In the course of this debate many of us have wondered about what the effect of widespread gun ownership actually is, for instance, on homicides in the home committed against family and acquaintances, as opposed to legitimate self defense. It turns out the reason we don't know very much about this is that the NRA doesn't want us to find out. They have successfully blocked funding for such research to the CDC and other federally supported outfits, and because there is no money for such research, people have stopped doing it.

It defines a dual purpose: The militia is necessary for a free state, and the right of the people shall not be infringed.

And we don't agree that the militia is irrelevant. In the broadest sense they were using, a militia is all able-bodied civilians who are able to be first responders for any type of military or environmental disaster. It is a recognition of the spontaneous organization in civil society.

...or we can all wait for FEMA, I guess?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It defines a dual purpose: The militia is necessary for a free state, and the right of the people shall not be infringed.

And we don't agree that the militia is irrelevant. In the broadest sense they were using, a militia is all able-bodied civilians who are able to be first responders for any type of military or environmental disaster. It is a recognition of the spontaneous organization in civil society.

...or we can all wait for FEMA, I guess?

Again, you might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment. There is a justification phrase and an operational phase. The justification phase lists one reason for the operational phase, but does not exclude the possibility of other reasons. When this structure is used, the courts should not disregard the operational phase just because they think the justification phase is no longer appropriate or relevent. If anything, they should implement the operational phase under the assumption that the justification phrase is true.

Rights are supposed to protect The People from the government. The government should not be able to decide when these protections should go away.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In the course of this debate many of us have wondered about what the effect of widespread gun ownership actually is, for instance, on homicides in the home committed against family and acquaintances, as opposed to legitimate self defense. It turns out the reason we don't know very much about this is that the NRA doesn't want us to find out. They have successfully blocked funding for such research to the CDC and other federally supported outfits, and because there is no money for such research, people have stopped doing it.

The statistics, as we noted a while ago, are complicated. The CDC, in treating guns like a disease, were selecting research points selectively to push a gun control agenda.

Research ought to be done, but I'd start with the FBI crime statistics and expand from there. Doctors leaping into researching crime statistics?

If one looks into the 'research' done by the gun rights and gun control political lobbies, one can find all sorts of ways one can spin the numbers to prove most anything you want to prove.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It defines a dual purpose: The militia is necessary for a free state, and the right of the people shall not be infringed.

And we don't agree that the militia is irrelevant. In the broadest sense they were using, a militia is all able-bodied civilians who are able to be first responders for any type of military or environmental disaster. It is a recognition of the spontaneous organization in civil society.

...or we can all wait for FEMA, I guess?

That is not what it was then. It was a formal organization in every town in the country.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Rights are supposed to protect The People from the government. The government should not be able to decide when these protections should go away.

A very wise statement. And the primary reason Americans will never give up their Second Amendment rights -- or any other, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, you do enough for it to affect your political and social views. And "trashing the house" meant, as I understood you to say years ago, making it harder for you to find a significant other in a traditional relationship, because of the pressure to have sex, be uninhibited, etc. Not that you don't have some good points about it all. But remember that the family life many of us boomers grew up in was very alienating, lonely, and stifling. I could think of little less fulfilling to me growing up than a traditional family. It was confining, repressive, unspiritual, and boring. We needed to seek out alternatives, although we didn't do a very good job of it.

More importantly it meant burning cities and promoting drug use, which led to an epidemic of crime that lasted some places unti the mid 90s.

thank u though, for owning up to those mistakes. That is something most core and early Boomers simply will not do. :-)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, you might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment. There is a justification phrase and an operational phase. The justification phase lists one reason for the operational phase, but does not exclude the possibility of other reasons. When this structure is used, the courts should not disregard the operational phase just because they think the justification phase is no longer appropriate or relevent. If anything, they should implement the operational phase under the assumption that the justification phrase is true.

I always find that Many consider "need" and "Necessity" to be synonymous; They are not.

Just because we "feel" we don't "need" something, doesn't make it not Necessary.

"Need" is temporal and relative; Necessity is Timeless and Absolute.

Thanks for the post, Bob. You are a true voice of reasonable Opinion and Debate.
FWIW, I respect that dearly whether or not I agree.

PoC67

PS:

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Rights are supposed to protect The People from the government. The government should not be able to decide when these protections should go away.

I agree!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

More importantly it meant burning cities and promoting drug use, which led to an epidemic of crime that lasted some places until the mid 90s.

