp, as I recall, tamed Dodge City partly by forcing cowboys to check their guns when they came into town. (The NRA would surely have put a stop to that!)

Yes and more than that, gun control within the city of Tombstone was the direct cause of the gunfight at the OK corral.

My maternal grandad taught me how to shoot with accuracy in my early teens. I still practice from time to time. Few reading this forum could outshoot me on a range. Here in rural SC, almost everyone I know openly admits to having arms at home. I am and have always been pro Second Amendment.
Hasving said that I will add that IMHO carrying arms to a political event should be banned. Politics is supposed to be about thought and persuasion. Playing wannabe militaman in a public forum should not be acceptable behavior. Anyone who wonders why should study German history from 1919 to 1933.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't know exactly what Roadbuilder means by taking the words of the Second Amendment literally. The text reads:

"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."



To me this means that we allow people to keep and bear arms in order that they may take part in the militia. Now the reason we have courts and judicial opinions in this country, of course, is that there are no texts whose meanings cannot be argued, and as I have mentioned, the Supreme court, 5-4, declared a year ago that this included self-defense as well. I blogged about that at great length at the time.

Yet it seems obvious, does it not, to anyone who has retained his rational facilities, that that is not an absolute right to bear arms, anywhere, anytime? The right was granted for a specific purpose: to keep strong militias in being. We have had restrictions on where and why you could bear and use weapons since the beginning of the Republic. Wyatt Earp, as I recall, tamed Dodge City partly by forcing cowboys to check their guns when they came into town. (The NRA would surely have put a stop to that!) We have had airport security for a long time and even the NRA doesn't want to take that one on.

There is no basis in law for an absolutist interpretation of the right to bear arms.

I never said, or even implied, that the right to bear arms was absolute, meaning anytime, anyplace, in the presence of anyone. That was the crux of my entire discussion of the clear and present danger to the President, posed by angry protesters brandishing firearms. Just because it's been nearly 50 years since Dealey Plaza, and 150 since Ford's Theatre, doesn't mean It Can't Happen Again.

What I meant by taking the 2nd Amendment literally is that I believe it gives me the right to bear arms to defend myself, my home, my community and my Nation. It does not mean that my individual right supercedes the right of the community to defend itself, in theory, from me. However, neither does it mean "only if I'm a member of the Washington State National Guard". A well-organized Militia is not specifically defined; it could be the Guard, or a group of neighbors, or me myself and I.

I do not own a gun, by the way. For me personally, the risk of accidentally shooting myself or someone else feels greater to me than the chance of needing a gun to defend myself, home, community and Nation. That is, AT THE MOMENT. Not knowing where this 4T may lead, I strongly support my right to obtain one, to learn to use it effectively, and am considering doing precisely that.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What I meant by taking the 2nd Amendment literally is that I believe it gives me the right to bear arms to defend myself, my home, my community and my Nation. It does not mean that my individual right supercedes the right of the community to defend itself, in theory, from me.

That is a very good way to put it, Kevin. Mind if I steal it from time to time (unattributed, of course)?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That is a very good way to put it, Kevin. Mind if I steal it from time to time (unattributed, of course)?

Help yourself... it's a free country!

You back from Russia yet?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

You back from Russia yet?

-sigh-

yeah...

We're crashing with Andi's parents for another week maybe while we get our new place all figured out. Just bought car #1 (a Town&Country, basically the same thing we had in Russia) yesterday; customs-cleared all our crap today, and going to have our container delivered tomorrow to its preliminary resting place.
Right now, Andi's working on getting stuff finalized so we can open up a shop up on your side of the river (a bit farther to the west, though). That's at least something to do for now... I'm also planning on getting talking to some buddies I made out in Khabarovsk and Vladivostok -- since there is a regular ship run from Vladik to Tacoma -- about maybe setting up a freight consolidating something or other. It's not like anyone's looking for a plant manager in this area or anything. So I do something completely new for a change...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

What??!! No one is threatened by someone carrying a firearm?? In what universe is a stranger nearby, carrying a deadly weapon in the midst of an event filled with emotional content, not a threat?

-In the same universe where the BLACK MAN (oohh) carried his rifle (not his gun ) in public, and where no one around him seems to have felt threatened; the only ones wetting their panties were the MSM and Leftie bloggers.

