Originally Posted by Galen

I agree, I prefer cats myself because they are relatively low maintenance. If I need a dog for guard duty it would be the Rottweiler because of its stable temperament. Unfortunately they require a fair amount of attention and I would rather not have to scoop dog shit out of the yard.

Salukis have a very cat-like attitude, though they do require attention--because they're devilish if left to their own devices.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Salukis can be quite playful...

Lots of breeds are playful... canines in general are that way. But a grown person wrestling around with a pug with a level of energy similar to what the dog is putting in, is going to squash or otherwise injure the pug. Your salukis seem pretty... squashable.

Bulk is so costly to feed, and often a sign of obesity (depending upon the breed).

I'm not talking about big-for-their-breed. Just about big breeds. I'm a fan of danes, myself; though english mastiffs are also suitable (if messy). And to me, cost-of-food is more a 'do you want a dog or not?' question than a breed-choice one. Like vet visits and shots.

But I can understand, tomayto, tomahto.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Lots of breeds are playful... canines in general are that way. But a grown person wrestling around with a pug with a level of energy similar to what the dog is putting in, is going to squash or otherwise injure the pug. Your salukis seem pretty... squashable.

Far from it, actually. They might look frail but they're the sort that are built for bringing down gazelles.

I'm not talking about big-for-their-breed. Just about big breeds. I'm a fan of danes, myself; though english mastiffs are also suitable (if messy).

Then you should like Salukis because it's thought to be one of the breeds that was bred into producing the Great Dane (with Irish Wolfhounds, and English Mastiffs).

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Far from it, actually. They might look frail but they're the sort that are built for bringing down gazelles.

According to teh wik, a gazelle tops out at 50lbs. Which is right about the right size for a 40-60lb dog. Wrestling partners of the human sort are easily 2-4 times bigger than that gazelle.

That being said, big dogs aren't fast ones. No way a mastiff is gonna catch even a slow gazelle... and as for a dane? good luck even getting one to get up off its ass to chase something in the first place. Different breeds for different stuffs.

Then you should like Salukis because it's thought to be one of the breeds that was bred into producing the Great Dane (with Irish Wolfhounds, and English Mastiffs).

It's not a breed-history thing so much as a what-the-breed is. Chihuahuas share lineage with timber wolves, after all -- but, like, so what?

Of course, ymmcdv.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

According to teh wik, a gazelle tops out at 50lbs. Which is right about the right size for a 40-60lb dog. Wrestling partners of the human sort are easily 2-4 times bigger than that gazelle.

That being said, big dogs aren't fast ones. No way a mastiff is gonna catch even a slow gazelle... and as for a dane? good luck even getting one to get up off its ass to chase something in the first place. Different breeds for different stuffs.


It's not a breed-history thing so much as a what-the-breed is. Chihuahuas share lineage with timber wolves, after all -- but, like, so what?

Of course, ymmcdv.

Meh, we're both proud of our different breeds for different reasons.

Did you mean ymmv?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Justin '77

According to teh wik, a gazelle tops out at 50lbs. Which is right about the right size for a 40-60lb dog. Wrestling partners of the human sort are easily 2-4 times bigger than that gazelle.

That being said, big dogs aren't fast ones. No way a mastiff is gonna catch even a slow gazelle... and as for a dane? good luck even getting one to get up off its ass to chase something in the first place. Different breeds for different stuffs.


It's not a breed-history thing so much as a what-the-breed is. Chihuahuas share lineage with timber wolves, after all -- but, like, so what?

Of course, ymmcdv.

My apartment's resident manager has a Weimeraner named Hannibal and he could not hurt a fly. He will come up to you, sniff you, and try to get you to pet him!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Did you mean ymmv?

I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

Your Mileage Most Certainly Does Vary.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

Your Mileage Most Certainly Does Vary.

The reason I asked is because I didn't recognize it, and it didn't pop in any of the online dictionaries as abbreviations.

~Chas'88

CNN... National gun 'conversation' mostly a waste of time

Modern ratings driven media has difficulty going beyond the sound byte level. It is better from a ratings perspective to show a big row of candles and teddy bears than attempt to make sense of the surplus of statistics, or give all aspects of the problem fair air time. Initially, I had a feeling that Newtown might be different. We might have a real conversation. Alas, the conversation seems to have gone to the dogs.

