Maybe people should start pointing out that rights come with incumbent responsibilities: the right to own a firearm in particular. This is a device which can lead to serious bodily injury or death if misused. And, firearms are misused when they fall into the wrong hands.
I guess I am upset at the crowd who heckled the people protesting at the Virginia Capitol seen in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7g8hbzQzw. even more so the Cops for failing to nail the RKBA crowd for brandishing. Let's face it, the RKBA crowd were carrying weapons to intimidate the protesters. When they couldn't do that, they had to taunt the protesters. Showing how weak the RKBA crowd really is.
It would have been funny as hell if the person with the Colt in his waist band had it pulled out and used against him. The idiot probably wouldn't have known what hit him until his brains went spattering out all over the crowd.
I would have loved to have handed out targets while wearing a SWAT uniform to them and said "put this on, because you are only asking for me to shoot you in an emergency situation."
Who do the RKBA crowd think they are fooling with packing heat will stop a school massacre? Don't they notice how the mass shootings happen in the places where gun laws are lax? Anyway, a police sniper who sees some idiot toting a handgun will give the idiot a .308 Darwin award. too bad the gun toter doesn't have any brains to splatter.
Besides handguns are crap for protection. Ever notice that people who professionally use firearms (e.g., the military) use LONG GUNS?. Yeah, that's 'cause a handgun doesn't have any real effective range to it. My L96A1 has the stupid civilian outgunned every time and I am not close enough to him to ask questions.
I see a civilian with a gun in a situation where he shouldn't be and he is a target.
Bye-Bye, Dumbo!
Now, if the NRA had been doing what they should have been doing and protecting sportsman's interests, rather than criminals and terrorists, we might have some sane gun laws. We might also have some places where we can shoot since development is quickly making open spaces a thing of the past.
So, as the NRA refuses to act responsibly as the body count piles up and the politicians can't say what the Second Amendment means, we see the havoc build.
Fortunately, the RKBA crowd is just a loud and weak minority. They really don't have the power attributed to them, but unfortunately the people who pretend to be leaders in this country don't have the guts to stand up to them.
30 January 2008
29 January 2008
The Solictor General's new clothes
Well, I love to keep pointing out that "the masses are asses" as one of my tutors at uni loved to rub my nose in. On the other hand, the popular belief that the Second Amendment allows for an individual right is a load of dog poop. That is all the Solicitor General's opinion means.
First off, finding an individual right goes against the Supreme Court's own precedent. If Chief Justice Robert's doesn't have his stuff together to say that it's settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to "Well regulated militias" being those set up under Article I, Section 8, then maybe I SHOULD be chief justice. The only people it isn't settled law in are the ignorant or the dishonest, which most of the "Standard Model Scholars" such as Tribe, Volokh, Levinson, et al fall into in my opinion. Come on, folks, you have to say WHAT the law is, not what YOU WANT IT TO BE!
Second off, there have been about 60 cases holding that the Second Amendment relates to Article I, Section 8. This is just a guess so I don't really want the nitpicking wankers to start saying there were 48 or 127.230707609 cases. But, pretty much up until Emerson and Parker, the rulings were that the right belongs to the militia. In fact, U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987) was the controlling case in DC up until Paker v. DC and it held that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard. That means that Sandidge was controlling precedent for 20 years!
Third off, even if you think that Heller broke new ground, it didn't really say that guns couldn't be regulated, but the upshot of saying there is an individual right will mean there will be a flood of litigation about what that right means. It seems everybody has forgotten John Walker Lindh, the US Taliban bloke, who used Ashcroft's pronouncement to fight his charges.
He was only exercising his Second Amendment rights there.
Now, I have a client named Mohammad who was caught with a loaded AK-47 near an International Airport. I can use the Second Amendment to argue that he shouldn't be charged. After all, he didn't go hunting intercontinental jumbo jet airliners. At least, not that time. Isn't it his right to carry a loaded AK-47 near the airport? Ditto, the Chaps who wanted to have a sniper challenge at Fort Dix. I mean, they just took videos of themselves, they weren't shooting soldiers.
Isn't that bearing arms? Now, doesn't arms also mean things like rocket launchers and guided missiles? I mean "arms control" isn't about handguns. Maybe, Mr. Mohammad will want to exercise his right to use a stinger on a jet airliner. What would stop him then?
Of course, I am hearing that "sober second thoughts of practicing lawyers" is what took over and is causing the Administration to want to change it's position. Well, I am a criminal defence lawyer and I know what trouble a finding of an "individual right" will cause. It has been settled law, among the truly knowledgeable, that the Second Amendment protects a collective right for nearly 70 years, yet there have been a shitload of cases where people have tried to argue an individual right.