I guess I had a different view from you, being from the white suburbs. I don't think of riots as a boomer program; just something a few of them in ghettoes engaged in sometimes for a couple of years. But I do think the riots did continue to some extent as a long crime wave. Rebels need an outlet.

Drug use; sure. But different drugs are different. Again it depends on your neighborhood. Hard addictive drugs and gangs and such were not something a lot of the boomers I knew were engaged in. That was mostly the way poor young people coped with their underclass situation, and many still do. It's the wrong way. But that has little connection with suburban boomer kids smoking grass to relax and have fun, or doing LSD to expand consciousness. I don't endorse those methods either, but it certainly was a boomer thing.

I don't endorse the drug war either, though. Putting drug users and dealers in prison has made the USA the country with more people in prison than anywhere. It doesn't solve the problem.

thank u though, for owning up to those mistakes. That is something most core and early Boomers simply will not do. :-)

Sure. No Gen is without fault, even us holier-than-thou boomers. We learned some things, I hope. But a lot of boomers had a good time too, and created some good things.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess I had a different view from you, being from the white suburbs. I don't think of riots as a boomer program; just something a few of them in ghettoes engaged in sometimes for a couple of years. But I do think the riots did continue to some extent as a long crime wave. Rebels need an outlet.

Drug use; sure. But different drugs are different. Again it depends on your neighborhood. Hard addictive drugs and gangs and such were not something a lot of the boomers I knew were engaged in. That was mostly the way poor young people coped with their underclass situation, and many still do. It's the wrong way. But that has little connection with suburban boomer kids smoking grass to relax and have fun, or doing LSD to expand consciousness. I don't endorse those methods either, but it certainly was a boomer thing.

I don't endorse the drug war either, though. Putting drug users and dealers in prison has made the USA the country with more people in prison than anywhere. It doesn't solve the problem.

Sure. No Gen is without fault, even us holier-than-thou boomers. We learned some things, I hope. But a lot of boomers had a good time too, and created some good things.

I am not quite sure what planet Eric was living on in the late 1960s. Major riots occurred at hundreds of college campuses around the country, including my own.

In 1971 I did basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. We had a class on civil disturbances. "You reservists and guardsmen," said the instructor, "this is your day to listen up." (I was one.) He then asked how many of us had been at a civil disturbance. A few hands went up, including my own. He then asked how many had been to college. About half the hands in the company went up.

The instructor burst out laughing, and I couldn't blame him. Incidentally, the one good movie about student rebellion ever made, Getting Straight, starring Elliot Gould and Candace Bergen, is finally available on DVD. Every Boomer (including Bill Strauss) loves it. Every Xer and Millennial I have ever shown it to hated it, and I had to give up using it in my class.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Again, you might want to read The Commonplace Second Amendment. There is a justification phrase and an operational phase. The justification phase lists one reason for the operational phase, but does not exclude the possibility of other reasons. When this structure is used, the courts should not disregard the operational phase just because they think the justification phase is no longer appropriate or relevant. If anything, they should implement the operational phase under the assumption that the justification phrase is true.

Rights are supposed to protect The People from the government. The government should not be able to decide when these protections should go away.

Bob, there was a justification phrase in the 2nd because the Constitution intended to make the maintenance of a standing Army very difficult (Article 1, Section 8, clause 12). The militia was intended to be the baseline defense of the nation. That is clearly no longer the case. Since the justification is no longer valid, is there any reason to assume that the operation intended to support it has any continuing validity?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That is not what it was then. It was a formal organization in every town in the country.

-Not exactly. In most colonies/states, the Militia was every able-bodied free man between the 16-60. By 1775, it wasn't particulalry organized in most places.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...The militia was intended to be the baseline defense of the nation. That is clearly no longer the case...

...therefore, the militia as defined at the time is still the pool from which the military (whether volunteer or draftee) draws.

All moot, since the FFs obviously wanted people to have weapons for self defence, since they'd all read Beccaria:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Bob, there was a justification phrase in the 2nd because the Constitution intended to make the maintenance of a standing Army very difficult (Article 1, Section 8, clause 12). The militia was intended to be the baseline defense of the nation. That is clearly no longer the case. Since the justification is no longer valid, is there any reason to assume that the operation intended to support it has any continuing validity?

Have you read the article? Professor Volokh made his case reasonably well. I agree with him. I could embellish further, but you would do better reading, quoting and rebutting Volokh. Your question is answered there.

The Commonplace Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by JDG '66

-Not exactly. In most colonies/states, the Militia was every able-bodied free man between the 16-60. By 1775, it wasn't particulalry organized in most places.

