Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 160







Post#3976 at 02-15-2013 04:47 AM by Galen [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 1,017]
---
02-15-2013, 04:47 AM #3976
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
1,017

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
I would be more than happy to supply plans to produce 30 round AR-15 magazines (I don't know these "massacre clips" of which you speak) using 3D printers. Your whole notion of "profiting" from the venture however displays that you don't have the slightest fucking clue as to the purposes of 3D printing. No surprise there as you older folks often lack the ability to grasp new concepts. No, any schematics I might have along those lines would be disseminated free of charge, the same way I receive them. You see there is this thing called the internet and (I know this is some wild shit man) this internet allows people to share data freely and anonymously. Good luck applying your silly civil liability laws to everyone with the capability to produce their own widgets and wares.
Naturally, I would thank you for such plans since it would save me a great deal of time working up the CAD drawings.

In the worst case I am fairly certain that I could work out CAD drawings for the box, from which the name box magazine come from, and the follower. A suitable spring I expect could be purchased off the shelf. It isn't that hard to work out since the technology for this has only been around since about 1890. Hell, if I wanted to do it in metal since I learned how to do sheet metal when I got my degree in electronics, very useful in electronics prototyping. A laser cutter for about ($8000), bending brake ($1000) would be sufficient since a good design would only need a couple of rivets to hold it together.

If you think winning the war on drugs was hard, you are going to love trying to win this one.
Last edited by Galen; 02-15-2013 at 03:50 PM.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long







Post#3977 at 02-15-2013 09:20 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-15-2013, 09:20 AM #3977
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."....

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...eserve-slavery


The South then; the South now. The beat goes on...........


Even if - and I stress if - this was accurate then, it is totally irrelevant now, when 19 out of 20 of those who get incarcerated, and then saddled with the stigma of criminal records for the rest of their lives, under the laws restricting the Second Amendment we already have, and would presumably be under any new such laws that emerge from the post-Sandy Hook hysteria - are black or Hispanic, so now going after the Second Amendment any further will hurt the latter, not help them; and it may interest you to know that Melissa Harris-Perry, filling in for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC the other night, made this exact same point.

It's the same situation with the so-called Blaine Amendments, which Protestant fundamentalists rammed into three dozen state constitutions in the late 19th Century out of paranoid fear of growing "Catholic power" in America. Yet today, it is Protestant fundamentalists who are working feverishly to get these same amendments repealed!
Last edited by '58 Flat; 02-15-2013 at 10:37 AM.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#3978 at 02-15-2013 12:52 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-15-2013, 12:52 PM #3978
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
Even if - and I stress if - this was accurate then, it is totally irrelevant now, when 19 out of 20 of those who get incarcerated, and then saddled with the stigma of criminal records for the rest of their lives, under the laws restricting the Second Amendment we already have, and would presumably be under any new such laws that emerge from the post-Sandy Hook hysteria - are black or Hispanic, so now going after the Second Amendment any further will hurt the latter, not help them; and it may interest you to know that Melissa Harris-Perry, filling in for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC the other night, made this exact same point.

It's the same situation with the so-called Blaine Amendments, which Protestant fundamentalists rammed into three dozen state constitutions in the late 19th Century out of paranoid fear of growing "Catholic power" in America. Yet today, it is Protestant fundamentalists who are working feverishly to get these same amendments repealed!
That urban gangs are almost exclusively non-white indicates that any gun-control law will effectively discriminate against non-whites as possessors of firearms. So do the criminal laws as they now exist. That said, "do the crime and do the time" is hardly racist. It may be that non-whites get severer punishment, including felony convictions that cripple job opportunities as misdemeanor judgments do not, for drug offenses than do white people (which may have everything to do with inequality of legal representation). That needs to change in practice.