Like you!

Again, so far, the only violence at these town hall meetings have been by supporters of Obamacare against Tea Party people.

...and thinking of "Intimidating Black Men" (), you can intimidate people with a billy club:

http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_america_updates/groups/new_black_panther_party_for_self_Defense/justice_dept_sues_panthers.htm


"...The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Philadelphia on January 7, 2009, alleges that two NBPP members engaged in voter intimidation at a North Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008..."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/panel_panther_dismissal/2009/08/04/243605.html

"...the New Black Panther Party's members were 'caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters....'"

...but the Obama administration let them off the hook, so why should they bother with some guy who wasn't bothering anyone?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

...I don't know exactly what Roadbuilder means by taking the words of the Second Amendment literally. The text reads:

"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."

To me this means that we allow people to keep and bear arms in order that they may take part in the militia...

1) The Founding Fathers saw it differently. I think they trump you;

2) FWIW, the "Militia", by US statute:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_unorganized_militia&src=ansTT

"In the U.S., it is "all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45" who are not in the organized militia. It is also a self-description of several local militia organizations in the U.S.

See Section 311 of US Code Title 10. Also see the Militia Act of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1903."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-mob.htm

...which mentions the part about women which I remember.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

...family and friends are of course the majority of the victims of firearms people keep in their homes, but thanks to the victories of the NRA no politician would dream of even mentioning that in public any more...

-Incomplete & possibly dishonest, but I'll assume you didn't know any better:

1) The "excess" is due to suicides, not accidents;

2) Firearms prevent well over 100,000 crimes a year, often resulting in the capture of the criminal before he accomplishes his crime, something which all the law enforcement spending in the country fails to do.

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

I find dark humor in the fact that the 65 year old anti universal healthcare rightie who got his finger bit off is being taken care of by medicare.

If there was ever a living case of "I got mine screw you."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't know exactly what Roadbuilder means by taking the words of the Second Amendment literally. The text reads:

"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."



To me this means that we allow people to keep and bear arms in order that they may take part in the militia. Now the reason we have courts and judicial opinions in this country, of course, is that there are no texts whose meanings cannot be argued, and as I have mentioned, the Supreme court, 5-4, declared a year ago that this included self-defense as well. I blogged about that at great length at the time.

Yet it seems obvious, does it not, to anyone who has retained his rational facilities, that that is not an absolute right to bear arms, anywhere, anytime? The right was granted for a specific purpose: to keep strong militias in being. We have had restrictions on where and why you could bear and use weapons since the beginning of the Republic. Wyatt Earp, as I recall, tamed Dodge City partly by forcing cowboys to check their guns when they came into town. (The NRA would surely have put a stop to that!) We have had airport security for a long time and even the NRA doesn't want to take that one on.

There is no basis in law for an absolutist interpretation of the right to bear arms.

You might want to review The Commonplace Second Amendment, by Professor Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, and the recent Supreme Court case both of itself and as a pointer to many academic papers and relevant court precedents. There is lots and lots of room to interpret an individual right.

It turns out that there are lots of examples in state constitutions of the justification clause being narrower than the implementation clause. As an example, from Rhode Island's 1842 constitution...

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

An absolute right? That is something entirely different. One is always responsible for the abuse of a given liberty. A right to do anything does not give leave for one to abuse the rights of another.

I expect more court cases over the next several years that will further refine the meaning of the 2nd. I expect the individual right element to hold up, but assorted limitations on the right (magazine size, weapons possessions by felons, etc...) are apt to hold.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

See Section 311 of US Code Title 10. Also see the Militia Act of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1903."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/usar-mob.htm

...which mentions the part about women which I remember.

Just to spell out in full just who is the militia... abled bodied males from age 17 to 44 is the core of it, but there are a bunch of exceptions. Basically, there are a bunch of jobs that need to be performed even in an emergency, so a bunch of folk are exempt. Note the difference between the organized and unorganized militia.

Originally Posted by United States Code

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES


Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workers employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

TITLE 32--NATIONAL GUARD

Section 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must--

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

A timely DU thread:

Are we on the verge of a second American Civil War?