Now, think of how many cases will come about when it the Second Amendment is declared an individual right? The Fort Dix Six have just received the biggest gift they could imagine.
I'd like to think that the Judges on the Supreme Court will have enough sense to see the mess that would be created by declaring an individual right as well. The "Scholars" want to twist dicta to buttress their weak arguments against what is pretty much well settled case law, but they don't mention Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) in their lists of Second Amendment cases. Is it because Justice Douglas said: "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" in his analysis of the Second Amendment?
Yep, That's William O. "Wild Bill" Douglas, my hero. Of course, I like him for saving the C&O Canal. He had a neat house as well.
But, the "Scholars" want to make an argument where one doesn't exist which is why they use dicta rather than holdings to buttress their argument. That's because the legal holdings are against them.
And, there is no good policy reason to change the law to find an individual right to own a firearm. Unless, you want to destroy this county by giving guns to criminals and terrorists. Although, that seems to be the objective of the RKBA crowd.
A point here, The Court would have to rethink US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) if they find an individual right. Since the holding was in opposition to an individual right. Bean was a felon who was precluded from owning a firearm. He petitioned the ATF to reinstate his "rights", but the ATF didn't have enough money (guess why!). SO, ATF didn't come to a decision. Bean wanted judicial relief, but the law didn't grant it without a decision. The problem here was that the Court was unanimous in its decision that Bean wasn't entitled to relief.
Now, if the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the court HAD to grant Bean relief.
But, I have been pointing out that US v. Rybar was a case that held the Second Amendment was a collective right. And, Justice Alito was one that panel.
Now, it's ridiculous to say that conservativism means one finds the Second Amendment to be an Individual right, because, Justice McReynolds who wrote US v.Miller has been described as the most reactionary of Justices. Judge Robert Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.
Nor, does gun ownership mean one supports an individual right.
The problem is that the Government wants to please everyone, which it really shouldn't be doing. The RKBA crowd is not representative of the American people, or even gun owners. I know I don't condone the ability of prohibited people to acquire firearms because of the lack of serious firearms regulation, and I AM a gun owner!
Government should lead, not follow. I mean they aren't called "our leaders" for nothing.
First off, finding an individual right goes against the Supreme Court's own precedent. If Chief Justice Robert's doesn't have his stuff together to say that it's settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to "Well regulated militias" being those set up under Article I, Section 8, then maybe I SHOULD be chief justice. The only people it isn't settled law in are the ignorant or the dishonest, which most of the "Standard Model Scholars" such as Tribe, Volokh, Levinson, et al fall into in my opinion. Come on, folks, you have to say WHAT the law is, not what YOU WANT IT TO BE!
Second off, there have been about 60 cases holding that the Second Amendment relates to Article I, Section 8. This is just a guess so I don't really want the nitpicking wankers to start saying there were 48 or 127.230707609 cases. But, pretty much up until Emerson and Parker, the rulings were that the right belongs to the militia. In fact, U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987) was the controlling case in DC up until Paker v. DC and it held that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard. That means that Sandidge was controlling precedent for 20 years!
Third off, even if you think that Heller broke new ground, it didn't really say that guns couldn't be regulated, but the upshot of saying there is an individual right will mean there will be a flood of litigation about what that right means. It seems everybody has forgotten John Walker Lindh, the US Taliban bloke, who used Ashcroft's pronouncement to fight his charges.
He was only exercising his Second Amendment rights there.
Now, I have a client named Mohammad who was caught with a loaded AK-47 near an International Airport. I can use the Second Amendment to argue that he shouldn't be charged. After all, he didn't go hunting intercontinental jumbo jet airliners. At least, not that time. Isn't it his right to carry a loaded AK-47 near the airport? Ditto, the Chaps who wanted to have a sniper challenge at Fort Dix. I mean, they just took videos of themselves, they weren't shooting soldiers.
Isn't that bearing arms? Now, doesn't arms also mean things like rocket launchers and guided missiles? I mean "arms control" isn't about handguns. Maybe, Mr. Mohammad will want to exercise his right to use a stinger on a jet airliner. What would stop him then?
Of course, I am hearing that "sober second thoughts of practicing lawyers" is what took over and is causing the Administration to want to change it's position. Well, I am a criminal defence lawyer and I know what trouble a finding of an "individual right" will cause. It has been settled law, among the truly knowledgeable, that the Second Amendment protects a collective right for nearly 70 years, yet there have been a shitload of cases where people have tried to argue an individual right.
