The ipod has always been overrated in my opinion. I am thoroughly convinced of this after buying an ipod classic 160 GB player. In fact, I call it the iPOS: i Piece of Shit.
I am using realplayer to manage my ipod, not itunes. I have a music library of well over 3000 CDs and my MP3 library is around 34000 songs! I still have around 100 vinyl records (from a time when I had around 800). Not everything I own is on my computer, yet. I can't really use things like napster, kazaa, morpheus, or any of those other file sharing databases because people will be draining MY computer. The first time I logged on one of these programs, some hog was downloading a whole album from me within the first minute. That stopped me from being able to do anything in the world of file sharing.
Now, Itunes will sync my unit with every song on my computer which is well over the directory capacity of 160 GB. Anyway, I don't really want to have my whole collection on disc, just a few songs (it was at 16k songs when my iPOS last crashed). The songs show up if I use windows explorer, but the iPOS won't recognise that they are there. It does recognise that there is data which is occupyiing 74 GB of space, but it refuses to be able to do anything.
The apple solution is to obliterate all this data and force me to reload. This is a task which will take me over two days. Even if I am not sitting at my computer, this occupies loads of computer time.
Now, I just called apple and they said that they do not support me if I am not using itunes to manage my iPOS. So, basically, they are not willing to make a unit that will self-repair the library from what I am understanding.
I own a couple of other MP3 players, and my living room computer is technically a giant MP3 player (with over 36k songs on it). Every other MP3 player can self repair the library, such as my Toshiba Gigabeat or creative zen nomad. Not the IPOS!
The worst part of this is that there are software programs out there which claim they can repair my song database, but they don't work with the iPOS classic. This is kind of amazing to me. Actually, I am obviously not alone as there are several programs out there and multitudes of posts from others who have lost their data due to a corrupt iPOD database.
On the other hand, I think the iPOS is one of the most over hyped units on the market, which is too stinking bad. I would strongly advise anyone not to get this, but Toshiba and creative are not the market force that apple is when it comes to MP3 players. And finding an MP3 player with this type of capacity is really difficult. That is the only reason I bought the iPOS, which I am truly regretting.
The other units with similar capacity are the Archos, DMC xclef, and Wolverine Data. You can find some creative zen nomads that have been rebuilt with larger drives. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the technology exists for me to carry my music collection with me, the marketplace hasn't caught up with it. Worse, its pretty hard to find other units besides the iPOS out there that do work in terms of having enough disc capacity for a minimum of songs, such as the Gigabeat or Creative coming in at 40-60GB.
So, the iPOS has mostly marketing working for it and not much else. In fact, the iPOS is pretty much another case of monopolising the market which is surprising coming from Apple, which tries to come off as not being Microsoft. In the case of the iPOS, Apple has done everything to hype its unit, but really isn't offering a product which is worth buying.
So, if you haven't wasted your money on a iPOS with a huge disc drive, don't. Go looking for a product which actually functions.
This is only a part of my anti-iPOS rant, but it is a very significant complaint, which I hope Apple, or some clever software developer will fix.
28 February 2008
20 February 2008
More amusing RKBA comments
Making comments that the United States needs gun control is a lightning rod for the RKBA crowd to come and post loads of comments. Another one of these time wasters just posted duplicates of a comment, which I will not post of course, telling me to look at the "peer reviewed" Kleck and Lott articles. Yes, they were peer reviewed and have failed. Kleck and Lott call the other's work crap. So, I am not sure why this person bothers wasting his and others time, but...
I find it especially funny when the RKBA crowd write to foreign journalists. It is especially funny when the RKBA crowd write to British and Australian papers to try and persuade the journos that crime is high in Britain and Australia. Even funnier since the RKBA crowd really put their feet in it by not having the facts straight.
But the RKBA crowd never really does have its facts straight anyway. Probably why they like people like John Lott and Gary Kleck. Both Lott and Kleck sound scientific, but have been pretty much disproved. In fact, if Lott were on the other side of the debate, he would join Michael Bellesisles in the discredited academic department.
The RKBA crowd like to repeat the same things over and over again. I was looking at multiple posts of the same comment on one piece.
I guess the main point is that some people should avoid trying to sound intelligent, especially when they are dealing with people who know they are wrong. The RKBA crowd doesn't have their facts straight on the gun issue in Australia or Britain, but they love to interject nonsense about how the crime rate has gone up.
The problem is that the United States is the only country with an obscure and misunderstood bit of legislation written down on the books that acts as a barrier to any sane gun legislation. No other country, even if they have the same militia tradition, has barriers to firearms legislation.
Britain, not Germany, was the first country to have firearms regulation. This is despite having a similar constitutional guarantee to bear arms in The Bill of Rights from 1689 (1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2 c. 2): That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. Amusingly enough, as in other guarantees of rights, this follows the right to be free of a standing army in time of peace.
Anyway, Britons have never had a "right" to own guns and handgun ownership was pretty rare. In fact, I was amused when I was young, a friend said something about my being from America that I had shot a gun. To which I replied that we had guns and hunted in England as well. My family was of the class of people who had this privilege and ability.
I would like to see more action in the area of gun control, but like the draft and military service, Americans are rather apathetic until something effects them.
Then they become very protective. I find Americans to be a rather self-centred people when it comes to politics.
I find it especially funny when the RKBA crowd write to foreign journalists. It is especially funny when the RKBA crowd write to British and Australian papers to try and persuade the journos that crime is high in Britain and Australia. Even funnier since the RKBA crowd really put their feet in it by not having the facts straight.
But the RKBA crowd never really does have its facts straight anyway. Probably why they like people like John Lott and Gary Kleck. Both Lott and Kleck sound scientific, but have been pretty much disproved. In fact, if Lott were on the other side of the debate, he would join Michael Bellesisles in the discredited academic department.
The RKBA crowd like to repeat the same things over and over again. I was looking at multiple posts of the same comment on one piece.
I guess the main point is that some people should avoid trying to sound intelligent, especially when they are dealing with people who know they are wrong. The RKBA crowd doesn't have their facts straight on the gun issue in Australia or Britain, but they love to interject nonsense about how the crime rate has gone up.
The problem is that the United States is the only country with an obscure and misunderstood bit of legislation written down on the books that acts as a barrier to any sane gun legislation. No other country, even if they have the same militia tradition, has barriers to firearms legislation.
Britain, not Germany, was the first country to have firearms regulation. This is despite having a similar constitutional guarantee to bear arms in The Bill of Rights from 1689 (1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2 c. 2): That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. Amusingly enough, as in other guarantees of rights, this follows the right to be free of a standing army in time of peace.
