Comment policy reiterated...

Some people miss this bit:

I will even just delete comments without even bothering reading them from certain people. I really do just send them to the electric dustbin based upon "handle".
 
But they are only wasting their time, not mine.


As I don't read beyond the handle: e.g., hint hint.

Comment policy

Now that I am accepting comments, I thought I would put out a policy.

I have always had the policy that "can offer intelligent and constructive comments"

Likewise I have made it clear that I will even just delete comments without even bothering reading them from certain people. I really do just send them to the electric dustbin based upon "handle".

In particular those who are thought adverse since they can't "offer intelligent and constructive comments" by definition. Of course, that doesn't stop them from trying to comment. That is the nature of hubris.

Likewise, try to read my stuff. You will be deleted if you don't have some ideas of where my interests lie. For example, if my last week's posts are about DRM, please don't comment about Brittany Spears. That's a sure road to the electric dustbin as well.

Furthermore, No comments from Anoraks, unless they are intelligent and constructive. Although, Steve may freely comment, especially if he has put up caps of Daljit Dhaliwal or Mishal Husain. I mean what's with him putting up caps of Zeinab Badawi???

Comments

Since some people I respect, the man with the muckrake and microdot, said they wanted to comment, I am now accepting comments.

That doesn't mean you will see your comments out there. I will enjoy censoring, or even just deleting comments without even bothering reading them from certain people.

The only reason I am doing this is so that I can hear from other iPlayer and media player users!

Now to find the ultimate media server software!

Ha!

MikeyW. Shows his ignorance again!

Mikey, what part of "you are a dumbfuck" don't you understand?

Mikey: #10 by mike w. at January 21st, 2010

From Justice Breyer’s dissent, which also came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

But hey, you anti-gun folks can continue to deny obvious truths. It’s not surprising you deny facts when they destroy your entire belief system.

Mikey, Mikey, it really helps when you make an argument to use something that supports your assertion. You make a piss poor argument when what you quote shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are so fucking thick that you miss that Breyers says "I take as a starting point the following four propositions". You go on to only quote one, the one that says "individual right" and neglect the other three.

Is that because they completely contradict what you are asserting and you know that? or are you just dumb and lazy? "yep, there are the words "individual right"--that looks like a good quote to use".

Either you didn't really read what you were quoting, didn't understand what you read, dishonest, or are just a plain off dumbfuck. I go with complete and total dumbfuck. You couldn't be clever enough to be dishonest.

Which gets to my reply:

#11 by Laci the Dog at January 21st, 2010
Mikey, once again you prove you are lazy and didn’t read what you quote:

“I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.”
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).”

Stop wasting my time.

The only thing you prove is that you are an ignorant time waster.

So, I will ignore you. Bye-Bye!

Mikey, of course, didn't read the opinion. At least he got through the first couple of sentences of Justice Stevens Opinion. But that had taxed his brain.

He didn't even bother with reading Breyer's opinion, which starts:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Mikey just sees the words "individual right" and it makes him salavate. He doesn't bother with trying to understand what he is reading. Otherwise, he wouldn't go off and show the world what a dumbfuck he is.

It's not bigotry, Mikey, you really are a complete and total dumbfuck. Which is why I don't really care what you lot think of me.

My advice, Mikey, use a dictionary for those words of more than a couple syllables that are hard for you to understand.

Learning to read also helps.

Thanks to Microdot

Yeah, the argument style of the teabagger/guncretin: simplify, use emotional language, and not think.

It distracts people from realising that you don't have an idea of what you are saying.



Case in point: MikeyW trying to show me that Justice Stevens' dissent support an "individual right"

Mikey
Also, Justice Stevens dissenting opinion states in the very 1st sentence.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

#49 by Laci the Dog at January 20th, 2010

of course, you tell half truths and didn’t understand the dissent.

or didn’t read it.

Otherwise you wouldn’t misquote it.

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

” Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

It seems you’re wrong again, Mikey!

Next time try harder and actually read and understand what you quote.