Now, think of how many cases will come about when it the Second Amendment is declared an individual right? The Fort Dix Six have just received the biggest gift they could imagine.
I'd like to think that the Judges on the Supreme Court will have enough sense to see the mess that would be created by declaring an individual right as well. The "Scholars" want to twist dicta to buttress their weak arguments against what is pretty much well settled case law, but they don't mention Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) in their lists of Second Amendment cases. Is it because Justice Douglas said: "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" in his analysis of the Second Amendment?
Yep, That's William O. "Wild Bill" Douglas, my hero. Of course, I like him for saving the C&O Canal. He had a neat house as well.
But, the "Scholars" want to make an argument where one doesn't exist which is why they use dicta rather than holdings to buttress their argument. That's because the legal holdings are against them.
And, there is no good policy reason to change the law to find an individual right to own a firearm. Unless, you want to destroy this county by giving guns to criminals and terrorists. Although, that seems to be the objective of the RKBA crowd.
A point here, The Court would have to rethink US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) if they find an individual right. Since the holding was in opposition to an individual right. Bean was a felon who was precluded from owning a firearm. He petitioned the ATF to reinstate his "rights", but the ATF didn't have enough money (guess why!). SO, ATF didn't come to a decision. Bean wanted judicial relief, but the law didn't grant it without a decision. The problem here was that the Court was unanimous in its decision that Bean wasn't entitled to relief.
Now, if the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the court HAD to grant Bean relief.
But, I have been pointing out that US v. Rybar was a case that held the Second Amendment was a collective right. And, Justice Alito was one that panel.
Now, it's ridiculous to say that conservativism means one finds the Second Amendment to be an Individual right, because, Justice McReynolds who wrote US v.Miller has been described as the most reactionary of Justices. Judge Robert Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.
Nor, does gun ownership mean one supports an individual right.
The problem is that the Government wants to please everyone, which it really shouldn't be doing. The RKBA crowd is not representative of the American people, or even gun owners. I know I don't condone the ability of prohibited people to acquire firearms because of the lack of serious firearms regulation, and I AM a gun owner!
Government should lead, not follow. I mean they aren't called "our leaders" for nothing.
21 January 2008
History is written by the victors
Ever wonder what life would be like if the British had won the war for American Independence or the French the French and Indian Wars? I do. Not sure which would be a better scenario. The first, the US would be an intelligent Canada (no sales tax on stamps, gun control, "socialised" medicine, land planning etc.) and the Second, kind of a larger Belgium with French, English, German, and Dutch being the official languages.
Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:
Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.
Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.
So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!
Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:
Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.
Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.
So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!
17 January 2008
Exporting Jobs
As a dual citizen, I am a lot upset with how this country cavalierly ships out its jobs to the lowest bidder. I find that I am competing against real foreigners (v. me who is technically citizen due to birth in the motor city). It is very easy for companies to get H1 visas, or just ship off the jobs. And it is my attitude toward this type of behaviour which puts me at odds with both political parties: especially the republicans.
H1 visas are what a company gets if there is no local talent who can do the job. This is why there are loads of Indians in the IT industry. On the other hand, I am sure there are loads of people out there who could be trained to do the job, if the companies were forced to do so. Or, in my case, the companies had to prove there was no local talent.
In 1992, I was living in Brussels and working for a law firm there. My grandfather had a stroke in Autumn 1991. In a way, I felt I needed to be with my mum in the States. Along came a job ad in the ABA Journal for someone with a British Education, trained in European Community law, with experience in that field who could be admitted to the Illinois bar. Five people who knew me contacted me to tell me about this ad. I was to submit my resume to the Illinois Department of Labour.
Anyway, I ended up returning to the States in the hope that I would hear from these people for a job interview (among other reasons). That never happened. Well, not exactly. About a year later, I received an offer from a large law firm to come to Chicago to interview. Prior to that interview, I rode into town with an immigration attorney who told me about Job Cert ads. They are the ads which are supposed to prove there is no local talent for a job. That was probably what the ABA Journal ad was. So, during the interview, I mentioned this ad and the interviewer chuckled and said, "Oh, that was you. we pulled the ad and rewrote it to get our candidate."
Now, in any other country, the firm would have had to at least interview me before hiring a "foreigner". Not so in the US. The firm is allowed to pull the ad and rewrite it to make it more specific so that it can hire its own candidate.