The NRA tactics seem to have worked. They held silent for several days, let the emotion play its course, then threw up a stone wall that reflects the values of a good sized part of the country. I feel there is room for small movement on a lot of fronts. School councilors might want to learn more about spotting troubled personalities, (though in this case the shooter wasn't attending the school.) Limits on assault rifles might be restored, (though in this case the shooter wasn't using an assault rifle.) Schools might consider armed guards, (though the armed guard at Columbine was ineffective.)

The gun discussion only seems to take place in the immediate aftermath of tragedy, and the tragedy is seldom representative of the broad problem. The tragedies are outliers, are unusual enough that a solution applied to the tragedy will often not address the more typical problems. If one really wants to reduce gun related deaths, the main line problem is inner city drug related gang wars. As the article points out, Chicago has had 19 times the gun deaths of Newtown, Chicago is but one of many big cities with drug gang problems, yet the focus of the gun conversation is on Newtown.

Sure. Obama formed a commission to study the problem, due to report in several weeks... after the mood is gone, when Newtown will be half forgotten.

Anyway, for discussion purposes...

Originally Posted by CNN

For my media brothers and sisters, we have done a weak job at making this conversation broad and in-depth. We can't give it short shrift and think that a seven-minute panel will do the trick. We can't put so much attention on Newtown and ignore Chicago. It's not just about what happens in Washington, but also in state houses, commissioners' courts and city halls across the land.

If we continue at this rate, Newtown will be an afterthought, thus becoming another missed opportunity to address a major epidemic in America.

The words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Exactly one year before he was murdered by an assassin’s bullets, he regretfully called our country, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” and warned that, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Mass-Murder Nation

To understand what triggered the Newtown killings, we must come to grips with America's militarism.

We’re all still mourning with the families and loved ones of those so frightfully killed in Newtown, Connecticut. But as grief is joined by reflection on how this could happen — again — I believe we do a disservice those close to the victims as well as ourselves unless “all options are on the table” as we examine Americans’ predilection for killing en masse.We all know that “actions speak louder than words” and “we teach by example.” But as a nation, we’re not heeding those truisms. After all, if actions indeed speak louder than words, what must the impressionable and the young be learning today?

Our nation spends more on murder and suffering than education or medical care. Our culture celebrates violence and militarism but considers peacemakers and the nonviolent as simple, starry-eyed dreamers and more often as downright traitors. We promote and glamorize the military even as the awful truth about what the military actually does is kept behind the curtain. We sell more weapons to the world than all other countries combined. After our embassy in Benghazi was attacked, our president preached, “There is no excuse for the use of violence,” yet he keeps on sending drones to bomb whomever is next on his list and anyone standing near them.

Do we really think we can say one thing and do another while still teaching that violence is never how to handle whatever aggravates or frightens us?

http://otherwords.org/mass-murder-nation/

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN... National gun 'conversation' mostly a waste of time

Modern ratings driven media has difficulty going beyond the sound byte level. It is better from a ratings perspective to show a big row of candles and teddy bears than attempt to make sense of the surplus of statistics, or give all aspects of the problem fair air time. Initially, I had a feeling that Newtown might be different. We might have a real conversation. Alas, the conversation seems to have gone to the dogs.

When firearm violence comes to middle-class, largely-white America as in Newtown, Connecticut and Webster, New York in places that such just doesn't happen the gun violence becomes less of an abstraction than when it involves drug gangs who kill siblings of gang members or neighbors, gun control becomes a hot topic. Unfortunately it happens when the 112th Congress is in session and will probably die off as the well-endowed National Rifle Association cuts huge checks to the campaigns of cooperative pols. Even if the attention shifted to mental illness, something treated in the "if you don't look, you don't see it, and if you don't see it you can have a clear conscience" we might have repudiation of some of the neglectful depravity of the 3T.

My apology, by the way, for suggesting that dogs could be strong deterrents to crime.

The NRA tactics seem to have worked. They held silent for several days, let the emotion play its course, then threw up a stone wall that reflects the values of a good sized part of the country. I feel there is room for small movement on a lot of fronts. School councilors might want to learn more about spotting troubled personalities, (though in this case the shooter wasn't attending the school.) Limits on assault rifles might be restored, (though in this case the shooter wasn't using an assault rifle.) Schools might consider armed guards, (though the armed guard at Columbine was ineffective.)