Anyway, Britons have never had a "right" to own guns and handgun ownership was pretty rare. In fact, I was amused when I was young, a friend said something about my being from America that I had shot a gun. To which I replied that we had guns and hunted in England as well. My family was of the class of people who had this privilege and ability.
I would like to see more action in the area of gun control, but like the draft and military service, Americans are rather apathetic until something effects them.
Then they become very protective. I find Americans to be a rather self-centred people when it comes to politics.
National Service
It seems a joke in Britain that a conservative politician will say that "we need to bring back national service" when youth act out of control. On the other hand, I am thinking this isn't a bad idea. For those who don't know what national service was, it was a compulsory two year stint in the military which was in effect from 1939 until 1960 in Britain.
I was listening to the Radio Times interview with Eric Fair and it was pointed out that we probably wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan if there was still a draft. Most Americans want to avoid military service. And they want to avoid military service if there is any risk to life and limb. On the other hand, there is no risk that the average American will go into the army which means most people don't care what the military does.
Likewise, I am pretty sure that any love for the Second Amendment would dwindle away if people who claim to support it were told they had to go to boot camp for a couple of months training, give up a couple of days a month for drill, and then go on exercises for a week or two a year. All this would not count toward their vacation time. I know that it was this type of sickener that caused the institution of the universal militia to die in the first place. Most people wanted exemptions from militia service, or would pay someone to do their militia duties.
But, this isn't about the War in Iraq, it is about something stupid I read this morning.
David McGrath, a university literature professor in Alabama wishes to carry a gun into class to be able to "protect his students". Prof. McGrath's states that:
I am no Rambo. I am a middle-age English professor with no military background. But as an outdoorsman, I have a passing acquaintance with the use of firearms, experience which could be refined to a skill of safety and competence, with adequate training.
Now, Prof. McGrath, I am a person with military experience Worse case scenario is that you end up being shot by being mistaken for the gunman. Best case is that you only add to the confusion and panic.
A situation with a gunman requires more than being able to shoot a gun, it requires being able to deal with the panic and confusion which accompanies that situation.
A civilian with a firearm in a situation like a school shooting is only going to add to the confusion when the professionals arrive. The last thing that is needed is armed civilians bungling around trying to be heroes.
Now, I posted this in another forum and someone mentioned the Colorado Church where a "concealed carry permit holder" saved the day. Now, if I remember correctly, that permit holder was a security guard, not Joe Blow professor who has a passing knowledge of guns. Anyway, I can come up with many more circumstances where trained officers were unable to stop the shooters, such as Columbine and the Kirkwood City Council shootings.
Quite frankly, an armed civilian is far more likely to add to the confusion than help it. Not to mention put themselves and others at risk.
Of course, maybe we should allow armed civilians. This is called the Darwin Awards. Armed civilian is seen by the SWAT team and is picked off. I am waiting for that to happen. Or that the armed civilian does cause more harm than good by shooting innocent bystanders adding to the carnage.
Additionally, the armed civilian is not insulated from lawsuits the way that the police or military are. So, if the armed civilian does shoot the wrong person, they can be sued into penury.
On the other hand, the RKBA crowd loves the myth that an armed person can save the day. They seem to have had a steady diet of dime novels, movies, and fairy tales that portray this myth. I am not sure if reality can be brought in to these people's minds.
On the other hand, maybe we would see a drastic change of opinion if the RKBA heroes had to go through military training and exercises of situations where people are shooting back at them. It is one thing to shoot at a target, or to hunt something which can't shoot back as opposed to hunting the most dangerous game.
A foe who has no regard for human life and is willing to kill as many people as possible before being killed himself.
I was listening to the Radio Times interview with Eric Fair and it was pointed out that we probably wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan if there was still a draft. Most Americans want to avoid military service. And they want to avoid military service if there is any risk to life and limb. On the other hand, there is no risk that the average American will go into the army which means most people don't care what the military does.
Likewise, I am pretty sure that any love for the Second Amendment would dwindle away if people who claim to support it were told they had to go to boot camp for a couple of months training, give up a couple of days a month for drill, and then go on exercises for a week or two a year. All this would not count toward their vacation time. I know that it was this type of sickener that caused the institution of the universal militia to die in the first place. Most people wanted exemptions from militia service, or would pay someone to do their militia duties.
But, this isn't about the War in Iraq, it is about something stupid I read this morning.
David McGrath, a university literature professor in Alabama wishes to carry a gun into class to be able to "protect his students". Prof. McGrath's states that:
I am no Rambo. I am a middle-age English professor with no military background. But as an outdoorsman, I have a passing acquaintance with the use of firearms, experience which could be refined to a skill of safety and competence, with adequate training.
Now, Prof. McGrath, I am a person with military experience Worse case scenario is that you end up being shot by being mistaken for the gunman. Best case is that you only add to the confusion and panic.
A situation with a gunman requires more than being able to shoot a gun, it requires being able to deal with the panic and confusion which accompanies that situation.
A civilian with a firearm in a situation like a school shooting is only going to add to the confusion when the professionals arrive. The last thing that is needed is armed civilians bungling around trying to be heroes.
Now, I posted this in another forum and someone mentioned the Colorado Church where a "concealed carry permit holder" saved the day. Now, if I remember correctly, that permit holder was a security guard, not Joe Blow professor who has a passing knowledge of guns. Anyway, I can come up with many more circumstances where trained officers were unable to stop the shooters, such as Columbine and the Kirkwood City Council shootings.
Quite frankly, an armed civilian is far more likely to add to the confusion than help it. Not to mention put themselves and others at risk.
Of course, maybe we should allow armed civilians. This is called the Darwin Awards. Armed civilian is seen by the SWAT team and is picked off. I am waiting for that to happen. Or that the armed civilian does cause more harm than good by shooting innocent bystanders adding to the carnage.
Additionally, the armed civilian is not insulated from lawsuits the way that the police or military are. So, if the armed civilian does shoot the wrong person, they can be sued into penury.
On the other hand, the RKBA crowd loves the myth that an armed person can save the day. They seem to have had a steady diet of dime novels, movies, and fairy tales that portray this myth. I am not sure if reality can be brought in to these people's minds.
On the other hand, maybe we would see a drastic change of opinion if the RKBA heroes had to go through military training and exercises of situations where people are shooting back at them. It is one thing to shoot at a target, or to hunt something which can't shoot back as opposed to hunting the most dangerous game.
A foe who has no regard for human life and is willing to kill as many people as possible before being killed himself.
19 February 2008
Let me get this straight...