I am one case where this has happened. How many others are there out there? How many US citizens are being denied jobs for illegal aliens (the minimum wage and construction jobs) or visas are being granted just because they can pay a foreigner less money?
Another thing which really has me pissed off are the foreign call centres. IS business really saving money if somebody in Mumbai or Bangalore is taking the phone call, yet they don't really understand the problem? Case in point, I had two phone lines that I cut down to one in September. My DSL should have been moved to the one existing line. Somehow, my phone bill didn't go down. I kept calling with no responsible human being. First line was the voice mail hell, which never got me to a human being. The Second line was the off-shore phone bank.
I am talking to Mohinder, Gupti, Shakti, et al. who don't grasp the concept that someone who has been a customer for 5 years isn't a "new" customer. Why the new customer fee? Requests for a supervisor are met with a long wait on hold. So, I am getting more and more frustrated. I file complaints with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Even then, I don't really get any satisfaction from my phone company. It isn't until my internet is cut off that I realise the extent of my phone company's screw up. Of course, it takes three hours to straighten this out, which probably wouldn't have happened if i hadn't complained to the PUC.
The easy solution, which should have happened was that there was a move order for my DSL from the line that was discontinued to the main phone line. No, what had happened was that they set up a new DSL account and kept the old account alive on a non-existant phone line! I am not sure what language they speak in Mumbai or Bangalore since there are 22 different official languages in India (I think Hindi), but they couldn't grasp English. None of these people could see the problem. In fact, the situation became more and more messed up until I had to speak with people in the US.
How much money is business wasting by having people who don't really speak English field customer service phone calls? Even more salient, how pissed off are the customers to have their time wasted? I mean I would switch my business in a heartbeat if there was an alternative. But there isn't.
The Republicans love to talk about market forces, but that is nice talk. Especially if people are losing their jobs. Additionally, is business really doing any better by going for the cheapest labour it can find if it ends up costing more in the long run in repairs to its eff ups? Wouldn't we be better off if there were more Americans working than looking afield for workers, especially in a recession?
Quite frankly, other countries aren't going to hire an American if they have unemployed people with qualifications. Conversely America shouldn't be hiring people from abroad if there are Americans without jobs.
H1 visas are what a company gets if there is no local talent who can do the job. This is why there are loads of Indians in the IT industry. On the other hand, I am sure there are loads of people out there who could be trained to do the job, if the companies were forced to do so. Or, in my case, the companies had to prove there was no local talent.
In 1992, I was living in Brussels and working for a law firm there. My grandfather had a stroke in Autumn 1991. In a way, I felt I needed to be with my mum in the States. Along came a job ad in the ABA Journal for someone with a British Education, trained in European Community law, with experience in that field who could be admitted to the Illinois bar. Five people who knew me contacted me to tell me about this ad. I was to submit my resume to the Illinois Department of Labour.
Anyway, I ended up returning to the States in the hope that I would hear from these people for a job interview (among other reasons). That never happened. Well, not exactly. About a year later, I received an offer from a large law firm to come to Chicago to interview. Prior to that interview, I rode into town with an immigration attorney who told me about Job Cert ads. They are the ads which are supposed to prove there is no local talent for a job. That was probably what the ABA Journal ad was. So, during the interview, I mentioned this ad and the interviewer chuckled and said, "Oh, that was you. we pulled the ad and rewrote it to get our candidate."
Now, in any other country, the firm would have had to at least interview me before hiring a "foreigner". Not so in the US. The firm is allowed to pull the ad and rewrite it to make it more specific so that it can hire its own candidate.
I am one case where this has happened. How many others are there out there? How many US citizens are being denied jobs for illegal aliens (the minimum wage and construction jobs) or visas are being granted just because they can pay a foreigner less money?
Another thing which really has me pissed off are the foreign call centres. IS business really saving money if somebody in Mumbai or Bangalore is taking the phone call, yet they don't really understand the problem? Case in point, I had two phone lines that I cut down to one in September. My DSL should have been moved to the one existing line. Somehow, my phone bill didn't go down. I kept calling with no responsible human being. First line was the voice mail hell, which never got me to a human being. The Second line was the off-shore phone bank.
I am talking to Mohinder, Gupti, Shakti, et al. who don't grasp the concept that someone who has been a customer for 5 years isn't a "new" customer. Why the new customer fee? Requests for a supervisor are met with a long wait on hold. So, I am getting more and more frustrated. I file complaints with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Even then, I don't really get any satisfaction from my phone company. It isn't until my internet is cut off that I realise the extent of my phone company's screw up. Of course, it takes three hours to straighten this out, which probably wouldn't have happened if i hadn't complained to the PUC.
