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?

Sometimes you feel like shit, then..

You receive compliments and praise from people you admire. The most open bit of praise is Opinione. Although, I have seen my blog on Mudflap Bubba's and a Citizen Soldier's list and some others.

OK, Mike B, Phuck Politics, Zirgar just to name a few others. Forgive me if I miss any body else!

Or an insult post about someone that puts my post before anything he has written in the Google Search results!

I have always felt like doing a post and calling it "having a wank" about where exactly this blog fits in people's opinions: especially when I am feeling down from dealing with gun cretins.

Or that I haven't heard from Paul Treanor or Matthew White. Yet.

And Andrew Marr? Well, I'll leave you hanging on that one...

Naw,I found this Bollywood version of Ian Dury's Reasons to Be Cheerful:

Bollywood v Reasons to Be Cheerful Ian Dury & the Blockheads - Desi Video Network - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Amazingly enough, I have been hanging around the Desi community for over 30 years and just saw my first Bollywood Film (Lagaan) this past year. I guess it's the Busby Berklee type dance routines popping up in the chase scenes in a three hour film!

For my detractors!

A nice English greeting!
And!

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.

You can't be that smart...

there was a typo (or mispelling) in your post.

Yeah, well take it up with my amanuensis and editor, jerk off.

I really hate how people don't address issues, but prefer to use crappy critiques. It shows intellectual laziness, not knowledge of the issues.

Even more humorous is when someone comes in with a stupid comment such as Lott/Kleck/Tribe/John Doe says that doesn't really address the issue.

"It's all cut and paste"

A lovely critique, in a way, but I have another quote:

"Copying from one person is plagiarism, two research".

Both quotes simplify the issue. What is lacking from them is that mere parroting without understanding shows ignorance. One can quote and then come up with a point, well, that's research. It's showing understanding and backing up your point that takes it from mere "cut and paste".

And as they say "There's nothing new under the sun." So, why should I "reinvent the wheel". Christ, I don't have that much spare time (despite how this may seem).

Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge, usually by writing information into books. They became significant in Early Modern Europe.

"Commonplace" is a translation of the Latin term locus communis which means "a theme or argument of general application", such as a statement of proverbial wisdom. In this original sense, commonplace books were collections of such sayings, such as John Milton's commonplace book. Scholars have expanded this usage to include any manuscript that collects material along a common theme by an individual. Thomas Jefferson had a common place book where he would jot down ideas he thought were important

Such books were essentially scrapbooks filled with items of every kind: medical recipes, quotes, letters, poems, tables of weights and measures, proverbs, prayers, legal formulas. Commonplaces were used by readers, writers, students, and humanists as an aid for remembering useful concepts or facts they had learned. Each commonplace book was unique to its creator's particular interests.

A funny aside, there was this young woman who kept a common place book during the 18th Century (or therabouts), she died and everyone thought she was a genius. Until someone pointed out that was her common place book that she copied the thoughts of others. Never mind her tomb shows her as this literary genius. I'll put up the info when I locate it. Until then, this will remain an anecdote.

Interestingly enough, Commonplaces are likened to blogs (another good post here). Which is exactly where I am going with this.

I will be the first to admit that law isn't the most intellectual of professions (which gets me into another quote I want from C.G. Jung about the medical profession not being very intelectural either--I think it's in dreams). In fact, one could easily set up a computer program that could make legal decisions thus eliminating judges.

Anyway, I hope that my rantings prove useful. They are a way for me to vent. I am feeling particularly frustrated by the Heller decision as my many posts show. It is flawed in its logic, which some people see. Yet for reasons I will get into in future posts, we mostly see praise for this piece of trash called Heller.

Roe and Heller

Very little of the criticism this page receives addresses the most valid point of criticism which is how can I be upset about DC v. Heller, but not Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)?

There is a simple non-legal answer which is that the most blatant form of tyranny is when a government interferes with a woman's personal choice to have a child. This is a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her significant other with no place for government interference.

I am amazed at how many people want "gun rights" and freedom from government interference, yet balk at abortion. Also, it is amazing that people can call themselves "pro-life", yet have no problem with shooting and killing someone. Or even capital punishment.

I mentioned use-benefit analysis in another post and personally, I find abortion to be far more of a right to be protected than some illusory "gun right".

That said, I have several legal grounds to dislike Heller.

The first is that it is poorly written and does not stand scrutiny. Anyone who has read my posts can see that there are multiple lines of attack of this POS written by a committee.

Secondly, Scalia has had to violate everything he claims to believe in regarding judicial practise. The most egregious of these being that Scalia's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it!