Mikey then went on to say that Miller was all about the Shotgun. Wrongo Mikey. Mikey didn't really understand this from Miller:

OK, to use my post with the complete quotation and additional material from Stevens’ dissent in Heller, I’ve already shown that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Likewise, I will ask you what to tell me what was the holding in US v. Miller? It is actually quite surprising. (ed. The Holding was that the Court reversed the lower Court's decision that the Firearm WAS covered under the Second Amendment and remanded the case for reconsideration: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.")

I will actually give you some bits of dicta that prove you are wrong:

“Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

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.”

Sounds pretty similar to what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent.

Of course, Stevens' dissent supported an individual right, whatever that means.

Holocaust denial

Mike W. plays into the hands of the holocaust deniers as being all that effective: he's still around.

Or maybe his family was part of the crowd in the US that failed to help European Jews.

Anyway, I bet he gets a warm feeling seeing all that Nazi shit at gun shows (as well as Bob Levy).

The only thing MikeW is able to persuade me about is that he is an ignorant, time wasting wanker.

For Zerro,

What the fuck is your problem, asshole? And that goes for the lot of you fucktard guncretins.

You get uptight about my comment about prying the gun from your cold dead fingers? Then, Zero you make a total asshole of yourself by saying bring it on.

Do you realise how fucked up that is? Do you realise that you just showed yourself up for being a total wimp?

You can't have it both ways, asshole, playing the tough guy, but crying like a girl when someone takes you up on the challenge.

But leave my dog out of it, motherfucker.

The only thing you lot are proving is that you are immature assholes who shouldn't even be allowed to think about firearms let alone actually possess them. In other words, you only confirm my belief in strong gun control measures by acting as you do.

And your opinions aren't worth using for wiping my ass.

Posted after reading Zerro's response.
You dickheads have a lot of nerve talking about "bigotry" and getting upset about my comments about Meleanie Hain or "prying the gun from your cold, dead fingers".

You people are complete and total asswipes. You contribute dick to society.

And quite frankly, Society is indeed better off when you assholes shoot yourself.

If those statements don't pass through your bullet-proof skulls in a way that you understand-- that's your tough shit. I can get on my high horse all I want since you haven't shown yourselves to be worthy of anything but contempt.

Don't use words such as bigotry that you don't understand. It isn't bigotry that you are dealing with, assholes, but contempt for your being a worthless lot of losers. You're going to be treated like the worthless pieces of shit you are as long as you act like dickheads.
Grow up and live with it and stop acting like babies.

More ignorance of gun owners.

For some reason, MikeB decided to post my That's Laci the Dog post about how ignorant gun owners are.

I made a comment that it was illegal to kill people's pets. Fatheaded White Moron said:

"That depends on where you are."

I guess it does since it's a felony to do that in Ohio, where Fatheaded White Moron lives. Although, this is a fairly new law and Fatheaded White Moron is an ignorant bastard. I doubt he reads newspapers or he would have seen this:

An Ohio man is believed to be the first person convicted under the state's felony killing a cat or dog law, officials said.

Sorry, but most jurisdictions penalise the killing of a companion animal under animal cruelty statutes. I wouldn't expect someone like Fatheaded White Moron to know that though. That's Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated. Title IX. Agriculture--Animals--Fences. Chapter 959. Offenses Relating to Domestic Animals and the relevant Sections are 959-02, 959-13, and 959-131

As I said, most jurisctions make it a crime to kill a companion animal which can be verified here.

Some advice:

Fatheaded White Moron (and Weer'd Beard), it's a bad idea to cross busy motorways (interstate highways) or busy streets when traffic is coming.

And while we're at it.

RuffRidr proves even more ignorance. This cretin has picked Theodore Roosevelt as his avatar. Although, I wouldn't expect someone who uses an avatar of someone who became president because of an assassination and survivor of an assassination attempt to be able to grasp his ignorance.

If anything, RuffRidr, literally shoots himself in the foot by picking someone who blustered about using a firearm to prevent any assassination attempt against himself after the McKinley assassination, yet somehow didn't have a gun on him when that time came. Even though TR survived, the assassin's bullet effectively killed TR's political career.

We can argue whether actually having a handgun at the time of the assassination attempt would have been beneficial for TR, but somehow, I don't think it would. The fact that TR was a blow hard and the bullet was stopped by one of his speeches was more beneficial.