The RKBA answer to the problem of out of control guns is always to add more guns to the situation. Usually handguns, which are perfectly useless for any real defensive purpose. The RKBA crowd also wants to have these guns concealed. Personally, I prefer a Remington 870 or an M4. In fact, I would like to walk around carrying a para stock minimi (M249 SAW to you septics).
I think that carrying a long gun in the open is far more of a deterrent than a handgun which is concealed in an inconvenient place. People are less likely to commit a crime is they know they will be shot. Besides the Second Amendment says "bear arms" and court cases have come out that concealed weapons are not under the scope of the Second Amendment. But, that is not really my point.
The RKBA answer is that criminal, lunatics, terrorists, and other disqualified persons from purchasing firearms will always have access to firearms, so why make it difficult for them to get them in the first place? I mean it makes far more sense to the RKBA crowd to deal with the crime that is generated rather than prevent it.
The RKBA line is akin to "stop rape, say yes" or "burglars will get into your house, so leave the doors and windows open".
I mean criminals walk around with concealed weapons, so let's make it easier for people to walk around with concealed weapons. School and bar shootings happen, so let's make it easier to go into schools and places where alcohol is served with a firearm.
It's rather funny that Eric Thompson, the owner of Internet-based TGSCOM Inc., this is the Internet firearms retailer who sold guns and accessories to the shooters involved in the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University incidents, is now promoting a concealed weapons law. Thompson called the purchases an unfortunate coincidence but said it's led him to believe he now has a "special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life."
Gee, Eric, maybe you should open a candle shop. It's too bad this guy isn't getting whacked with a serious law suit. Maybe that might make him think about personal responsibility. On the other hand, Eric probably doesn't feel too much guilt about being an instrumentality in two mass shootings. It's just a business to him.
Problem is, Eric, that your business is selling the instrumentalities used in killing. Think about that one.
Thompson is opening a website called www.gundebate.com, which is yet another one of those RKBA sites which will insist on more guns into an already oversaturated market and less responsibility.
Now, there is the dichotomy in the Liberal-Conservative debate which seems to get lost when the RKBA crowd come in and it's called "personal responsibility". Isn't the real responsibility if someone is selling dangerous items to make sure that people who will abuse them NOT have access to these items? Unfortunately, the RKBA crowd will use every linguistic trick in the book to try to hide the fact that they are putting others at risk. The RKBA crowd is as irresponsible as you can get when it comes down to public safety.
They hide behind something which was designed for "the Security of the Free State" and do everything to ensure that it is not a secure state. In fact, by claiming a right without accepting the incumbent responsibilities, they are putting the state at risk. In fact, they really aren't claiming the right which is mentioned in the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment doesn't mention self-defence, hunting, and the right of revolt. The last one is an absolute absurdity (right of revolt against a tyrannical government). None of these concepts are mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, the last one (right of revolt against a tyrannical government) is mentioned, but not as a right. It is mentioned as the crime of treason in Article III, Section iii.
The debates about the Second Amendment deal with the Federal military establishment versus a State Militia. The fear was of a Standing Army, which 18th Century types believed was the tool of a tyrant. The Constitution is filled with devices to keep the military in check, one of which was the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, the military budget is several trillion dollars, which is a violation of my right under the Second Amendment to be free of a standing army.
As I have said, the Second Amendment is an anachronism which needs to be understood. It doesn't need to be repealed, since it is meaningless. The militia system as conceived at the time the Constitution was written was non-existent. In fact, it was a military establishment (the French) that won the War for independence. The United States would be a whole lot better if its "leaders" would show some backbone and stop kow-towing to imaginary rights and silly myths.
As for RKBA attempts at patriotism, I refer to Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
I think that carrying a long gun in the open is far more of a deterrent than a handgun which is concealed in an inconvenient place. People are less likely to commit a crime is they know they will be shot. Besides the Second Amendment says "bear arms" and court cases have come out that concealed weapons are not under the scope of the Second Amendment. But, that is not really my point.
The RKBA answer is that criminal, lunatics, terrorists, and other disqualified persons from purchasing firearms will always have access to firearms, so why make it difficult for them to get them in the first place? I mean it makes far more sense to the RKBA crowd to deal with the crime that is generated rather than prevent it.
The RKBA line is akin to "stop rape, say yes" or "burglars will get into your house, so leave the doors and windows open".
I mean criminals walk around with concealed weapons, so let's make it easier for people to walk around with concealed weapons. School and bar shootings happen, so let's make it easier to go into schools and places where alcohol is served with a firearm.
It's rather funny that Eric Thompson, the owner of Internet-based TGSCOM Inc., this is the Internet firearms retailer who sold guns and accessories to the shooters involved in the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University incidents, is now promoting a concealed weapons law. Thompson called the purchases an unfortunate coincidence but said it's led him to believe he now has a "special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life."
Gee, Eric, maybe you should open a candle shop. It's too bad this guy isn't getting whacked with a serious law suit. Maybe that might make him think about personal responsibility. On the other hand, Eric probably doesn't feel too much guilt about being an instrumentality in two mass shootings. It's just a business to him.
Problem is, Eric, that your business is selling the instrumentalities used in killing. Think about that one.
Thompson is opening a website called www.gundebate.com, which is yet another one of those RKBA sites which will insist on more guns into an already oversaturated market and less responsibility.
Now, there is the dichotomy in the Liberal-Conservative debate which seems to get lost when the RKBA crowd come in and it's called "personal responsibility". Isn't the real responsibility if someone is selling dangerous items to make sure that people who will abuse them NOT have access to these items? Unfortunately, the RKBA crowd will use every linguistic trick in the book to try to hide the fact that they are putting others at risk. The RKBA crowd is as irresponsible as you can get when it comes down to public safety.
They hide behind something which was designed for "the Security of the Free State" and do everything to ensure that it is not a secure state. In fact, by claiming a right without accepting the incumbent responsibilities, they are putting the state at risk. In fact, they really aren't claiming the right which is mentioned in the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment doesn't mention self-defence, hunting, and the right of revolt. The last one is an absolute absurdity (right of revolt against a tyrannical government). None of these concepts are mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, the last one (right of revolt against a tyrannical government) is mentioned, but not as a right. It is mentioned as the crime of treason in Article III, Section iii.
The debates about the Second Amendment deal with the Federal military establishment versus a State Militia. The fear was of a Standing Army, which 18th Century types believed was the tool of a tyrant. The Constitution is filled with devices to keep the military in check, one of which was the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, the military budget is several trillion dollars, which is a violation of my right under the Second Amendment to be free of a standing army.