...therefore, the militia as defined at the time is still the pool from which the military (whether volunteer or draftee) draws.

All moot, since the FFs obviously wanted people to have weapons for self defence, since they'd all read Beccaria:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

All of this is beside the point. The FF lived at the end of the argricultural age. At the time, there were many accepted norms, including the possession and use of weapons inside the Capital Building. Do you think that's still a good idea?

Of course, the ACW changed everything. If we must rely on sentiment for the past as a guide to the future, let's start with the ACW and the beginning of the industrial age ... at the very least. Once we developed the ability to kill wholesale, going about armed became stupid - all the more so when the threat of the frontier also vanished.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Have you read the article? Professor Volokh made his case reasonably well. I agree with him. I could embellish further, but you would do better reading, quoting and rebutting Volokh. Your question is answered there.

The Commonplace Second Amendment.

I read this about 10 years ago. Its a nice legal argument, but it still fails the sanity test I prefer to use: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 2nd is decades out of touch with the reality that germinated it. Its archaic and should be defunct. It should never have been granted the status it has, but then, neither should corporations.

We will rue the days they were.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The 2nd is decades out of touch with the reality that germinated it. Its archaic and should be defunct. It should never have been granted the status it has, but then, neither should corporations.

We will rue the days they were.

So is the 1st, but I suspect you won't see it that way.

In any event, Obama plans on pushing gun control starting next month (long enough to "show" he is not cashing in on the Arizona shootings):

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/w...n-control.html

Not that it will pass, of course. I expect that when gun confiscation really does happen it will be republicans behind it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I read this about 10 years ago. Its a nice legal argument, but it still fails the sanity test I prefer to use: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The 2nd is decades out of touch with the reality that germinated it. Its archaic and should be defunct. It should never have been granted the status it has, but then, neither should corporations.

We will rue the days they were.

I will not argue that the laws ought to be change, but I shall argue that the government should not be allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights. I'm all in favor of a constitutional convention to fix the 2nd and a lot of other things, but until the country is unified enough to ratify the results of the convention, I'll still be arguing for rule of law.

For much of the 19th and 20th century, the Supreme Court's Jim Crow interpretation of the Bill of Rights essentially gave no one any rights. I already rue those days. There is work to be done, but the current values conflict makes it impossible to get 2/3rds of Congress and most of the states to agree on anything. In theory, if we get a true regenracy, a true blood, toil, tears and sweat phase of crisis, and start into a true high, we might have worked out shared values that makes a convention possible.

But it isn't possible now. Until it does happen, if it happens, it's not clear to me at this point that it will, I'd suggest we not throw away the constitution we have.

Utah Considers Handgun As An Official State Symbol

Jan 27, 2011 · The Browning M1911 semiautomatic pistol may soon join the sego lily, Rocky Mountain elk and sugar beet as official state symbols. Supporters say the .45-caliber handgun ...

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/27/133280...age?ft=1&f=101

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am not quite sure what planet Eric was living on in the late 1960s. Major riots occurred at hundreds of college campuses around the country, including my own.

Planet Earth. The campus riots were nothing like the riots Roadbuilder is referring to. As soon as anyone got killed (Kent State) the whole movement stalled forever. At my school there was only one instance where some windows were broken; that was it. UP the road in Berkeley there were lots of instances of people marching down the nearby avenue busting windows, and one riot (Peoples Park) where one man died. Nothing like Newark where I believe the toll was 35.

In 1971 I did basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. We had a class on civil disturbances. "You reservists and guardsmen," said the instructor, "this is your day to listen up." (I was one.) He then asked how many of us had been at a civil disturbance. A few hands went up, including my own. He then asked how many had been to college. About half the hands in the company went up.

Sounds like the disturbances were rare.

The instructor burst out laughing, and I couldn't blame him. Incidentally, the one good movie about student rebellion ever made, Getting Straight, starring Elliot Gould and Candace Bergen, is finally available on DVD. Every Boomer (including Bill Strauss) loves it. Every Xer and Millennial I have ever shown it to hated it, and I had to give up using it in my class.

I liked that movie.

One other thing David: I'm not ready to give up on the visionary abilities of boomers. There are a lot of us out there; probably not to be found in your circles. But boomers are still weaving a vision of the future. What's more, a great legacy from all generations of visions for our times exists, created in the Awakening years, and to a lesser degree since then too. You only need to visit New Dimensions Radio to glimpse it. google it. We need to refresh and remember the visions that we had, if we are going to come out of this 4T into a real High, and not a phoney one like you fear we may have entered.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I will not argue that the laws ought to be change, but I shall argue that the government should not be allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights. I'm all in favor of a constitutional convention to fix the 2nd and a lot of other things, but until the country is unified enough to ratify the results of the convention, I'll still be arguing for rule of law.