The easy solution, which should have happened was that there was a move order for my DSL from the line that was discontinued to the main phone line. No, what had happened was that they set up a new DSL account and kept the old account alive on a non-existant phone line! I am not sure what language they speak in Mumbai or Bangalore since there are 22 different official languages in India (I think Hindi), but they couldn't grasp English. None of these people could see the problem. In fact, the situation became more and more messed up until I had to speak with people in the US.
How much money is business wasting by having people who don't really speak English field customer service phone calls? Even more salient, how pissed off are the customers to have their time wasted? I mean I would switch my business in a heartbeat if there was an alternative. But there isn't.
The Republicans love to talk about market forces, but that is nice talk. Especially if people are losing their jobs. Additionally, is business really doing any better by going for the cheapest labour it can find if it ends up costing more in the long run in repairs to its eff ups? Wouldn't we be better off if there were more Americans working than looking afield for workers, especially in a recession?
Quite frankly, other countries aren't going to hire an American if they have unemployed people with qualifications. Conversely America shouldn't be hiring people from abroad if there are Americans without jobs.
14 January 2008
British Army recruiting material misleading youths.
A week ago there was an article in The Independent and a few other British Papers about how the British Army glamourises war in its recruiting materials. The article states that "The advertising campaigns used by the Ministry of Defence "glamorise warfare, omit vital information and fail to point out the risks and responsibilities associated with a forces career", says the study." That's sort of amusing to me since I remember ads that were pretty realistic as to what I would end up doing once I became commissioned. Although, I do have to admit that this clip from the Beatles' movie help was an influence as well.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone who has watched TV or gone to the movies that the military aids in production, especially if it can be shown in a good light. I wonder how much help the TV program "Soldier, Soldier" had. And I know that the British Army helped in the recent remake (?) of Red Cap with Tamzin Outhwaite. Ms. Outhwaite actually received training at The British Army's Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre in Chilwell, Nottingham.
On the other hand, the military is supposed to be targeting children as young as seven. I would like to point out as well that the UK is the only EU state to recruit people aged 16. Well, I guess that's fair since 16 year olds can have sex and legally drink in the UK. I mean you can serve in the military and vote in the States, but can't drink. How fair is that?
Needless to say, I am kind of amused by this news, especially the quote from one Article that the hardest thing one recruit had to do was "learn how to ride a horse". Must have been joining the horse guards (or a cavalry unit). In case you didn't know there are two segments of the British Army that requires and additional 6 months of training before a recruit is selected: the paras and the guards. Seriously, the guards have to learn how to polish all that metalwork and the other ceremonial trappings.
Oh, well, I always said the military was like the Boy Scouts except they give you guns. Actually that statement really is not too far off since Baden-Powell designed scouting to indoctrinate young men into the military life style.
So, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the military is glamourised. Especially now that the Iraq war is as unpopular as it is and it is hard for any military to find people crazy enough to want to be soldiers.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone who has watched TV or gone to the movies that the military aids in production, especially if it can be shown in a good light. I wonder how much help the TV program "Soldier, Soldier" had. And I know that the British Army helped in the recent remake (?) of Red Cap with Tamzin Outhwaite. Ms. Outhwaite actually received training at The British Army's Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre in Chilwell, Nottingham.
On the other hand, the military is supposed to be targeting children as young as seven. I would like to point out as well that the UK is the only EU state to recruit people aged 16. Well, I guess that's fair since 16 year olds can have sex and legally drink in the UK. I mean you can serve in the military and vote in the States, but can't drink. How fair is that?
Needless to say, I am kind of amused by this news, especially the quote from one Article that the hardest thing one recruit had to do was "learn how to ride a horse". Must have been joining the horse guards (or a cavalry unit). In case you didn't know there are two segments of the British Army that requires and additional 6 months of training before a recruit is selected: the paras and the guards. Seriously, the guards have to learn how to polish all that metalwork and the other ceremonial trappings.
Oh, well, I always said the military was like the Boy Scouts except they give you guns. Actually that statement really is not too far off since Baden-Powell designed scouting to indoctrinate young men into the military life style.
So, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the military is glamourised. Especially now that the Iraq war is as unpopular as it is and it is hard for any military to find people crazy enough to want to be soldiers.
13 January 2008
Time shifting the News
I am thoroughly sick of hearing about the US election, especially since I think the candidates will be Huckaby v either Obama or Clinton. I do have to admit to enjoying Bill, but he had humour value. In some ways, Wes Clark reminds me of Bill Clinton, except he can keep his dick in his pants.