As I have said, the Second Amendment is an anachronism which needs to be understood. It doesn't need to be repealed, since it is meaningless. The militia system as conceived at the time the Constitution was written was non-existent. In fact, it was a military establishment (the French) that won the War for independence. The United States would be a whole lot better if its "leaders" would show some backbone and stop kow-towing to imaginary rights and silly myths.
As for RKBA attempts at patriotism, I refer to Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
18 February 2008
Freedom
I have to admit the last place I saw nearly as much security as currently exists in the US was when I was in Ulster. At least the US hasn't gotten to the point where you are searched pretty much everywhere you go. Probably because people would scream about their freedoms being trampled.
Why this comment? Because other people are talking about the hypocritical war on terrorism because nothing is being done to control firearms.
One person can rack up a body count of 33 bodies, yet nothing is done about it. A couple of people and a rifle (John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad) had the US capital area in an lock down for three weeks. The body count racks up in senseless killings, yet we are told this is the cost of freedom.
Hey, if this is your idea of freedom, pal, I think the alternative isn't so bad. I mean, this is beginning to feel more and more like a totalitarian state because people are scared. Yet, the voice of the people is being silenced by some loud squeaky wheels who are not working toward "the security of a free State".
On the other hand, three people can die from eating spinach and it all gets yanked from the stores.
What is wrong with this picture? The Second Amendment talks about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Sure there are people who want to take the last part out of context and say it has something to do with self-defence. The problem is that the Second Amendment addresses Security of a free state and relates back to Article I, Section 8 the militia is a body that is "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." It is "organized, armed, and disciplined...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".
It is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government, or to allow for waging war upon a tyrannical government since Article III, Section iii states that doing just that is TREASON!
Sorry, if there is a personal right, it is that you must be allowed to be a member of the National Guard. But the Dick Act of 1901 got rid of the Universal Militia because most people didn't want to give up their free time for militia duties.
As I have pointed out, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It is irrelevant to modern society since most people aren't willing to accept the need to belong to a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 to be able to accept that right. The RKBA crowd wants to divorce "the security of a free State" from the equation and make it a licence for anarchy.
Unfortunately, "the security of a free State" is the most important part of the Second Amendment and to demand freedom from the responsibilities which come with the right is to totally negate the Second Amendment. It is to continue to see high body counts from senseless gun violence because people who don't understand the right to bear arms demand unfettered access to firearms.
Show me the words "self-defence" in the Second Amendment and I will grant the RKBA crowd their point. The Second Amendment does not mention self-defence and it is an irrelevance to tie that concept to the Second Amendment. It is even more absurd to tie the ability to revolt against the government to the Second Amendment.
We are not dealing with loose cannons, we are dealing with loose firearms. Loose firearms which are just as much a threat to society as is Al-queda. I would probably say that the cost of gun violence takes more of a toll on US society than Al-queda has ever done, yet nothing is done about it.
Until we have a leader who has the guts to say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the militia to be armed, we will continue to lose the war on terrorism.
Why this comment? Because other people are talking about the hypocritical war on terrorism because nothing is being done to control firearms.
One person can rack up a body count of 33 bodies, yet nothing is done about it. A couple of people and a rifle (John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad) had the US capital area in an lock down for three weeks. The body count racks up in senseless killings, yet we are told this is the cost of freedom.
Hey, if this is your idea of freedom, pal, I think the alternative isn't so bad. I mean, this is beginning to feel more and more like a totalitarian state because people are scared. Yet, the voice of the people is being silenced by some loud squeaky wheels who are not working toward "the security of a free State".
On the other hand, three people can die from eating spinach and it all gets yanked from the stores.
What is wrong with this picture? The Second Amendment talks about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Sure there are people who want to take the last part out of context and say it has something to do with self-defence. The problem is that the Second Amendment addresses Security of a free state and relates back to Article I, Section 8 the militia is a body that is "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." It is "organized, armed, and disciplined...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".
It is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government, or to allow for waging war upon a tyrannical government since Article III, Section iii states that doing just that is TREASON!
Sorry, if there is a personal right, it is that you must be allowed to be a member of the National Guard. But the Dick Act of 1901 got rid of the Universal Militia because most people didn't want to give up their free time for militia duties.
As I have pointed out, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It is irrelevant to modern society since most people aren't willing to accept the need to belong to a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 to be able to accept that right. The RKBA crowd wants to divorce "the security of a free State" from the equation and make it a licence for anarchy.
Unfortunately, "the security of a free State" is the most important part of the Second Amendment and to demand freedom from the responsibilities which come with the right is to totally negate the Second Amendment. It is to continue to see high body counts from senseless gun violence because people who don't understand the right to bear arms demand unfettered access to firearms.
Show me the words "self-defence" in the Second Amendment and I will grant the RKBA crowd their point. The Second Amendment does not mention self-defence and it is an irrelevance to tie that concept to the Second Amendment. It is even more absurd to tie the ability to revolt against the government to the Second Amendment.
We are not dealing with loose cannons, we are dealing with loose firearms. Loose firearms which are just as much a threat to society as is Al-queda. I would probably say that the cost of gun violence takes more of a toll on US society than Al-queda has ever done, yet nothing is done about it.
Until we have a leader who has the guts to say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the militia to be armed, we will continue to lose the war on terrorism.
17 February 2008
Why I don't call myself a US citizen.
I loved living in Washington, DC. It is a city which tries to show an image of what the United States really deep down wants to be. People come there and love the metro, yet go home to their private cars. There are loads of cool museums and loads of restaurants.
And, strict gun laws. These gun laws bother the heck out of people who don't live in Washington, DC. Probably because Washington, DC is the capital of the United States, yet it has strict gun laws. These gun laws have been found constitutional up until a legal aberration happened in Parker v. DC. That legal aberration was that a rogue judge decided he didn't like precedent and wants to make his own law. The same people who get upset when this happens in situations they consider "liberal" applaud this as a correct decision (smell the hypocracy?).
The United States doesn't have leaders. Leaders are people who lead when the followers go astray. They have the guts to say this is a wrong idea.
I cannot support Barack Obama because he cannot say that the Second Amendment only means that we have a citizen's militia (as opposed to a standing army). What the Second Amendment means is that we should not have a trillion dollar military budget because people are willing to give up their personal time for training and militia duties. But, the Second Amendment is meaningless since most people aren't willing to take the responsibilities incumbent with that right. How many of these Second Amendment "supporters" are willing to volunteer for Iraq or Afghanistan? Yes, this means giving up their liberty to defend the United States because their commander in chief commands it.