For much of the 19th and 20th century, the Supreme Court's Jim Crow interpretation of the Bill of Rights essentially gave no one any rights. I already rue those days. There is work to be done, but the current values conflict makes it impossible to get 2/3rds of Congress and most of the states to agree on anything. In theory, if we get a true regenracy, a true blood, toil, tears and sweat phase of crisis, and start into a true high, we might have worked out shared values that makes a convention possible.

But it isn't possible now. Until it does happen, if it happens, it's not clear to me at this point that it will, I'd suggest we not throw away the constitution we have.

Sure, you are right. But I wouldn't say that throwing out the 2nd Amendment is throwing out the constitution. Said constitution has been amended many times without destroying it. But, there's nothing for gun supporters to worry about. The 2nd Amendment is safe for a while-- probably much longer than people like me might wish. Meanwhile, even Bush's Supreme Court says gun control is perfectly constitutional.

Over the last couple of decades, I've wondered if those who limit the intended "well-regulated militia" to the National Guard and various police agencies, could consider expanding it to a network of licensed gun owners. I'd be willing to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not ready to give up on the visionary abilities of boomers.

Me neither. As insufferable as we boomers can be at times, boomers have always and will continue to give our society a vision of a better future. Boomers have large divides over what that vision should be, but at least these visions are forward looking, non-cynical, and have hope at their core.

James50

Back on topic, I just read this interesting news item.

Asian-American lawmakers demand Limbaugh apology
Email this Story

Jan 28, 7:05 AM (ET)

By JUDY LIN


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.

California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.

In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.

"The comments that he made - the mimicking of the Chinese language - harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days," Yee said in an interview Thursday. "You think you've arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you're a second-class citizen."

During a Jan. 19 radio program, Limbaugh said there was no translation of the Chinese president's speech during a visit to the White House.

"He was speaking and they weren't translating," Limbaugh said. "They normally translate every couple of words. Hu Jintao was just going ching chong, ching chong cha."

He then launched into a 20-second-long imitation of the Chinese leader's dialect.

The next day, Limbaugh said he "did a remarkable job" of imitating China's president for someone who doesn't know a language spoken by more than 1 billion people.

"Back in the old days, Sid Caesar, for those of you old enough to remember, was called a comic genius for impersonating foreign languages that he couldn't speak," Limbaugh said. "But today the left says that was racism; it was bigotry; it was insulting. And it wasn't. It was a service."

A telephone and e-mail to Limbaugh's station operator Clear Channel Communications Inc. was not returned Thursday. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. is home to Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck, Bob Costas and Sean Hannity.

An e-mail to Limbaugh's show requesting comment was also not returned.

Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh's comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh's program.

An online petition has been created on Yee's website.

"I want an apology at the very least," said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. "Making fun of any country's leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American."

She added: "He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that's his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City's population."

There are about 14 million, or 4.5 percent, Asian-Americans in the United States, more if counting those of mixed races.

Meanwhile Glenn Beck has been attacked by a large group of rabbis for accusing George Soros of collaborating with the Holocaust as a young man, and for numerous uses of the Nazi epithet towards anyone he doesn't like. A Fox News producer said the attack came from a leftist group controlled by Soros. I think something has got to give eventually with respect to all this kind of rhetoric but I don't know what it will be. We need an Edward R. Murrow moment, but we lack an Edward R. Murrow.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Over the last couple of decades, I've wondered if those who limit the intended "well-regulated militia" to the National Guard and various police agencies, could consider expanding it to a network of licensed gun owners. I'd be willing to.

If you rely on original intent, which the SCOTUS avoided, then the 2nd was intended as the basis for the militia, period. Getting from there to gun ownership as a right of self defense violated the supposed "original intent" mantra of the very justices who voted for it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Back on topic, I just read this interesting news item.

Asian-American lawmakers demand Limbaugh apology
Email this Story

Jan 28, 7:05 AM (ET)

By JUDY LIN


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.

California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people...

This is exactly the PC nonsense that people like Limbaugh use as an argument against the Left - and it works! If it was me on the recieving end, I'd just say, "Consider the source", and leave it there. Alternately, you could imitate the bloviator in return. Your choice.