The first time around, people wore blue or grey uniforms, lived in specific geographic areas, and everyone knew who was who. So without uniforms and geographic separation, can there be a second American Civil War?

I believe that, not only can there be one, but that it’s already underway. Uniforms have been replaced by bumper stickers and signs carried at rallies. In almost every neighborhood, people know who their opponents are. And although I’m using the word “opponents” here, many of those involved would more likely use the term “enemy.”

This is a particularly ugly time in America. Most of us saw a woman in a wheelchair at a town meeting being shouted down by a mob of mindless thugs. Some of these “protesters” are bought and paid for. Others are nothing more than fringe zombies -- extremely dangerous ones.

But back to my main point. Could what’s going on today turn into another Civil War? Or more likely, a guerrilla war taking place anywhere and everywhere?

The hatred is there. The weapons are there. And a black president is in the White House which further infuriates those who could and should be labeled as insane. We’ve seen enough crazies bring guns to places at which Obama was speaking. How long before they start using them?

So I’d really like to hear your opinions here. Have I gone off the deep end? Or is our entire country in imminent danger of going off the deep end?

"Civil society" does not mean people acting politely. It is a specific term for the network of relationships that people form which are based in churches, non-profits, and other community organizations. Civil society has long been recognized by experts as the foundation of functioning democracy.

Take a look. Once upon a time ago the typical American shared PTA membership, volunteer work, and perhaps a church pew with those of opposing political points of view. Now civil society itself is on the rocks, and what's left of the networks of the left and right in the US are nearly severed from each other. A liberal's network might weave through the DFA and the the local Unitarian (or UCC, or Quaker, or etc.) church; a typical member of the radical right networks almost exclusively through megachurches where virtually every one of their interests can find a home (not accidentally, I suspect).

There are radical differences in values between the left and right. The left has strong social values. The right has made a virtue of selfishness. Someone on the left who did nothing to aid others when it was within his or her power to do so, or who betrayed the trust of family and friends to fulfill their whims (for example, by having an affair) is thought poorly of. The right believes that aiding those in need only encourages bad behavior, while acts of betrayal to further one's indulgences don't count, in their eyes, among the Saved (who are of course hopeless sinners who have been arbitrarily selected by Jesus for unearned, undeserved, salvation, so how could one expect anything other than sinful behavior among His Elect?). Hell, the left and right can't even agree on simple facts.

In virtually every category recognized by experts as critical to functional democracy, we come up frighteningly short.

And again, why do you believe Americans can act in their own best interest while the Lebanese and residents of the Balkans -- literate modern peoples all-- could not? There's absolutely no evidence that any human is largely informed and rational, and mounds of evidence that humanity is irrational and, in most complex situations, ignorant of key pieces of information necessary for rational decision making. Last I checked, Americans are human.

I'm in SC for a few days, and I've been talking to the most ignorant, brainwashed, armed to the teeth, good christians. The depths of the rage,and the stupidity in areas of this country is harrowing.

Yes, we are becoming a third world shithole in many areas of the country. And the only information these people access is hate radio, Glenn Beck, and fundie preachers.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I find dark humor in the fact that the 65 year old anti universal healthcare rightie who got his finger bit off...

-Ah yes. Humorous. Thus "Spiral of Violence".

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...is being taken care of by medicare. If there was ever a living case of "I got mine screw you."

-The point being that said Rightie has reason to believe that he did something to earn those Medicare benefits- current taxes for that scheme are currently 2.9% of wages (1.45% direct from future beneficiary, 1.45% from employer). Whether that REALLY morally entitles said Rightie to said benefits is a different question. But since you seem to be one of thise who feels that paying similar taxes morally entitles one to SS Ponzi Scheme benefits, you're not in a position to argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Just to spell out in full just who is the militia... abled bodied males from age 17 to 44 is the core of it, but there are a bunch of exceptions. Basically, there are a bunch of jobs that need to be performed even in an emergency, so a bunch of folk are exempt...

1) I couldn't find the actual law in full. You did. Bravo!

2) Most of the exceptions would still be eligible in extremis, since their jobs would no longer exist. I'd be curious to know the experience during the War of 1812 (DC & New Orleans), and ACW.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]