Anyway, I enjoy the internet, especially now that most of the short wave broadcasts have been abandoned by reputable broadcasting networks. The internet allows one to connect to other viewpoints. Although, sometimes it can be like wading through a sewer emptying out the Augean Stables (e.g., researching the Second Amendment).
NPR has become inundated with repetitive news (Iraq and the Elections). So, I am listening to the BBC news and Radio Nederland for non-US news. It's nice to get a variety of stories. For example, this story about an 88 year old pensioner who is doing ballet! It was fun listening to this man talk about his wanting to do ballet.
In the old days, NPR had a lot more variety, but I am not sure why they have cut down on the variety of their stories. I mean, it really was all things considered. Now its seems to be only Elections and Iraq considered. And they are considered until you are sick of it all.
So, I am finding that I am listening less and less to NPR and more to internet radio.
Maybe, NPR will return to its roots and start providing more diverse coverage.
Anyway, I enjoy the internet, especially now that most of the short wave broadcasts have been abandoned by reputable broadcasting networks. The internet allows one to connect to other viewpoints. Although, sometimes it can be like wading through a sewer emptying out the Augean Stables (e.g., researching the Second Amendment).
NPR has become inundated with repetitive news (Iraq and the Elections). So, I am listening to the BBC news and Radio Nederland for non-US news. It's nice to get a variety of stories. For example, this story about an 88 year old pensioner who is doing ballet! It was fun listening to this man talk about his wanting to do ballet.
In the old days, NPR had a lot more variety, but I am not sure why they have cut down on the variety of their stories. I mean, it really was all things considered. Now its seems to be only Elections and Iraq considered. And they are considered until you are sick of it all.
So, I am finding that I am listening less and less to NPR and more to internet radio.
Maybe, NPR will return to its roots and start providing more diverse coverage.
12 January 2008
Perpetual elections
It seems as if the US presidential election has been going on since the end of the last election in 2004. Barely has it officially started and it has been going on far too long.
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
15 December 2007
This is it!
Well, I predict that there are at least six votes which will uphold Miller
The four dissenters from Printz (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito will affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. See: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-02/index.html
I think that Justice Thomas is the only justice who buys the "new scholarship", but he has a Segal-Cover score of 0.415 for being qualified for the job (0 being unqualified and 1 being most qualified).
I just found out that one of Justice Anthony Kennedy's law clerks, Orrin Kerr, recently predicted this precise scenario. After declaring that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment, "Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation," wrote Kerr.
Sounds like the "individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force" language to me.
I have found there are a lot of people out there who spout collective right language while saying that the Second Amendment protects an "individual right". It's one of those mantras out there to say "individual right" in a way that seem to try and placate the masses. Never mind that this is not the "individual right" believed to exist by the masses.
This is because no one out there is willing to say Argumentum ad populum/Argumentum ad numerum is fallacious thinking.
The four dissenters from Printz (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito will affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. See: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-02/index.html
I think that Justice Thomas is the only justice who buys the "new scholarship", but he has a Segal-Cover score of 0.415 for being qualified for the job (0 being unqualified and 1 being most qualified).
I just found out that one of Justice Anthony Kennedy's law clerks, Orrin Kerr, recently predicted this precise scenario. After declaring that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment, "Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation," wrote Kerr.
Sounds like the "individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force" language to me.
I have found there are a lot of people out there who spout collective right language while saying that the Second Amendment protects an "individual right". It's one of those mantras out there to say "individual right" in a way that seem to try and placate the masses. Never mind that this is not the "individual right" believed to exist by the masses.
This is because no one out there is willing to say Argumentum ad populum/Argumentum ad numerum is fallacious thinking.
Yet More DC v. Heller
OK, I have an interest in this given a strong background in DC gun laws.
Although, I am a lot less bothered that the SCOTUS will listen to the masses and will not follow it's precedent in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
First thing is Miller, supra, is out there. While both sides argue about the applicability of this. I would say it is pretty well accepted in legal circles that the holding is:
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.
To summarise, the Second Amendment must be interpreted as a whole. the declaration, that is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and the guarantee, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” bit, need to be interpeted as a whole. There is loads of legal doctrine behind this. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), discusses how none of the language of the Constitution can be considered "surplusage". The Constitution was written in a considered fashion and what was written must be considered essential to its interpretation.