It's not about saying that you belong to an "unorganised militia" and demanding to bear arms. The unorganised militia is a draft pool for the organised militia. Actually, it was better explained as a construct so that the "universal militia" could be kept up "in spirit" because people weren't willing to give up their time to be an actual militia member. The "unorganised militia" comment is a silly as saying that Ted Nugent was a Viet Nam vet because he had a draft card. Never mind Terrible Ted, who is happy killing things that can't shoot back was a sniveling coward who showed up at his draft board physical, with no personal hygiene. having eaten nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and with a week to go until the physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether. When the big day came, he had been living in excrement-caked and urine-stained pants.
And he boasted about this in a 1990 Detroit Free Press interview.
No, the RKBA crowd want the guns without the responsibilities.
So, Yes, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MEANINGLESS! It is an anachronism which prevents the people of the United States from being able to have sane gun laws. It doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be understood. The real meaning needs to be taught rather than the lies pushed upon us by "public interest groups" which don't serve the REAL public interest.
I am not proud of the United States since it lacks leaders. It seems to lack people with any intelligence. And it definitely seems to lack people who are willing to stand up for their principals when they are being trampled.
And, strict gun laws. These gun laws bother the heck out of people who don't live in Washington, DC. Probably because Washington, DC is the capital of the United States, yet it has strict gun laws. These gun laws have been found constitutional up until a legal aberration happened in Parker v. DC. That legal aberration was that a rogue judge decided he didn't like precedent and wants to make his own law. The same people who get upset when this happens in situations they consider "liberal" applaud this as a correct decision (smell the hypocracy?).
The United States doesn't have leaders. Leaders are people who lead when the followers go astray. They have the guts to say this is a wrong idea.
I cannot support Barack Obama because he cannot say that the Second Amendment only means that we have a citizen's militia (as opposed to a standing army). What the Second Amendment means is that we should not have a trillion dollar military budget because people are willing to give up their personal time for training and militia duties. But, the Second Amendment is meaningless since most people aren't willing to take the responsibilities incumbent with that right. How many of these Second Amendment "supporters" are willing to volunteer for Iraq or Afghanistan? Yes, this means giving up their liberty to defend the United States because their commander in chief commands it.
It's not about saying that you belong to an "unorganised militia" and demanding to bear arms. The unorganised militia is a draft pool for the organised militia. Actually, it was better explained as a construct so that the "universal militia" could be kept up "in spirit" because people weren't willing to give up their time to be an actual militia member. The "unorganised militia" comment is a silly as saying that Ted Nugent was a Viet Nam vet because he had a draft card. Never mind Terrible Ted, who is happy killing things that can't shoot back was a sniveling coward who showed up at his draft board physical, with no personal hygiene. having eaten nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and with a week to go until the physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether. When the big day came, he had been living in excrement-caked and urine-stained pants.
And he boasted about this in a 1990 Detroit Free Press interview.
No, the RKBA crowd want the guns without the responsibilities.
So, Yes, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS MEANINGLESS! It is an anachronism which prevents the people of the United States from being able to have sane gun laws. It doesn't need to be repealed, it needs to be understood. The real meaning needs to be taught rather than the lies pushed upon us by "public interest groups" which don't serve the REAL public interest.
I am not proud of the United States since it lacks leaders. It seems to lack people with any intelligence. And it definitely seems to lack people who are willing to stand up for their principals when they are being trampled.
15 February 2008
Censorship
You have no right to read this.
The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken or written, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right to read anything you want. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.
The key word being "theoretically". As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of the US or British national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.
Add in that my ability to write or say what I want will allow ideas to get out, even if there are attempts to censor them.
Now, I just moderated some comments about my Mitt Romney piece which may have come from some Mormons (Mormons and Jews tend to proselytise in a similar manner). They are happy to see people accepting their beliefs and defending them as well. I will defend their ability to practise their beliefs even if I have some personal qualms about their faith as an ardent believer that the war of independence and the US Constitution are a disaster and not divinely inspired.
The American War for Independence was satanic in my opinion, but I don't see Mormons as satanic. Their beliefs are not satanic. I would like to think that the Mormons believe in the Spirit of the Constitution and what it means than what this country has become. But I also think most of the founding fathers (and mothers) would probably think this country was a disaster as well if they were able to see what it has become.
On the other hand, as I have said before, I don't see any reason to give the RKBA crowd more of a soapbox to push their opinions upon us. They flood the internet with repeated lies. Repeating these lies will not make it the truth. And the RKBA position on guns is detrimental to society. which is made especially clear after waking to yet another mass shooting in Illinois.
As a lawyer, my job is to state what the law IS, not what I would like it to be. And, until the Supreme Court states otherwise, the Second Amendment protects only the militias which are organised under Article I, Section 8.
I have to update this to say that Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), is a piece of political hackery which he should be ashamed of if he truly believes what he professes to believe. So, I remain unconvinced of the validity of this decision as legal precedent.
So I see no reason why District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) should not be overturned and replaced with something which makes proper legal sense or why Washington, DC's locally enacted law should have been judicially repealed. Isn't that judicial activism anyway?
Not to mention tyranny.
I am glad to see that I have readers and I am glad to support people's right of conscience if it doesn't hurt anyone. Quite frankly. I have absolutely no problem with any of Mormonism's beliefs. As I said before, I think that they are absolutely dead wrong about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution being devinely inspired. Along with finding retroactive baptism a bit odd, which I am sure my dead Jewish relations who are retroactively baptised do as well.
But, My Mormon relations tell me that my Jewish relations who are retroactively are free to accept or reject Mormonism as they please. Not to mention that the Mormons have helped me in my genealogical pursuits. I have also donated genealogical material to the Mormons who will protect it. So, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons and their beliefs since they are not forcing them upon me.
The Mormons aren't the Branch Davidians, yet I see some of the religious right defend the Branch Davidians even though the BDs were engaged in illegal activities. This is because they were a "Church".
The Mormons are law abiding and not prone to force their beliefs on others, which is what the First Amendment right is about.
And, I really don't care if anyone reads this blog, but it is my right to write it. This is the real first freedom which protects all other freedoms. The Second Amendment's significance is so lost in history and polemic that it is meaningless.
But, it does feel good if my writings make a difference.
The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken or written, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right to read anything you want. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.
The key word being "theoretically". As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of the US or British national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.
Add in that my ability to write or say what I want will allow ideas to get out, even if there are attempts to censor them.
Now, I just moderated some comments about my Mitt Romney piece which may have come from some Mormons (Mormons and Jews tend to proselytise in a similar manner). They are happy to see people accepting their beliefs and defending them as well. I will defend their ability to practise their beliefs even if I have some personal qualms about their faith as an ardent believer that the war of independence and the US Constitution are a disaster and not divinely inspired.