If we can regulate automobiles, then why can't we regulate firearms much the same way? One needs some training to get an auto license if under a certain age, must pass a driver's examination that can include a road test as well as a written test, must license the car, must have proof of insurance on the car, and if one sells it to a retail user one must do paperwork that includes taxes and proof of insurance.

The gun discussion only seems to take place in the immediate aftermath of tragedy, and the tragedy is seldom representative of the broad problem. The tragedies are outliers, are unusual enough that a solution applied to the tragedy will often not address the more typical problems. If one really wants to reduce gun related deaths, the main line problem is inner city drug related gang wars. As the article points out, Chicago has had 19 times the gun deaths of Newtown, Chicago is but one of many big cities with drug gang problems, yet the focus of the gun conversation is on Newtown.

Again, who the victims are matters greatly in perception of the hazard to us all.

Sure. Obama formed a commission to study the problem, due to report in several weeks... after the mood is gone, when Newtown will be half forgotten.

Anyway, for discussion purposes...

The NRA will of course pose the issue as the conflict between statistics and the 'freedom' of any nutcase or crook to get a firearm so long as such turns a profit to the gun manufacturers.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Modern ratings driven media has difficulty going beyond the sound byte level. It is better from a ratings perspective to show a big row of candles and teddy bears than attempt to make sense of the surplus of statistics, or give all aspects of the problem fair air time. Initially, I had a feeling that Newtown might be different. We might have a real conversation. Alas, the conversation seems to have gone to the dogs.
.

Alas, if one does not consider all viable pieces of a solution, then we are into a dualistic approach of an either /or way forward. Part of finding a remedy for any problem is looking at all possibilities. The dog piece, is just that, a tiny piece of a much needed multifaceted solution.

All ideas are worthy of consideration. That's how science and medicine has discovered cures and new technology. I'm sure if someone here mentioned mold as a possible cure for polio, their idea would be called names and discounted.

We have some who would rather see the same old militaristic means of solving a very complex situation and reverting to name calling and snarkiness. I don't see that as a mature way forward.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ah, you are confusing the freedom to say things with the consequences for saying things .

Correct. Just ask George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Wayne LaPierre, Todd Akin, Mike Huckabee, Richard Mourdoch...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Chicago? Guns were banned in Chicago from 1982 to 2010.
And of course, there were no gun-related homicides in the city during those years.
Gun control is so awesome.

It IS. It works too. Illinois proves that by having among the lowest rates of violent crime among US states, and among the better records on gun control laws, despite having one of the most violent urban areas.

There is no excuse for libertarians supporting the use of guns. If they are against government-sponsored violence, then it seems more logical to be against private violence and private violent governments as well. I understand they do not like too many laws. But a lawless society just doesn't work. Too much violence to enforce a ban on guns, I agree is counterproductive and hypocritical. But sensible laws work, and are better than rule by the strongest individuals with the biggest weapons.

Mr. Butler is correct; the CNN article nailed it.

The lingering effects will be increased gun sales, loudmouth politics, the further shaming of the gun enthusiasts, the dead, and the ones who mourn them.

Congratulations on winning the Second Amendment wars. The rest of us get to pay the price.

Little more can be said. Thread over.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If we can regulate automobiles, then why can't we regulate firearms much the same way? One needs some training to get an auto license if under a certain age, must pass a driver's examination that can include a road test as well as a written test, must license the car, must have proof of insurance on the car, and if one sells it to a retail user one must do paperwork that includes taxes and proof of insurance.

The right to drive automobiles wasn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Congress does have the authority to specify training for the militia. The militia is all fit adult males, though criteria for belonging to the militia lies in the Congress. Who is in the militia isn't specified in the Constitution. Thus, it would seem possible to define the ladies as belonging to the militia, and require them to be trained in any weapons they keep and bear as well.

Historically, the Congress never has specified what training the militia must have. Thus, the states have not done much in the way of assigning officers and making sure the militia is trained.

The legal authority clearly exists for the government to require that the militia be trained. Part of the problem is the recent confusion between the National Guard being the militia, as opposed to the adult fit male population. The theory was that the National Guard was the militia, therefore if one wasn't with the National Guard, one didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. The recent Supreme Court case which correctly said a 'Right of the People' belonged to all People restores the original intent of the male population being the militia.