If anything, TR was great at using myth for self-promotion. In this case, the cowboy frontiersman, as a loner true to his own code of honor. The real TR couldn't have been farther from that image.

Roosevelt's own cowboy-soldier life testified to that, but first he had to create a persona that he most surely was not born with. He entered the New York state assembly in 1881 at age twenty-three, having overcome poor health just like his idol Abraham Lincoln. He still appeared unmanly, and newspapers and his fellow assemblymen ridiculed his "squeaky" voice and dandified clothing, referring to him as "Jane-Dandy," "Punkin-Lily," and "our own Oscar Wilde." The New York World proclaimed him "chief of the dudes." Duly insulted, he began to construct a new physical image around appropriately virile Western decorations and settings, foregrounding the bodily attributes of a robust outdoorsman that were becoming new features in the nation's political iconography
from Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire by Sarah Watts

.
As I keep telling RuffRidr: the only thing that would show him up for being more of a dickhead than he is already would be to use JFK as his avatar. Also, I don't know if RuffRidr's ignorance goes to the extent that he is unaware that TR was a progressive! That would put TR on the left side of the political spectrum. Quite possibly even further to the left of Barack Obama!

Of course, RuffRidr, and Zero are making total wankers of themselves. As I said in the original post--they are ignorant of their ignorance. These rugged individuals need help (and in more than one way) and the cavalry of gun cretins has arrived to back them up. Never mind their all just spouting shit and not addressing the issues that they need to address.

Someone needs to kleep these morons in line. Maybe some military training would do them good.

It's really funny at how upset they are at my comments about Meleanie Hain. I am sorry, but I don't see her as much of a loss. Meleanie happened to be a buddhist and perhaps she realises that it was her karma to be killed by being a moron. It's too bad that the rest of you are too stupid to learn from her lesson.

But, I am hopeful that someday you all will prove to be useful examples like Meleanie was.

Unfortunately, the rest of them haven't quite gotten the picture that the stories at Ohh Shoot might indeed be more common than their mythical DGUs.

Kind of like how having a gun helped TR stop that assassination attempt.

By the way, please stop making generalisations about people who support gun control from my comments. Especially you, MikeW., Or is it OK to make generalisations about groups, such as the Jews?

If ignorance is bliss, then Americans should be the happiest people in the World (Universe?)

I have to admit a desire to want to take comments, but I really don't want to hear from the ignorentia.

Case in point, I have been trying to explain extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction and how that relates to Article VI of the US Constitution to someone (Fatheaded White Moron). He says I wasted my time in law school if I believe these things exist. Well, sorry, Fatheaded White Moron, but they do exist: especially in the era of the internet where you aren't just dealing with a person around the corner, but you are broadcasting to the entire world (e.g., my current IP address places me in North London, but I could be anywhere in the world).

The thing is that I don't really want to persuade anyone of anything. While I don't mind being informative: I can't teach the unteachable. It's a waste of time trying to explain the concept of jurisdiction to a moron.

But, I shouldn't be surprised. When I was young and into short wave, we heard the Voice of America "special English" program (one with limited vocabulary for people learning English) and it sounded like US mainstream news. I've also noticed that the Beeb dumbs down its news programmes for the US audience. In fact, BBC America was an extreme disappointment when I saw it in all manners (commercials, programming, etc.).

Of course, I am not alone in noticing that the citizens of the United States dislike and distrust intellectuals. There are books by Chris Hedges, Charles F. Pierce, Farhad Manjoo, Michael Specter, and Richard Hofstadter to name just a few. Hofstadter is the most insigtful of the lot. His book The Paranoid Style in American Politics goes a long way to explain some of the thinking we see in the blogosphere and the tea party movement.


People who think are a threat to society. Hence people like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, George Bush (either one), and so on become the leaders. There is a reason that Bill Clinton became US president and it wasn't that he was a great mind. Obama has always been more smoke and mirrors than anything else, which is why I am not disappointed in his performance as president. He was annointed to be president the moment he took the podium at the 2004 democratic convention. Oprah Winfrey, another media creation, helped catapult him to become the first black celebrity president.