Remember, though, that most gun crime is intra-ethnic. Fewer weapons in the hands of street gangs means more safety for non-white people. Is the right to not get mowed down less precious than the ability to mow people down?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#3979 at 02-15-2013 01:24 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-15-2013, 01:24 PM #3979
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Actually, Anthony is right here. The Second Amendment's original intent was voided by the 13th Amendment. The militia system itself was abandoned after the Civil War (the National Guard is only a pretense that we still have it). The decision of the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller effectively transformed the amendment from guaranteeing a right to keep and bear military arms for military purposes, into a right to keep and bear non-military arms (and explicitly NOT protecting a right to military arms) for non-military purposes such as home protection, hunting, and target shooting. So all of these original-intent arguments are pretty much moot today.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#3980 at 02-15-2013 02:58 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-15-2013, 02:58 PM #3980
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Actually, Anthony is right here. The Second Amendment's original intent was voided by the 13th Amendment. The militia system itself was abandoned after the Civil War (the National Guard is only a pretense that we still have it). The decision of the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller effectively transformed the amendment from guaranteeing a right to keep and bear military arms for military purposes, into a right to keep and bear non-military arms (and explicitly NOT protecting a right to military arms) for non-military purposes such as home protection, hunting, and target shooting. So all of these original-intent arguments are pretty much moot today.
... and so is the integrity of the "originalists" who produced this ruling. If they have to play make-believe - especially these guys, then the amendment is simply non-operable.

Skip the drama and just shoot the piano player.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 02-15-2013 at 03:35 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#3981 at 02-15-2013 03:21 PM by Gianthogweed [at joined Apr 2012 #posts 590]
---
02-15-2013, 03:21 PM #3981
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
590

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Actually, Anthony is right here. The Second Amendment's original intent was voided by the 13th Amendment. The militia system itself was abandoned after the Civil War (the National Guard is only a pretense that we still have it). The decision of the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller effectively transformed the amendment from guaranteeing a right to keep and bear military arms for military purposes, into a right to keep and bear non-military arms (and explicitly NOT protecting a right to military arms) for non-military purposes such as home protection, hunting, and target shooting. So all of these original-intent arguments are pretty much moot today.
Just because a judge made a decision that was unconstitutional, doesn't mean that it's okay. If it's really true that the second amendment is no longer necessary, than the effort should be to amend it through legal and constitutional means. Passing unconstitutional laws to get around it is the wrong way to go.
Last edited by Gianthogweed; 02-15-2013 at 03:39 PM.
'79 Xer, INTP







Post#3982 at 02-15-2013 03:36 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-15-2013, 03:36 PM #3982
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Gianthogweed View Post
Just because a judge made a decision that was unconstitutional, doesn't mean that it's okay. If it's really true that the second amendment is no longer necessary, than the effort should be to overturn or amend it through legal and constitutional means. Passing unconstitutional laws to get around it is the wrong way to go.
If a future SCOTUS declares the 2nd moot, will you be satisfied? It may happen.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#3983 at 02-15-2013 03:42 PM by Gianthogweed [at joined Apr 2012 #posts 590]
---
02-15-2013, 03:42 PM #3983
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
590

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
If a future SCOTUS declares the 2nd moot, will you be satisfied? It may happen.
That depends on what the new amendment overturning it is. If the new amendment is an improvement to the second, and allows for no confusion as to what "infringed" actually means, then I will support its passage.

But if you're asking me if I will be satisfied with an amendment that completely overturns the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then the answer is no. But at least the decision will be made constitutionally, through legal and representative democratic means. So I'd live with it, even if I disagree with the outcome. I may leave the country, though. Without the second amendment protecting us, governments will grow more bold and will be more likely to infringe further on our rights.
Last edited by Gianthogweed; 02-15-2013 at 04:04 PM.
'79 Xer, INTP







Post#3984 at 02-15-2013 04:15 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-15-2013, 04:15 PM #3984
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Gianthogweed View Post
Just because a judge made a decision that was unconstitutional
How can a Supreme Court ruling be unconstitutional? Well, I suppose it could be reversed by a later court ruling. But in this case, I doubt that will happen. If the Court upheld the 2A in its real, original meaning, we would have seriously bad consequences for public safety and maybe even for the ability of the U.S. to survive. (A militia military did, in fact, almost kill it.) But the Bill of Rights is an American sacred cow. No part of it can be politically challenged. The Court really did the only thing it could do under the circumstances.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#3985 at 02-15-2013 04:15 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-15-2013, 04:15 PM #3985
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Gianthogweed View Post
That depends on what the new amendment overturning it is. If the new amendment is an improvement to the second, and allows for no confusion as to what "infringed" actually means, then I will support its passage.