That Congress can require the militia to be trained is clearly in the Constitution. Very few have proposed that this authority really be exercised.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The NRA will of course pose the issue as the conflict between statistics and the 'freedom' of any nutcase or crook to get a firearm so long as such turns a profit to the gun manufacturers.

Actually, the NRA doesn't object to guns being removed from the hands of felons or mental deficients. They believe there is a standard to be met, though. If one is going to void one of a citizen's guaranteed rights, it cannot be done on a whim. One would have to have due process, evidence, and that sort of stuff. As I understand it, if one is to temporarily restrict someone from keeping and bearing arms, you'd need to establish probable cause. If one is to permanently void such rights, one would need proof beyond reasonable doubt. That's the traditional standard if one is going to void a right guaranteed a citizen of the United States.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

the further shaming of the gun enthusiasts

Or the further shaming of the gun opponents.......

I'm not too optimistic about the debate either, but you never know for sure. Public opinion may shift again.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The legal authority clearly exists for the government to require that the militia be trained. Part of the problem is the recent confusion between the National Guard being the militia, as opposed to the adult fit male population. The theory was that the National Guard was the militia, therefore if one wasn't with the National Guard, one didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. The recent Supreme Court case which correctly said a 'Right of the People' belonged to all People restores the original intent of the male population being the militia.

I don't see how that follows. The current right-wing court just reinterpreted the amendment to make it an individual right. It didn't define "militia." I expect that interpretation will not last the existence of the right-wing court.

Actually, the NRA doesn't object to guns being removed from the hands of felons or mental deficients.

The relevant point seems to me to be that the Supreme Court does not object to gun control.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I have no problem with a gun being used for protection. Just use it as a last resort. If there's a noise in the house, does one shoot first and ask questions later?

It's the assault rifles that aren't needed in the situation I offered.

Assault rifles are also not relevant to the context of the discussion of spree shooting either, as no one has ever used one in a spree shooting.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see how that follows. The current right-wing court just reinterpreted the amendment to make it an individual right. It didn't define "militia." I expect that interpretation will not last the existence of the right-wing court.

It appears that the Constitution is much like the bible; it can be interpreted to match one's mindset.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see how that follows. The current right-wing court just reinterpreted the amendment to make it an individual right. It didn't define "militia." I expect that interpretation will not last the existence of the right-wing court.

Just to stay reality based, the militia is...

Originally Posted by United States Code (USC)

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.

You may have a point, but I still think that it's your point and not necessarily the Supreme Court's point, since as far as I know the Court did not make that point in their decision, or base it on the need for the "militia" to be armed. The fact that there is no such militia in practice, might be a factor in how the 2nd amendment is interpreted by today's courts. Nor does it really have any bearing on the current proposals, since they don't violate the 2nd amendment, any more than libel laws invalidate the 1st. No ban on assault weapons (like the ones so often used in spree shootings ) has ever been thrown out.

But I guess if you accept the 18th century definition of "militia," as referred to in the amendment, then able-bodied males between 17 and 45 should have the right to bear arms, but no-one else. You would have to have some procedure to determine if some purchaser of a gun is "able-bodied," but there would be no such provision about "able-minded," which is the issue of the most current concern. Unless you accept the idea that the "mind" is the brain (which is a body part and only a body part), which contemporary materialists do claim, but was not necessarily the opinion of most of the founding fathers, or even of most people today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is no excuse for libertarians supporting the use of guns. If they are against government-sponsored violence, then it seems more logical to be against private violence and private violent governments as well. I understand they do not like too many laws. But a lawless society just doesn't work. Too much violence to enforce a ban on guns, I agree is counterproductive and hypocritical. But sensible laws work, and are better than rule by the strongest individuals with the biggest weapons.

Eric, once again demonstrated your complete and utter lack of knowledge about libertarians and the non-aggression principle. The first thing that you are overlooking is that your god, the state, has racked up quite a body count in the last century, on the order 169 million deaths in the twentieth century. You could add up all the deaths due to random lunatics for the last century and not get to a tenth of that count. You will make any excuse for the crimes of government because it is your god and it can do no wrong.