I have been curious as to why people don't want to limit electioneering rather than term limits (other than term limits is one of those concepts that is easy for small minds to grasp and accept). The US election process isn't set up to be democratic as the Ron Paul and Howard Dean campaigns show, but is meant to be run by people with money. It costs money to run for office in the States. This is where we have the golden rule: "Those with the Gold: Rule".

So whether it is a right wing idiot like Sarah Palin or a left wing idiot like Brack Obama, the puppet is elected. The weapons of mass distraction media (thank you, il principe) can confuse the small minded. Or worse, the NPR listening fools who think because it is "public" radio it is any less controlled by commercial interests. As I said before, underwriting is just a slightly less obnoxious commercial.

Of course, where this is all going is that there is a world out there which means that you don't need to be limited to the weapons of mass distraction media in the states. You have the BBC, Radio Nederland, Al Jazeera and a host of other sources out there for alternative viewpoints. Although, that comment is superfluous since most of the closed minds don't want to listen to alternative viewpoints. If they do it will be in a derisory manner, as did Fatheaded White Moron when I tried to explain the concept of jurisdiction.

So after that rambling rant, I long for intellectual discourse, but find it difficult to have. the internet does provide one with others who can be good company, but it is also filled with those who are not as stimulating. I find the less intelligent and closed minded people to be quite tiresome.

efforf at getstuffed

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

For my detractors!

A nice English greeting!
And!

More thoughts on bigotry

OK. this is our definition: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Now isn't trying to force your opinion on someone whether or not they want to hear it a form of intolerance? Isn't coming here to insult me and post harassing comments a form of intolerance.

Personally, I could give a shit if you read this blog. While these are my opinions and I am not too interested in having others force their views on me, I am willing to listen to cogent and considered comments.

You don't have to read my blog if you don't like what I say. I am not forcing this on you.

Additionally, I don't have to like you. And I don't have to hear what you have to say if I don't want.

You have the right to say what you want and I have the right not to listen.

I think the gun cretin crowd acts like a bunch of spoiled children, screaming and crying until the politicians listen to them. Unfortunately they get the attention of the politicians since the gun lobby gives out shit loads of cash. The gun cretins hope they can force the rest of us to listen.

I am not sure why some of them are boo-hooing that I won't let them play here.

I just wish they would play elsewhere and leave me alone.

Better yet, maybe they'll have accidents with their little toys and blow their fuckin' brains out.

What fools these mortals be!

I have to admit that dealing with the gun cretins on MikeB's blog has been amusing, but I am beginning to get tired of it all.

It's pretty obvious that these people have no idea what they are talking about especially when these people are too fucking stupid to understand what they are commenting on.

That's where the Dred Scott post originated. One of these bozos thought they could persuade me that the Second Amendment was an individual right (whatever that means) by pulling one of most disreputable Supreme Court Cases. Dred Scott is considered to be the product of an overly ideological and reactionary judge relying on poor scholarship and weak legal reasoning in an effort to shape public policy.

To be quite honest if you have to rely on dicta from a case which is cited as an example of poor scholarship and weak legal reasoning, you are only showing yourself out to be a complete and total fuckwit.

That's not very persuasive of anything other than you are a complete and total fuckwit!

Anyway, more proof of a lack of understanding and comprehension comes from this "person":

Weer'd Beard said...

This was my favorite!
"Such as the person who worked at the Capitol brought a gun to work and was caught when the cop questioned him about his concealed carry badge."

Not sure what this jerkoff is on about. Maybe Weer'd Beard doesn't read too much gun enthusiast literature or he might have seen one of these for sale. He missed that I was recounting a war story from my days at USAO-DC. I guess the acronym went over his tiny head.

Which means I don't think this fuckwit quite understood what I said, which was:

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

Sevesteen, I have to disagree. My experience is that most law abiding gun owners follow the rules. Yes, there were a few cases from my days at USAO-DC.

Such as the person who worked at the Capitol brought a gun to work and was caught when the cop questioned him about his concealed carry badge. A tourist who asks police at the Capitol where they can park their car since they have guns in the trunk.