The American War for Independence was satanic in my opinion, but I don't see Mormons as satanic. Their beliefs are not satanic. I would like to think that the Mormons believe in the Spirit of the Constitution and what it means than what this country has become. But I also think most of the founding fathers (and mothers) would probably think this country was a disaster as well if they were able to see what it has become.
On the other hand, as I have said before, I don't see any reason to give the RKBA crowd more of a soapbox to push their opinions upon us. They flood the internet with repeated lies. Repeating these lies will not make it the truth. And the RKBA position on guns is detrimental to society. which is made especially clear after waking to yet another mass shooting in Illinois.
As a lawyer, my job is to state what the law IS, not what I would like it to be. And, until the Supreme Court states otherwise, the Second Amendment protects only the militias which are organised under Article I, Section 8.
I have to update this to say that Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), is a piece of political hackery which he should be ashamed of if he truly believes what he professes to believe. So, I remain unconvinced of the validity of this decision as legal precedent.
So I see no reason why District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) should not be overturned and replaced with something which makes proper legal sense or why Washington, DC's locally enacted law should have been judicially repealed. Isn't that judicial activism anyway?
Not to mention tyranny.
I am glad to see that I have readers and I am glad to support people's right of conscience if it doesn't hurt anyone. Quite frankly. I have absolutely no problem with any of Mormonism's beliefs. As I said before, I think that they are absolutely dead wrong about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution being devinely inspired. Along with finding retroactive baptism a bit odd, which I am sure my dead Jewish relations who are retroactively baptised do as well.
But, My Mormon relations tell me that my Jewish relations who are retroactively are free to accept or reject Mormonism as they please. Not to mention that the Mormons have helped me in my genealogical pursuits. I have also donated genealogical material to the Mormons who will protect it. So, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons and their beliefs since they are not forcing them upon me.
The Mormons aren't the Branch Davidians, yet I see some of the religious right defend the Branch Davidians even though the BDs were engaged in illegal activities. This is because they were a "Church".
The Mormons are law abiding and not prone to force their beliefs on others, which is what the First Amendment right is about.
And, I really don't care if anyone reads this blog, but it is my right to write it. This is the real first freedom which protects all other freedoms. The Second Amendment's significance is so lost in history and polemic that it is meaningless.
But, it does feel good if my writings make a difference.
13 February 2008
Mitt Romney: Mormonism and the religious right
I have to admit it is humourous to me to hear Mitt Romney being accused of not being "Christian" since he is a Mormon. I have had a thing for Mormonism since I was a youth and have to admit more knowledge than the average person about this faith. The cabinet d'avocats we were associated when I lived in Belgium represented the Mormons.
An anecdote from that period is that a couple of Mormon missionaries were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
But Mormonism is the most American of religions.
They see the United States as the promised land and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as divinely inspired. Of course, that is where I find fault in their faith as a true tory, but that is a total digression.
And, of course, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, there are evangelicals out there who believe Mormonism is a cult. See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html. However, I am going to quote that article here:
The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression") that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.
Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven't changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.
Mormons believe that they are the fully realized strain of Christianity--hence the "latter-day saints." They acknowledge extra-biblical works of scripture (such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), follow a series of prophets who claim to have received divine revelations, and teach that God inhabits an actual physical body. This is all blasphemy to evangelicals; they argue that "the Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching" and refer to the revelations as "realistic deception[s] by the Devil himself."
Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. As John L. Smith, a Southern Baptist who runs Utah Mission--an organization that tries to convert Mormons--told Christianity Today: "Mormonism is either totally true or totally false. If it's true, every other religion in America is false." To be tolerant of Mormonism is to put evangelical Christianity at risk. And to put a Mormon in the White House would be to place a stamp of approval on that faith.
Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a "cult." In 1997, the denomination published a handbook and video, both with the title The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints. More than 45,000 of these kits were distributed in the first year; the following year--in a throwing down of the proselytizing gauntlet--the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Around the same time, a speaker at the denomination's summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was "a stronghold of Satan." When Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, tried to repair relations with the LDS community by apologizing on behalf of evangelicals during a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle last year, his conservative brethren lashed out. Mouw had no right, they declared in an open letter, to speak for them or apologize for denouncing Mormon "false prophecies and false teachings."
Now, the First Amendment was proposed as a bulwark against government interference with religion, not to establish Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, as a religion. The US Constitution Article VI states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Why? Because the Puritans knew that government interference in religion was something to be avoided. Most of the faiths that came to the United States were dissenters in Europe and knew the problems associated with government sanctioned religion. Europe had nearly two centuries of religious war and a millennium of religious persecution to look back upon.
I was at a Jewish CLE class where the Rabbi said something along the lines of even though we may agree with the religious right, we know that we cannot support them. Because we are working toward something which may backfire upon us. So, we cannot impose our beliefs upon others even though we may not believe in abortion, birth control, etcetera.
Mormonism has a long history of persecution by "Christians" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism), which they should not forget. I remember when I was young seeing a memorial to the Mormons who went to Beaver Island to escape persecution while camping in northern Michigan.
I ask my Mormon Brothers and Sisters to remember their past and the persecution by those who called themselves Christians to remember what our religious freedom means. Even if Mormons disagree with positions on abortions, birth control, prayer in school, and so forth, they must remember that others have once persecuted (and still do persecute) them for their beliefs.
We cannot have religious issues blocking our other freedoms and the freedoms of others. We cannot have religion being used as a method for blocking real social legislation by making religion a wedge issue. we must allow for freedom of conscience whether we agree with it or not.
otherwise, we may return to the religious wars our ancestors fled their homelands to escape.
An anecdote from that period is that a couple of Mormon missionaries were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
But Mormonism is the most American of religions.
They see the United States as the promised land and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as divinely inspired. Of course, that is where I find fault in their faith as a true tory, but that is a total digression.
And, of course, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, there are evangelicals out there who believe Mormonism is a cult. See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html. However, I am going to quote that article here:
The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression") that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.
Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven't changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.
Mormons believe that they are the fully realized strain of Christianity--hence the "latter-day saints." They acknowledge extra-biblical works of scripture (such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), follow a series of prophets who claim to have received divine revelations, and teach that God inhabits an actual physical body. This is all blasphemy to evangelicals; they argue that "the Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching" and refer to the revelations as "realistic deception[s] by the Devil himself."
Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. As John L. Smith, a Southern Baptist who runs Utah Mission--an organization that tries to convert Mormons--told Christianity Today: "Mormonism is either totally true or totally false. If it's true, every other religion in America is false." To be tolerant of Mormonism is to put evangelical Christianity at risk. And to put a Mormon in the White House would be to place a stamp of approval on that faith.
Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a "cult." In 1997, the denomination published a handbook and video, both with the title The Mormon Puzzle: Understanding and Witnessing to Latter-day Saints. More than 45,000 of these kits were distributed in the first year; the following year--in a throwing down of the proselytizing gauntlet--the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City. Around the same time, a speaker at the denomination's summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was "a stronghold of Satan." When Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, tried to repair relations with the LDS community by apologizing on behalf of evangelicals during a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle last year, his conservative brethren lashed out. Mouw had no right, they declared in an open letter, to speak for them or apologize for denouncing Mormon "false prophecies and false teachings."
Now, the First Amendment was proposed as a bulwark against government interference with religion, not to establish Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, as a religion. The US Constitution Article VI states that: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Why? Because the Puritans knew that government interference in religion was something to be avoided. Most of the faiths that came to the United States were dissenters in Europe and knew the problems associated with government sanctioned religion. Europe had nearly two centuries of religious war and a millennium of religious persecution to look back upon.
I was at a Jewish CLE class where the Rabbi said something along the lines of even though we may agree with the religious right, we know that we cannot support them. Because we are working toward something which may backfire upon us. So, we cannot impose our beliefs upon others even though we may not believe in abortion, birth control, etcetera.
Mormonism has a long history of persecution by "Christians" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism), which they should not forget. I remember when I was young seeing a memorial to the Mormons who went to Beaver Island to escape persecution while camping in northern Michigan.
I ask my Mormon Brothers and Sisters to remember their past and the persecution by those who called themselves Christians to remember what our religious freedom means. Even if Mormons disagree with positions on abortions, birth control, prayer in school, and so forth, they must remember that others have once persecuted (and still do persecute) them for their beliefs.
We cannot have religious issues blocking our other freedoms and the freedoms of others. We cannot have religion being used as a method for blocking real social legislation by making religion a wedge issue. we must allow for freedom of conscience whether we agree with it or not.
otherwise, we may return to the religious wars our ancestors fled their homelands to escape.
11 February 2008
Democratic?
Anyone familiar with my blog should notice the theme that the United States is far from being a democracy. The Constitution is written to thwart popular rule. Case in point is the electoral college. Dubious Bush did not win the 2000 election by a popular vote, he won it through the electoral college.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
So, why do the politicians kiss the wrong asses?
Because there is money in the current system and it totally obfuscates the fact that there is really no popular representation of the people. And the government is in no way responsible to the people.
Yet, people wish to believe that an presidential election process which lasts four years is responsible to the people. What has me going on this rant is the comment from someone in Virginia on NPR's Morning Edition saying that he plans on voting for Mitt Romney. Now as someone who voted for Bill Bradley in the 2000 PA primary and Kucinich in the 2004 primary that this is a great thought, but our friend's protest vote is the rough equivalent of abstaining. In fact, at this point, the candidates are pretty much decided. Hilary Obama/Barack Clinton for the Demicans and McCain for the Republicrats.
But, no matter who wins, it will be business as usual with the sideshow issues of abortion, gun control, and, the new one, Iraq/War on Terror. The whole time, the leaders are causing the united States to fall further and further behind the world.
Matt Miller wrote an article on why we need federal standards in Education in the atlantic and was on Today's "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane". See Also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education.
The problem is that the US is behind in health care, transportation, and education. Miller pointed out that third world countries are already passing us by. He predicts there will be another "Sputnik moment" during the Beijing Olympics when people see how far ahead they are as far as infrastructure.
Of course, the leaders don't want to take any leadership position and they are under no obligation to do so. This is because of the pretense of a democratic process, there is no real input from the people. The process takes so long that qualified candidates pull out.
The real winners are the party leaders and the lampreys who feed off the process. This won't change as long as there is money to be made.
The Language of Liberty
Dr. Samuel Johnson Pointed out "that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes" at the time of the revolution. Thomas Jefferson stated that "all men were created equal", yet he had 187 slaves. Patrick Henry screamed "give me liberty or give me death", yet was also a slave owner. Was Mr. Henry as willing to give his slaves liberty?
Add in George Washington and most of the Southern rebels.
Another cry was "no taxation without representation" which came from Massachusetts. Rather humourous given that the colonies were taxed at a much lower rate than those back in Mother England. Even funnier that the places this cry was heard have high taxes post rebellion (mostly due to the debts incurred from said rebellion). They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
Self-representation and we tax you like the Beatles' song Taxman ("one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman,...Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all"). Of course, quite a bit of this money goes toward a standing army, from which the Second amendment is supposed to protect me. We should have a citizens' militia. Of course, it is better to pay high taxes than have to give up time for militia duties.
The "founding fathers" were also not fans of Democracy. Typical contemporary writings describe it as mob rule. The word had a similar connotation to how we use anarchy today. Our friends who were screaming for liberty while screwing their slaves (Old Tom and Sally Hemmings) were all for representation by property owning white males and sod the masses. Fortunately, property was so cheap in North America that most white males could fit into this category.
I draw your attention to the Impeachment of Samuel Chase for criticising voting reforms as "mobocracy". You might also do well to check out my previous post on this subject.
The basic gist of this is that the common man would be considered the mob, or rabble. No where in the Constitution is the word "democracy" used. This is a republic, a vastly different system. The reason Dubious Bush became president had nothing to do with popular vote, but the electoral college. Check out that institution.
Republics expect duties from their citizens which modern libertarians seem to miss.
So, don't let the language of liberty obfuscate the issue. As my dad loved to point out the Soviet Constitution sounded very egalitarian as well.
Add in George Washington and most of the Southern rebels.
Another cry was "no taxation without representation" which came from Massachusetts. Rather humourous given that the colonies were taxed at a much lower rate than those back in Mother England. Even funnier that the places this cry was heard have high taxes post rebellion (mostly due to the debts incurred from said rebellion). They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.
Self-representation and we tax you like the Beatles' song Taxman ("one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman,...Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all"). Of course, quite a bit of this money goes toward a standing army, from which the Second amendment is supposed to protect me. We should have a citizens' militia. Of course, it is better to pay high taxes than have to give up time for militia duties.
The "founding fathers" were also not fans of Democracy. Typical contemporary writings describe it as mob rule. The word had a similar connotation to how we use anarchy today. Our friends who were screaming for liberty while screwing their slaves (Old Tom and Sally Hemmings) were all for representation by property owning white males and sod the masses. Fortunately, property was so cheap in North America that most white males could fit into this category.