In fact, reading Planned Parenthood v. Casey makes me even more curious as to how Scalia could deign to find a right of self-defence in the Second Amendment.

Scalia does everything that he expresses disgust in in his Planned Parenthood dissent.

The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ibid. Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected--because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.

Roe v. Wade on the other hand, has some legal basis to support it. The Supreme Court rested its conclusions in Roe on a previously recognized constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun said that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I am of the school that the decision is correct, but for the wrong reason. The First Amendment States that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I extend this right to include exercising personal beliefs concerning the beginning of life. The morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus in Christianity, Judaism, Humanism as well as other religions and ethical systems,. There is a general consensus that when the foetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. The question is when does life begin? But that is an ethical decision. Most would confine abortions at the stage when the foetus is viable to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.

Jewish beliefs and practice concerning abortion do not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
--The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."
--Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
--Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
--With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
--"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

Islam allows for abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened.

Additionally, while the "right to an abortion" may not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is a personal choice relating to health, personal finances, beliefs and other issues that government has no right to intrude upon.

As I said in my use-benefit analysis post, there are some things which are beneficial to society, of which prevention of unwanted children is one.

At this point, I have to reiterate another point I have made in my posts, that the Heller decision did not invalidate gun control laws. The problem is that Scalia did not give any idea of the scope of his new right.

The problem is that there are loads of knee-jerk RKBA people out there who follow rather than think. They are told that there is an individual right enshrined in this decision and then say this is about time. They do not analyse what has been written or think about the implications.

Next post in this series, Wedge issues.

A stupid comment

You're a pseudo-intellectual and you're spouting crap

Hey, it's better than being a real dumbfuck, which you are.

Serously, this is called an ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong" or "X says Y, therefore anything else X says is wrong". The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

This type of tactic shows that one is losing the argument or just can't back up their argument since they can't address the issues, but must attack the person saying it.

So-- "Hey, dumbfuck, your argument is incorrect because of reasons A, B, C, and D" is not an ad hominem. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.

So, "you're an idiot to believe that the Second Amendment includes self-defence since the term is conspicuously absent" or you are an ignorant person and can't understand what I am saying may be insulting, but they are not ad hominem arguments.

The Ultimate Vanity Press

Vanity presses are private publishers which allow one to "publish" a book usually at the author's expense. The term vanity comes from the fact that someone must be vain to publish in such a way. A desire to see his name in print. Anyway, I write this as my dog, so it's not really my name.

Well, I have mentioned that I do this blog for myself and there have been times I have received comments which I am glad that I did. On the other hand, I just disabled the comment feature. Mostly because it pisses me off to have the ignorant (the guns for criminals crowd) come and make idiotic comments. I have addressed a few of these comments in my posts, but I am not really keen on doing this.

Those really intent on contacting me can do so, but it requires a certain amount of intelligence and creativity. I know this may prevent Silda and myself from ever hooking up, but so it goes!

Alas, they say that do what you love and the money will follow, but I am still in debt. Anyway, defending criminals is not what I had anticipated doing in this lifetime. To quote John Mortimer, "It not the SW1 of the legal profession", which is something my mother can't get through her head. Like Rumpole, it seems like years before I get paid. Unlike Rumpole, I have never had my phone service cut off.

I can dream of a woman like Silda who didn't mind that Idiot earned less than she did, probably because it was in high profile positions. She might not look twice at someone with a first degree in medieval literature and languages though. Anyway, I am married which means that Silda (or a woman like her) has to remain one of those fantasies like finding the nebulous job that pays me 6-7 figures a year or winning the big lottery payoff.

I mean, a rainmaker may have less legal acumen than a first year law student, but he comes with some form of name. I know I've mentioned at least one of those idiots in my blog at one time or another and don't feel like naming any more names. Anyway, I try to have more free time in the day than I spend in court. Especially since the dog pisses on the carpet if I stay in court longer than 2 PM (14h00). That means forget the large firms, unless I can bring the dog. I am not that much of a name in the legal community to name that kind of term.

So for the crowd that says spend X on a legal education and you're still an idiot, when they come here and spout all sorts of legal inaccuracies. Yeah, well I earn $500 an hour and probably do better than you do working 10 hours (or less a week). People pay to have me represent them and for the most part are happy. There are always the whingers, but that's one of the drawbacks of the job.

I guess I am really doing this for myself. Anyway, it's pretty unlikely that my fairy godmother will show up through this blog and grant all my wishes. But she probably has my number if she did exist anyway. If it's meant to be, it will be

Que sera, sera!

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.