My fav was the guy who went to Georgetown dressed as Hitler on Halloween with a real gun in a holster. Just imagine the time he had in the DC jail waiting to be bailed out!

But for the most part, gun owners try to abide by the law.
October 14, 2009 2:08 PM

"My experience is that most law abiding gun owners follow the rules."
"But for the most part, gun owners try to abide by the law.
Gee, that doesn't sound very bigoted against gun owners to me:

See, one problem I have with the gun cretin crowd is they like to use the word bigot which is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Then the fuckwits don't even try to understand what you are saying. Instead, they keep trying to foist something on you that you have shown conclusively does not support their point.

Isn't that a bigoted attitude?

Well, I am not obstinately or intolerantly devoted to my views. I am open to anyone who can provide me with cogent and considered reasoning. As I said, I have yet to receive a good argument from these morons. And trust me, I've been open minded. I do listen, but rarely do I hear anything of value.

On the other hand, these people are so obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their world view that they are not open to logic and other opinion. Not to mention they don't even try to understand what others are saying, as the Weer'd Beard bit points out. They attack you for something you say or did (e.g, "he's anti-gun that must make him wrong") rather than try to see your point of view.

And they are more than willing to show their ignorance: e.g., stubbornly insisting that Dred Scott proves their position. Worse saying they understand the decision as they trot out the "Parade of Horribles" to make their point.

Not to mention they will call you all sorts of names if you disagree with them and come around and harass you until you give up or accept their point of view.

Again, doesn't that make these assholes bigots?

Again Weer'd Beard made a comment about me going to Law School in ridicule. As I said in a prior post, I think he is too much of a fuckwit to realise that was a compliment. Additionally, he was showing his ignorance by refusing to accept my expertise and using it to ridicule me.

If anything they want to force their opinions on others no matter how incorrect they are. They want to come here and post comments. The Dred Scott thing is a good case in point, these assholes want to prove that Dred Scott proves an individual right when it doesn't show dick. And they keep insisting it supports their point of view!

Once again with feeling, if you have to rely on dicta from a case which is cited as an example of poor scholarship and weak legal reasoning, the only thing you are showing is that you are a complete and total fuckwit.

But they don't get that point.

Additionally, they aren't going to get respect if they act like a bunch of fuckwits. If anything, they are going to alienate anyone who supports them.

I can say that there is one good lesson from Dred Scott which is that constitutional controversies are resolved only when one side persuades or eliminates the other.

But it seems that we are seeing gun assholes everywhere: toting AR-15s near the president, wearing a pistol and carrying a sign saying "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty", and death threats against the president are up.

They have their own little circle jerks all over the net, which is one of the reasons I don't want to share my space with their idiotic comments.

That shit is scary!

If you can't persuade 'em, you hope they shoot themselves.

Gun assholes--a dying breed.

Bigoted Quote of the Day!

Yipee! I just got trashed by a pro-gun site for my comments about Meleanie Hain. I do have to admit disappointment that it wasn't for my shit in the Dred Scott post, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised as most gun cretins are racist fucks (Notice all the NAZI and Confederate shit at gun shows and gun catalogues). They probably thought that was the best part of the post!

"If you register your gun with anybody, you're a nut! When the conspiracy comes for your firearm, give it to 'em like this grand dragon is going to - right between the eyes." -Klu Klux Klan (Richmond Times- Dispatch, July 5, 1967)

Anyway.... Back to Meleanie (I'd hate to disappoint you)

"Don't try to turn this into a gun debate"!

Hilarious. What on Earth does Meleanie Hain's death have to do with guns?

She wasn't killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.

SHE WAS KILLED BY A GUN

you’ll see that the "pro-gun" crowd refuse (or are unable… unwilling… or scared to…) acknowledge:

… the irony of a mother being killed by that which she professed would keep her safe
… the fact that those who were afraid of the potential of gun violence were, in this case, correct
… that in a country where more than half of all marriages end in divorce, homes stocked with loaded weapons are a seriously hazardous to the health of the entire family.

I don't understand why you're bothered, she was just exercising her Second Amendment rights! That right includes the privilege of being shot by a fucking abusive husband.