But if you're asking me if I will be satisfied with an amendment that completely overturns the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then the answer is no. But at least the decision will be made constitutionally, through legal and representative democratic means. So I'd live with it, even if I disagree with the outcome. I may leave the country, though. Without the second amendment protecting us, governments will grow more bold and will be more likely to infringe further on our rights.
No, I'm talking about a ruling that says, "Never mind!" We have precedence for reversals of decisions that were "obvioulsly flawed".

The Roberts court is very tilted toward a version of ideological purity that ignores the world as it is, and courts that operated that way in the past have been reversed. When a fellow conservative Chief Justice held the diametrically opposed position, you have to ask who's right here? Warren Burger wasn't soft on crime and, ultimately, and may prove to be the bigger issue.

One of my favorite quotes by a SC Justice: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." That applies to Citizens United as well.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 02-15-2013 at 04:26 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#3986 at 02-15-2013 06:16 PM by Gianthogweed [at joined Apr 2012 #posts 590]
---
02-15-2013, 06:16 PM #3986
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
590

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
No, I'm talking about a ruling that says, "Never mind!" We have precedence for reversals of decisions that were "obvioulsly flawed".

The Roberts court is very tilted toward a version of ideological purity that ignores the world as it is, and courts that operated that way in the past have been reversed. When a fellow conservative Chief Justice held the diametrically opposed position, you have to ask who's right here? Warren Burger wasn't soft on crime and, ultimately, and may prove to be the bigger issue.

One of my favorite quotes by a SC Justice: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." That applies to Citizens United as well.
You should be very wary of any politician or judge who makes that claim and views the Bill of Rights as an annoying thorn to be whittled down. A tyrannical state will inevitably seek any loophole it can to expand its power and infringe on our rights. Judicial review, and the often ridiculous lengths they go to misinterpret the constitution to achieve their political ends, has proven to be a particular easy loophole for them to exploit. It's possible for that ruling to be overturned by the courts in a more sensible future, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen in our current political environment.
Last edited by Gianthogweed; 02-15-2013 at 06:23 PM.
'79 Xer, INTP







Post#3987 at 02-15-2013 10:00 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
02-15-2013, 10:00 PM #3987
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
Naturally, I would thank you for such plans since it would save me a great deal of time working up the CAD drawings.

In the worst case I am fairly certain that I could work out CAD drawings for the box, from which the name box magazine come from, and the follower. A suitable spring I expect could be purchased off the shelf. It isn't that hard to work out since the technology for this has only been around since about 1890. Hell, if I wanted to do it in metal since I learned how to do sheet metal when I got my degree in electronics, very useful in electronics prototyping. A laser cutter for about ($8000), bending brake ($1000) would be sufficient since a good design would only need a couple of rivets to hold it together.

If you think winning the war on drugs was hard, you are going to love trying to win this one.
Some folks have already designed and printed prototypes:



As you can see, it's functional though they have had problems with heat (literally warping the magazine) and feed jams. I believe the schematics can be downloaded here (test at your own risk of course).

Now you old guys will want to pay attention to this. See how easy that was?







Post#3988 at 02-15-2013 10:04 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
02-15-2013, 10:04 PM #3988
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Gianthogweed View Post
That depends on what the new amendment overturning it is. If the new amendment is an improvement to the second, and allows for no confusion as to what "infringed" actually means, then I will support its passage.