I draw your attention to the Impeachment of Samuel Chase for criticising voting reforms as "mobocracy". You might also do well to check out my previous post on this subject.
The basic gist of this is that the common man would be considered the mob, or rabble. No where in the Constitution is the word "democracy" used. This is a republic, a vastly different system. The reason Dubious Bush became president had nothing to do with popular vote, but the electoral college. Check out that institution.
Republics expect duties from their citizens which modern libertarians seem to miss.
So, don't let the language of liberty obfuscate the issue. As my dad loved to point out the Soviet Constitution sounded very egalitarian as well.
08 February 2008
RKBA comments
The RKBA crowd takes over the discussion of the Second Amendment whenever possible. Their arguments are like weeds in a garden which are allowed to take over. Weeds of ignorance and illogic.
There have been RKBA people who wish to comment on this blog, but I don't allow it. I will not post their comments.
The Bill of Rights only protects you from government interference, not private. I am not a governmental body in this blog, so I can censor to my heart's content.
You have more than enough fora to post your bullshit. I don't really want to hear your opinions. Nor do I need to allow them to be published more than they are. So, I am under no obligation to post your nonsense.
As for my discussions of Heller. No, they are not a red herring. The precedent in Sandidge v. U. S., 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) which was the law in The District of Columbia and followed the "Collective Right" interpretation. The Parker court admitted that it ignored the precedent of Sandidge.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment are the words "self-defence" written. And, until you can show me they are written there, which you cannot, the Second Amendment does not apply to self-defence. It does apply to membership in a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 and only in those circumstances.
Heller has no right to own a gun on his own property any more than I can have a meth lab on mine or sex with a child if the firearm is illegal, which they are under DC law. Private property does not allow for sovereignty to commit illegal acts.
Is that clear enough for you Mr. RKBA moron? Please do not come here with your fallacies and poor arguments.
There have been RKBA people who wish to comment on this blog, but I don't allow it. I will not post their comments.
The Bill of Rights only protects you from government interference, not private. I am not a governmental body in this blog, so I can censor to my heart's content.
You have more than enough fora to post your bullshit. I don't really want to hear your opinions. Nor do I need to allow them to be published more than they are. So, I am under no obligation to post your nonsense.
As for my discussions of Heller. No, they are not a red herring. The precedent in Sandidge v. U. S., 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) which was the law in The District of Columbia and followed the "Collective Right" interpretation. The Parker court admitted that it ignored the precedent of Sandidge.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment are the words "self-defence" written. And, until you can show me they are written there, which you cannot, the Second Amendment does not apply to self-defence. It does apply to membership in a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 and only in those circumstances.
Heller has no right to own a gun on his own property any more than I can have a meth lab on mine or sex with a child if the firearm is illegal, which they are under DC law. Private property does not allow for sovereignty to commit illegal acts.
Is that clear enough for you Mr. RKBA moron? Please do not come here with your fallacies and poor arguments.
Are logical fallacies a good reason to overturn precedent?
Yet another mass shooting has occurred in Missouri. This happened in a city council meeting where there were armed policemen, two of whom were shot before the gunman was killed. Virginia Tech happened in a state with liberal gun laws as well, including shall issue concealed carry.
Now, we have heard that concealed carry would prevent this and I have pointed out that shootings still happen. The Columbine shooters had a shootout with the school cop.
Part of the reason we have this mess is the fake statistics of John Lott and Gary Kleck. Both of which have been discredited, yet the gun lobby trots them out as truth. They even buttress their arguments with statistics which disprove those statistics (i.e., Cook and Ludwig).
I am hearing that the reason that the Supreme Court should find an individual right is that "it is popularly believed this right exists". Now, you can read my posts on argumentum ad populum and that it is a logical fallacy to base the truth of any proposition on the belief that it is popularly held true.
Add in that the "individual right" camp usually misquotes and takes quotes out of context. The arguments also use dicta rather than holdings (e.g. Dred Scot). In particular, they use the dicta in US v. Miller rather than the holding because it goes against their arguments:
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Nowhere is the term "self-defence" mentioned in the Second Amendment, or the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. Self-defence is mentioned in similar State guarantees.
It is even sillier to posit that a document which is to keep domestic tranquility providing an institution which is to "execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections" (the militia) and lists the only crime as being waging war against the United States (article III, Section iii) as allowing for a right to insurrection.
The real Second Amendment issue is not gun laws in Washington, DC, but the fact that National Guardsmen are being pressed into service in Iraq. Or as Justice Douglas said in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972), which is a supreme court Second Amendment case which misses their list because it shows the contrary point of view:
The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
So, in a nutshell, there are more reasons that the Supreme Court should hold with the collective right interpretation, which is what the courts have been following for the over 60 years and similar amount of legal opinions.
There is no policy reason to find that a right which is to prevent standing armies should be interpreted as a licence for private ownership of firearms.
Now, we have heard that concealed carry would prevent this and I have pointed out that shootings still happen. The Columbine shooters had a shootout with the school cop.
Part of the reason we have this mess is the fake statistics of John Lott and Gary Kleck. Both of which have been discredited, yet the gun lobby trots them out as truth. They even buttress their arguments with statistics which disprove those statistics (i.e., Cook and Ludwig).
I am hearing that the reason that the Supreme Court should find an individual right is that "it is popularly believed this right exists". Now, you can read my posts on argumentum ad populum and that it is a logical fallacy to base the truth of any proposition on the belief that it is popularly held true.
Add in that the "individual right" camp usually misquotes and takes quotes out of context. The arguments also use dicta rather than holdings (e.g. Dred Scot). In particular, they use the dicta in US v. Miller rather than the holding because it goes against their arguments:
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Nowhere is the term "self-defence" mentioned in the Second Amendment, or the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. Self-defence is mentioned in similar State guarantees.
It is even sillier to posit that a document which is to keep domestic tranquility providing an institution which is to "execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections" (the militia) and lists the only crime as being waging war against the United States (article III, Section iii) as allowing for a right to insurrection.
The real Second Amendment issue is not gun laws in Washington, DC, but the fact that National Guardsmen are being pressed into service in Iraq. Or as Justice Douglas said in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972), which is a supreme court Second Amendment case which misses their list because it shows the contrary point of view:
The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
So, in a nutshell, there are more reasons that the Supreme Court should hold with the collective right interpretation, which is what the courts have been following for the over 60 years and similar amount of legal opinions.
There is no policy reason to find that a right which is to prevent standing armies should be interpreted as a licence for private ownership of firearms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