The Appellant (Heller) would like us to believe that the declaration is a superfluity. Additionally, he would appreciate it if the Miller decision were interpreted as looking to the nature of the firearm, when the court said "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." Meaning that the court doesn't need to take this into account as the right is to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, which was set up under Article I, Section 8.
The gun is irrelevant! Trying to compare the Second Amendment to the other Amendments is silly. The Second Amendment is to ensure the Article I, Section 8 Militia is not disarmed.
I like to quote Patrick Henry:
9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution, June 5, 1788
My guess is that there are at least five votes (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, with either Kennedy or Alito possibly both) for the collective right. I am using the dissent in Printz v. United States), 521 U.S. 898 (1997), to predict the four votes to keep Miller. Alito stays consistent with his dissent in Rybar and holds the Collective right.
US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir.1996), recapped for those who missed it followed the collective right interpretation to the Second Amendment. Of course, There was a dissent in Rybar.
The dissenting judge's name: Samuel Alito.
Yes, this is the case which earned Alito the nickname "machinegun Sammy". Funny thing, Alito was silent about the collective right issue in his dissent and only used the US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Commerce clause issue.
What if Alito holds the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment? What if Alito beings along Roberts and Scalia? Not so crazy an idea. Scalia is a strong believer in stare decisis and upholding Heller would screw up a lot of legal opinions out there.
Scalia, while calling himself a textualist, defers to legislators and also doesn't like stirring up accepted legal doctrines. DC's gun laws were enacted under the home rule statute in 1976: Legally legislated. Additionally, there are loads of decisions out there interpreting the Second Amendment as enabling the militia, that is now the National Guard.
Sure, the masses believe the Second Amendment can be divorced from the "well-regulated militia" language, giving the "people" "a right to keep and bear arms", but that type of logical thinking is fallacious. It's called Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. Also known as Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."
Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
Live with it!
Although, I am a lot less bothered that the SCOTUS will listen to the masses and will not follow it's precedent in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
First thing is Miller, supra, is out there. While both sides argue about the applicability of this. I would say it is pretty well accepted in legal circles that the holding is:
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.
To summarise, the Second Amendment must be interpreted as a whole. the declaration, that is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and the guarantee, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” bit, need to be interpeted as a whole. There is loads of legal doctrine behind this. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), discusses how none of the language of the Constitution can be considered "surplusage". The Constitution was written in a considered fashion and what was written must be considered essential to its interpretation.
The Appellant (Heller) would like us to believe that the declaration is a superfluity. Additionally, he would appreciate it if the Miller decision were interpreted as looking to the nature of the firearm, when the court said "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." Meaning that the court doesn't need to take this into account as the right is to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, which was set up under Article I, Section 8.
The gun is irrelevant! Trying to compare the Second Amendment to the other Amendments is silly. The Second Amendment is to ensure the Article I, Section 8 Militia is not disarmed.
I like to quote Patrick Henry:
9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution, June 5, 1788
My guess is that there are at least five votes (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, with either Kennedy or Alito possibly both) for the collective right. I am using the dissent in Printz v. United States), 521 U.S. 898 (1997), to predict the four votes to keep Miller. Alito stays consistent with his dissent in Rybar and holds the Collective right.
US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir.1996), recapped for those who missed it followed the collective right interpretation to the Second Amendment. Of course, There was a dissent in Rybar.
The dissenting judge's name: Samuel Alito.
Yes, this is the case which earned Alito the nickname "machinegun Sammy". Funny thing, Alito was silent about the collective right issue in his dissent and only used the US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Commerce clause issue.
What if Alito holds the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment? What if Alito beings along Roberts and Scalia? Not so crazy an idea. Scalia is a strong believer in stare decisis and upholding Heller would screw up a lot of legal opinions out there.
Scalia, while calling himself a textualist, defers to legislators and also doesn't like stirring up accepted legal doctrines. DC's gun laws were enacted under the home rule statute in 1976: Legally legislated. Additionally, there are loads of decisions out there interpreting the Second Amendment as enabling the militia, that is now the National Guard.
Sure, the masses believe the Second Amendment can be divorced from the "well-regulated militia" language, giving the "people" "a right to keep and bear arms", but that type of logical thinking is fallacious. It's called Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. Also known as Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."
Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
Live with it!
13 November 2007
More District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
I have to admit that all this talk about rights is amusing to me.
It seems that it has gotten lost that the District of Columbia's gun laws were locally enacted. Not to mention that most law abiding DC citizens support it.
On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of a lot of people who don't live in Washington, DC.