But if you're asking me if I will be satisfied with an amendment that completely overturns the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then the answer is no. But at least the decision will be made constitutionally, through legal and representative democratic means. So I'd live with it, even if I disagree with the outcome. I may leave the country, though. Without the second amendment protecting us, governments will grow more bold and will be more likely to infringe further on our rights.
It may happen anyway. What we need is a public that does not automatically support the police and DA in whatever they decide, as if anyone is guilty until proven innocent. How do we get cured of this mentality that is currently dominant?

Fewer guns is one way, not the only way, to reduce crime; and reduced crime may help to reduce the current law n order mentality that threatens our rights.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3989 at 02-16-2013 12:23 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
02-16-2013, 12:23 AM #3989
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
1. 2nd amendment :
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?



2. 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Getting droned without so much as a warrant violates that amendment big time.

3. Bonus : Cui bono?

Example : Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/mortgage deduction/HUD/cheap ass low interest rates/etc. etc. Cui Bono?!!!!!!





mushroom cloud in the sky,
how I'd like it, if you made the NAR go bye.
I wish I may, I wish I might,
watch real estate cruft disappear in a flash of thine light
NAR's dick the Congress does suck,
and taxpayers get the fuck
All those agencies do so much,
but all in all, it's all a crutch.
We need to listen to the ancient bards
and ensure we have something to guard the guards.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
politicians' conjure many magic ponies and unicorns and pronounce them great inventions.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#3990 at 02-16-2013 04:53 AM by Galen [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 1,017]
---
02-16-2013, 04:53 AM #3990
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
1,017

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Fewer guns is one way, not the only way, to reduce crime; and reduced crime may help to reduce the current law n order mentality that threatens our rights.
Biden, when he doesn't think anyone is listening he would seem to think otherwise. When a policy can not achieve its stated goal then there must be another purpose.


I have pointed out before that sales of arms and ammunition are at record levels and manufacturers are increasing production. This is not the action of a population that is thrilled by the victim disarmament plans.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long







Post#3991 at 02-16-2013 05:57 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-16-2013, 05:57 AM #3991
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
That urban gangs are almost exclusively non-white indicates that any gun-control law will effectively discriminate against non-whites as possessors of firearms. So do the criminal laws as they now exist. That said, "do the crime and do the time" is hardly racist. It may be that non-whites get severer punishment, including felony convictions that cripple job opportunities as misdemeanor judgments do not, for drug offenses than do white people (which may have everything to do with inequality of legal representation). That needs to change in practice.

But less than half of those convicted on drug charges nationally are non-white - not 19 out of 20, as is the case with gun charges.



Remember, though, that most gun crime is intra-ethnic. Fewer weapons in the hands of street gangs means more safety for non-white people. Is the right to not get mowed down less precious than the ability to mow people down?

But I wasn't talking about murders, robberies or aggravated assaults. I was talking about the mere possession of a gun - the "victim" of which is ???

How do you justify the fact that Plaxico Burress was convicted of the "violent" crime of weapons possession, in which no one but himself, who he accidentally shot, was "victimized," and as a result was not eligible for parole, and had to serve 6/7ths of his sentence, before becoming eligible to be released on "good time" - while Dennis Kozlowski, who bilked investors out of $81 million in the same state (New York), will be eligible for parole after serving just one-third of his sentence, and if he is not paroled, will get out on "good time" after serving two-thirds?
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#3992 at 02-16-2013 02:53 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
02-16-2013, 02:53 PM #3992
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
... The militia system itself was abandoned after the Civil War (the National Guard is only a pretense that we still have it)...
-Nonsense. TN and TX have state militias. Just because most states unwisely chose to use the National Guard as a federally funded substitute, does not mean they all did, nor does it mean it was wise.


...meanwhile, it took me a while to decode this:

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
... The Second Amendment's original intent was voided by the 13th Amendment...
...which seems to trace to this nonsense:

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
...........
...this is what happens when you have people who don't know history trying ot do history.

If you read Patrick Henry's objections carefully, you'll see that he's talking about slaves being freed by a NATIONAL draft. During AWI, drafts to the Continental Army required drafts in almost evry state, including VA. In VA, slaves who went as substitutes were freed. That's what he's talking about, not slave patrols. Sheeh.