The first step to implementing slavery in seventeenth century Vriginia was to first disarm the blacks, for some strange reason the class taught by a politically correct professor from Berkeley went out of his way not to notice that little detail and was unhappy when I pointed it out. Every instance of genocide that I am aware of begins with disarming the target population as the first move.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You may have a point, but I still think that it's your point and not necessarily the Supreme Court's point, since as far as I know the Court did not make that point in their decision, or base it on the need for the "militia" to be armed. The fact that there is no such militia in practice, might be a factor in how the 2nd amendment is interpreted by today's courts. Nor does it really have any bearing on the current proposals, since they don't violate the 2nd amendment, any more than libel laws invalidate the 1st. No ban on assault weapons (like the ones so often used in spree shootings ) has ever been thrown out.

But I guess if you accept the 18th century definition, as referred to in the amendment, then able-bodied males between 17 and 45 should have the right to bear arms, but no-one else. You would have to have some procedure to determine if some purchaser of a gun is "able-bodied," but there would be no such provision about "able-minded," which is the issue of the most current concern. Unless you accept the idea that the "mind" is the brain (which is a body part and only a body part), which contemporary materialists do claim, but was not necessarily the opinion of most of the founding fathers, or even of most people today.

Hmm. I'll try to give the modern (and original) interpretation, being fully aware that there were alternate readings during the Jim Crow era when the southern states wished to disarm blacks.

Justification Clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

Implementation Clause : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Justification clause specifies the primary reason the right was established. In interpreting the amendment, one should assume a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Any interpretation of the implementation clause which is not consistent with the justification clause would be a false reading.

The implementation clause identifies who has what right, and the degree to which one can take it away.

If one reads The Commonplace Second Amendment you can find other examples of founding era rights found in state bills of rights which follow the justification - implementation pattern. It is not uncommon that the right specified is broader than the justification. For example, Rhode Island...

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 . .

Note that while the justification clause refers to political speech by the press, the implementation clause says any person on any subject. This is an example on how during the founding era, rights were considered to be granted by God, not created by constitutional conventions. Rights are broad and belong to everybody, or at least everybody caucasian and male. (The founding fathers weren't that enlightened.) These days, rights aren't limited to just caucasians and males.

Note, that if a judge doesn't believe that the justification clause is true, this does not give him the right to void the implementation clause. If a judge doesn't think the press is essential to the security of a free state, this does not leave him free to ignore freedom of the press. The judge should interpret a justification - implementation phrased right under the assumption that the author's justification is true.

Rights exist to a great degree to limit the power of the government. The judicial branch, being part of the government, should not remove constitutional limits on the power of the government.

Now, I would agree that "being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..." is a phrase that could be added to the 2nd Amendment, or perhaps to all Rights of the People. One can certainly abuse the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I would agree that felons, the insane and perhaps others might easily lose the right given all proper due process.

Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote a rather famous Supreme Court Decision stating free speech rights did not allow one to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. This basic principle has been upheld, refined and applied to other rights. There is a lot of case law specifying how the Bill of Rights does not give blanket blessing to harm others. This would definitely apply to the 2nd. Thus, the Supreme Court has effectively added "being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" to case law respecting the entire Bill of Rights.

Still, Supreme Court case law specifies that the government cannot restrict weapons suitable for use by militia members. (US v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) ) The tasks of the militia are to enforce laws, suppress rebellion and repel invasions. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.15) If an individual has not abused the rights of another, the right should not be infringed.

I'll note that the US Code section 311 and 312 were written by and could be modified by Congress. Changing them would not require a constitutional amendment. Congress might declare women to be part of the militia, and require them to be trained in handling weapons that they keep and bear. This would be a radical redefinition of what is the militia. I could easily see someone taking that to the courts. Would a modern court state that the genders have unequal rights and duties???

It is my belief that what seemed right and prudent during the age of muskets isn't necessarily ideal today. I would as soon see those parts of the Constitution effecting the militia rewritten for the modern world. Traditionally, major rewrites of the Constitution come at the 4T 1T cusp. That is the time of greatest unity, when the lessons learned of crisis are fresh. This is not quite the time. We are still too divided.

But people who want to speak up on the legal aspects ought to spend a bit of time doing their research. Because one believes really hard deep in the core of one's world view that such and such a thing ought to be so, it does not follow that it is so.