It's not a tragedy, it's ironic. And I just happen to find irony funny! I mean it's really fuckin' ironic, guys!

Hey, I am more than willing to piss in the holy water, guys!

Especially when you people are too fucking stupid to understand what you are commenting on.

Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Hmmm, I am open to argument, but I have yet to see anything the gun cretin side has to say that is really cogent or persuasive. As for my "hatred" toward them.

Isn't that something like being a self-loathing Jew if you're Jewish and say you don't support Israel? I guess that makes me a self-loathing gun owner.

I don't loath gun owners, just idiots who aren't able to comprehend logic, make idiotic comments, have caused gun laws to become more lax, and are just fucking things up for the rest of us.

You assholes are worthy of being hated and ridiculed. Get used to it as long as you're going to be fuckin' jerkoffs.

If you assholes are normal, I'd rather be a freak for the rest of my life.

And as for you, you want to comment on my board when there are more than enough places filled with your crap: Go away and shoot yourself! Put all those guns you have to good use by exterminating yourself.

It's my right to not have to hear what you say.

Still more you don't allow comments

In the days when I did allow comments, I moderated them. That meant you weren't likely to see them if I didn't like them. Here is a post where I had comments.

As others have pointed out, you make the mere hint that the Second Amendment does not guarantee right to firearms outside of the Article I, Section 8, clause 16 militia/national guard and you will be swamped with comments from keyboard warriors.

I don't need that.

I prefer constructive and thought out comments. Although stupid comments do give me great amusement. Quite probably your comment wouldn't appear if I did accept comments.

Still, I really don't have the time to moderate comments.

So, tough luck.

Why the anonymity?

There is a long history of pamphleteers taking pseudonyms. For example, The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius," in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. You can find a list of pseudonyms used in the American constitutional debates here.

This began as a comment a colleague made during Harriet Miers's confirmation process that my dog had been to court more than she had, which is true. I won't divulge the secret, but she does go to court. This is rather well known.

But, if you read some of my posts, such as where I call Scalia ignorant or Clarence Thomas a "house negro", you will find that anonymity allow me the luxury of not having to be polite. It also allows me just to vent my opinions. I can give my opinion without too much worry about being bombarded by keyboard warriors.

Trust me, the person I work with would love for me to post scholarly articles in my own name, but, as you may have noticed as well, I enjoy being able to be a bit intellectually lazy. Although, unlike keyboard warriors, most legal minds will excoriate my material with useful and constructive comments. Lots of lawyers post blogs to gain attention, but I do this to let off steam and not for other reasons.

Anyway, there are people who know who writes this and do offer criticism. I also have the luxury of being able to answer what criticism I find interesting.

Besides I'm fucked as far as a position on the US Supreme Court goes if any one finds out who writes this shit

Does that answer your question?

You don't allow for comments...

Well, that's just your tough luck that I don't want to hear from you. The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and press, but it does not compel me to have to pay attention to anything that I don't care to give attention.

As I said in my Censorship piece: 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.

The Bill of Rights protects me from Governmental action, not private action. I don't need to hear what you want to say, but I can't stop you from saying it. Also, I can prevent you from saying it on my "property". So, if a property holder wishes to prevent someme from exercising a right, he is within his rights as a property holder. This makes for conflicting rights if a business owner wishes to prevent someone from bringing a firearm onto his property.

Which right rules: the right of property or the right to keep and bear arms? That question might be too much for your tiny brain to grasp.

So, I don't really need to hear what you have to say for those of you who feel this urge to insult me because I challenge your beliefs. I am not forcing my beliefs on you.

I can pick and choose what I want to hear and listen to. I would prefer to listen to someone who offers constructive criticism, not every ignorant jerk with access to the internet.

Additionally, I do not need to give the gun cretin crowd opportunity to voice their opinions as they are strewn all over the internet. They don't need any additional fora for their nonsense.

I know, that takes all the fun out of it. You have this hostility that you have to inflict on others, but you are left alone wanking at the keyboard in frustration.

Well, that's your tough luck. Just don't get the keyboard too messy with your wanking.