The Amercian people had plenty of reasons to want people to be armed:

1) War against a foreign enemy;

2) War against tyrannical government (AWI was an example of all 3);

3) War against indians (AWI was an example of all 3);

4) Individual self defense, in line with Beccaria's observations on self-defense as a basic human right.

Slave patrols were way down the list, even in the south.

As for the north, there are these state constitutional amendments:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. 1818

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.1842

Vermont That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. 1777 ....

...including one state which had already passed laws abolishing:

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. 1790

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. 1780



...







Post#3993 at 02-16-2013 04:52 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
02-16-2013, 04:52 PM #3993
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
How do you justify the fact that Plaxico Burress was convicted of the "violent" crime of weapons possession, in which no one but himself, who he accidentally shot, was "victimized," and as a result was not eligible for parole, and had to serve 6/7ths of his sentence, before becoming eligible to be released on "good time" - while Dennis Kozlowski, who bilked investors out of $81 million in the same state (New York), will be eligible for parole after serving just one-third of his sentence, and if he is not paroled, will get out on "good time" after serving two-thirds?
Stealing money isn't an issue for people who have an endless supply of federal funds/digits to draw from and live on.







Post#3994 at 02-17-2013 09:36 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
02-17-2013, 09:36 AM #3994
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
But less than half of those convicted on drug charges nationally are non-white - not 19 out of 20, as is the case with gun charges.
Someone involved with drugs who maintains involvement with them may eventually commits crimes that can't be treated leniently in the legal system -- violent crimes for drug money, felony larceny, and dealing drugs. It may be that white druggies get away with more before getting caught. Unequal treatment before the law, as in having better attorneys than the public defenders?

Gun charges? It could be that urban gangs deal with fellow non-whites and figure that any white gun trafficker would sell out the gang members if caught dealing guns. If non-whites are the vast majority of members of urban gangs who have no lawful use for firearms and are prohibited from owning them for statutory reasons, then they don't have the race card.

I know well that the people most likely to be convicted of gun offenses under any new legislation are non-white. I also know what lives and bodily integrity are most likely to be saved (add crippling injuries to deaths). Do the crime, do the time.

But I wasn't talking about murders, robberies or aggravated assaults. I was talking about the mere possession of a gun - the "victim" of which is ???
Convicted felon in possession of a firearm? Don't ask my heart to bleed.

How do you justify the fact that Plaxico Burress was convicted of the "violent" crime of weapons possession, in which no one but himself, who he accidentally shot, was "victimized," and as a result was not eligible for parole, and had to serve 6/7ths of his sentence, before becoming eligible to be released on "good time" - while Dennis Kozlowski, who bilked investors out of $81 million in the same state (New York), will be eligible for parole after serving just one-third of his sentence, and if he is not paroled, will get out on "good time" after serving two-thirds?
I do not know the Plaxico Burress case. White-collar offenders typically get more lenient treatment than violent blue-collar offenders. Kozlowski was convicted heavily of sales tax fraud for making a big taxable purchase and covering it up by taking delivery in New Hampshire (which does not charge sales taxes) and then transferring the item quickly to New York.

States generally don't enforce sales taxes so rigidly unless the item in question is large (cars are obvious enough) -- or in the case of Dennis Kozlowski, a pricey artwork. But, yes, Kozlowski is the sort of person that states like to go after -- an arrogant SOB who treats others badly.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#3995 at 02-17-2013 02:21 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
02-17-2013, 02:21 PM #3995
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Threat Level

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
The Amercian people had plenty of reasons to want people to be armed:

1) War against a foreign enemy;

2) War against tyrannical government (AWI was an example of all 3);

3) War against indians (AWI was an example of all 3);

4) Individual self defense, in line with Beccaria's observations on self-defense as a basic human right.