You use too many words!!!

OMG, this really was a comment someone made about my posts.

Yes, and some of them are really big ones too!

I will try to make my sentences sorter and use simpler language, but that will be a struggle. Maybe I should add more pictures. Stupid people like picture books.

In fact, in countries with low literacy rates, they put the pictures of products. When Gerber started selling baby food in Africa, they used the same packaging as in the US, with the beautiful Caucasian baby on the label. Later they learned that in Africa, companies routinely put pictures on the label of what's inside, since most people can't read. the mostly uneducated consumers thought the jars contained ground-up babies. Needless to say, sales were terrible!

That puts this picture in a different light since perhaps this baby is showing fear at being ground up and stuck in a jar. More baby oil please!

I was told I was born speaking complete sentences. So, I said, "task of discovering the meaning of my writing must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted" instead of saying "da-da", "ma-ma", or "doug-doug" when I was an infant. Although I do admit to regressing in speech patterns as I have aged.

I am truly overeducated with useless knowledge and the desire to learn has never left me. Like Chaucer's Clerke of Oxenford "Gladly would he learn and gladly would he teach". I also will read pretty much whatever is put in front of me.

Someone said he thought I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. Sorry, but I don't see myself as smart, although others tell me I am. In fact, that intended insult was more of a compliment and the person who made it lacked the smarts to realise that. I also find through dealings with others that I am a lot smarter than they are since it is amazing how people can find simple concepts difficult to grasp. In particular some moron who wants to put you down by telling you that you aren't that smart and then showing that he has no idea of what you are talking about.

I've been told I have a genius IQ more than once (and seem even smarter after correcting that typo).

I don't belong to MENSA but I do belong to DENSA.

Seriously, I try not to be a wanker about it, but it's kind of hard.

Not to mention very lonely being over-educated and literate.

More dumb comments...

You are a slave to governments

How do you figure that one? Is it because I live by society's laws and prefer to work within the system?

Change can come about through peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, not by violence, revolution and terrorism. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. If your argument is that the system is corrupt, perhaps you should be working to change that system.

Have you ever thought about nonviolent ways of dealing with what you perceive as tyranny? Is "resisting tyranny," or the "insurrection theory of the Second Amendment," just something that you parrot as a high-brow political justification for your love of guns, or have you ever given serious thought about what the ramifications of using guns for the purpose of fighting the government would be?

Maybe you haven't given some serious thought to resisting tyranny nonviolently through political action or civil disobedience. Instead you really love and welcome violence and the chance to harm or murder others. You would spend at least five minutes thinking about nonviolent alternatives to a violent insurrection if you took your moral obligations to your fellow man seriously.

My question is whether you are a nihilist or an anarchist?

You should realise that anarchism requires rules, as does any society, or it falls into nihilism. The difference between society at large and anarchism is that in anarchism, everybody knows the rules and agrees to live by them. This requires a great deal of responsibility.

You are a British Subject

Here you show your ignorance of British law.

The old passport says I am a British citizen. And I also have US citizenship by right of birth in the USA. I am hardly a "slave to governments" since I can choose where I live without let or hindrance.

The term British subject has at different times had different meanings. At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. When the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:

* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or
* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".

The British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.

Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it is incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a "subject" is still recognised by the law, and the terms "the Queen's subjects", "Her Majesty's subjects", etc., continue to be used in British legal discourse.

Yet another criticism

I can't find a single post that isn't filled with lie and half-truths.

The fact that what I write does not match your version of reality does not make it a lie or half-truth. I think you will find that I cite to my sources, which you could verify if you weren't intellectually challenged. Your intellectual laziness is not my problem.

I do find your intellectual laziness annoying because you can't make a comment which has a valid basis. Instead, you choose to call everything a lie or half-truth and not back up that statement.

Your disconnect with reality is society's problem.

Likewise, if I give an opinion, it isn't right, wrong, truth, or lie: just my opinion, which might disagree with your beliefs. But, that's your tough shit pal. I'm keeping it unless you give me a good reason to reassess that opinion.

I don't accept comments since I really don't care to waste my time on people who aren't open minded and can offer valid criticism and comments.