Slave patrols were way down the list, even in the south.
I am for the most part with you. Still, after the War of 1812, the militia in the the north started to decay except near the frontier, while it remained fairly healthy in the South. Different threats were greater at different times. There were times and places where slave revolt was the most plausible threat.







Post#3996 at 02-18-2013 11:41 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-18-2013, 11:41 AM #3996
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66;461559...this is what happens when you have people who don't know history trying ot do history.

If you read Patrick Henry's objections carefully, you'll see that he's talking about slaves being freed by a NATIONAL draft. During AWI, drafts to the Continental Army required drafts in almost evry state, including VA. In VA, slaves who went as substitutes were freed. That's what he's talking about, not slave patrols. Sheeh.

The Amercian people had plenty of reasons to want people to be armed:

1) War against a foreign enemy;

2) War against tyrannical government (AWI was an example of all 3);

3) War against indians (AWI was an example of all 3);

4) Individual self defense, in line with Beccaria's observations on self-defense as a basic human right.

Slave patrols were way down the list, even in the south.

As for the north, there are these state constitutional amendments:

[URL
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm[/URL]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. 1818

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.1842

Vermont That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. 1777 ....

...including one state which had already passed laws abolishing:

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. 1790

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. 1780...
Every reference you list refers to a miltary applicaton of "the right to keep and bear arms". That agrees with the analysis by historian Garry Wills on the subject. In other words, this is not a citizen's right, it's a State's right. On that basis, I' m fine with it.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#3997 at 02-18-2013 12:25 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
02-18-2013, 12:25 PM #3997
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Every reference you list refers to a miltary applicaton of "the right to keep and bear arms". That agrees with the analysis by historian Garry Wills on the subject. In other words, this is not a citizen's right, it's a State's right. On that basis, I' m fine with it.
It's both a state's right and a citizen's right.







Post#3998 at 02-18-2013 12:45 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-18-2013, 12:45 PM #3998
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
It's both a state's right and a citizen's right.
Did you read the article? The point Wills made then, and continues to make today, is that the Standard Model, that justified the 2nd as an individual right, is intellecually dishonest based on any reasonable standard, historical or otherwise. At some point, that will be the reason a future SCOTUS will reverse the current stance.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#3999 at 02-18-2013 02:34 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
02-18-2013, 02:34 PM #3999
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Did you read the article? The point Wills made then, and continues to make today, is that the Standard Model, that justified the 2nd as an individual right, is intellecually dishonest based on any reasonable standard, historical or otherwise. At some point, that will be the reason a future SCOTUS will reverse the current stance.
At that point, I hope that I'm not around to see the carnage such an unwise move or clueless position would create. Now, I completely understand that liberals in general represent those who are comingly viewed as those positioned at the bottom of the barrel and the most hardup for money/resourses. I also understand certain laws/rules/rights/views/standards must be either removed and drastically softened, weakened or reduced to either assist or prevent the possibility of a nasty revolution like the French or Russian revolutions. BTW, I'm the American revolution who's simply waiting for the moral and legal justifications to formally enter and clean house, so to speak.
Last edited by Classic-X'er; 02-18-2013 at 03:13 PM.







Post#4000 at 02-18-2013 02:50 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-18-2013, 02:50 PM #4000
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
At that point, I hope that I'm not around to see the carnage such an unwise move or clueless position would create. Now, I completely understand that liberals in general represent those who are comingly viewed as those positioned at the bottom of the barrel and most hardup and certain laws/rules/rights/views must be removed and our social standards must be drastically softened or reduced to either assist or prevent the possibility of a nasty revolution like the French revolution.
First, no government ever legalizes insurrection, so the idea that the 2nd is there to provide arms for the next revolution is ludicrous. Second, the Constitution is not necessary to make private gun ownership possible, as it was all the years prior to the Heller ruling. The only change that removing the 2nd as justification will make is in the area of regulation. And yes, at some point, gun ownership will be much more regulated than it is now. As a law-abiding gun owner, this should not affect you, unless you consider a bit of "i" dotting and "t" crossing is a huge imposition.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------