Case in point, Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute, plaintiff's lawyer, and pretty much the driving force behind all this.
Though Levy is a native of the district, he moved to Maryland 25 years ago. Today he splits his time between a gated community in Naples, Fla., and a home in Asheville, N.C. The investment analyst-turned-lawyer doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t want one. For Levy, the case really isn’t about guns.
Really? I have to admit curiosity as to why he is raising this issue then??? Is he out to get a definitive ruling on the law?
This may change the tack of this post, but the NRA (another non-DC resident) is worried about this and wants to bypass the court system. It wants the D.C. Personal Protection Act passed by the Legislature (yet more non-DC residents who don't represent the Citizens of DC). This legislation that would repeal the ban and moot out the Second Amendment issue.
Now, I have to admit that my opinion is that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it refers to the arming language in Article I, Section 8 and only means that the militia will never be disarmed: not to any personal right to gun ownership.
Additionally, I find Justice Robert's statement at his confirmation hearing to be ambiguous. I don't trust Justice Alito either after reading the U.S. v. Rybar(103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)) decision. I think the court will only clarify US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), or not bother to hear the case.
Either way, the Miller Opinion remains legal precedent. This is why the NRA DOESN'T want to see Heller go to court.
But that is neither here nor there in relation to my point.
My point is that the District's gun law was locally enacted and locally supported. The people who are trying to get rid of it aren't citizens, weren't elected by the people of DC and definitely don't represent the people of DC.
It was desire to self-govern which was a driving force behind the revolution, not taxes, guns, free speech, etcetera.
Especially not guns.
From what I know of the founding fathers. I believe they would support the District of Columbia from the outside meddling in its affairs.
But as the DC licence plates say these days:
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
It seems that it has gotten lost that the District of Columbia's gun laws were locally enacted. Not to mention that most law abiding DC citizens support it.
On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of a lot of people who don't live in Washington, DC.
Case in point, Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute, plaintiff's lawyer, and pretty much the driving force behind all this.
Though Levy is a native of the district, he moved to Maryland 25 years ago. Today he splits his time between a gated community in Naples, Fla., and a home in Asheville, N.C. The investment analyst-turned-lawyer doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t want one. For Levy, the case really isn’t about guns.
Really? I have to admit curiosity as to why he is raising this issue then??? Is he out to get a definitive ruling on the law?
This may change the tack of this post, but the NRA (another non-DC resident) is worried about this and wants to bypass the court system. It wants the D.C. Personal Protection Act passed by the Legislature (yet more non-DC residents who don't represent the Citizens of DC). This legislation that would repeal the ban and moot out the Second Amendment issue.
Now, I have to admit that my opinion is that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it refers to the arming language in Article I, Section 8 and only means that the militia will never be disarmed: not to any personal right to gun ownership.
Additionally, I find Justice Robert's statement at his confirmation hearing to be ambiguous. I don't trust Justice Alito either after reading the U.S. v. Rybar(103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)) decision. I think the court will only clarify US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), or not bother to hear the case.
Either way, the Miller Opinion remains legal precedent. This is why the NRA DOESN'T want to see Heller go to court.
But that is neither here nor there in relation to my point.
My point is that the District's gun law was locally enacted and locally supported. The people who are trying to get rid of it aren't citizens, weren't elected by the people of DC and definitely don't represent the people of DC.
It was desire to self-govern which was a driving force behind the revolution, not taxes, guns, free speech, etcetera.
Especially not guns.
From what I know of the founding fathers. I believe they would support the District of Columbia from the outside meddling in its affairs.
But as the DC licence plates say these days:
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
11 October 2007
Founding fathers on revolution against the Constitutionally created government.
I see loads of rubbish about how the Second Amendment allegedly means that "the people" have a right to rebel against the Constitutionally created government.
Usually this neglects Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Quick question how does the Second Amendment negate Article 3, Section 3 and allow for citizens to wage war against the US government?
Of course, people who buy into the RKBA myth usually neglect logic such as that.
Anyway, here are some quotes from the founders about rebelling against an elected government.
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Samuel Adams about Shay's Rebellion
"I would infinitely prefer a limited monarchy, for I would sooner be the subject of the caprice of one man than the ignorance of the multitude." Noah Webster
"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious." General George Washington about Shay's Rebellion.
James Madison once described democracy as the “most vile form of government”. In Federalist Paper No. 10, he had the following to say about democracy:
“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration of independence and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, delivered a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in which he blasted Congress and the Jefferson administration for repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801 which unseated federal circuit court judges on 2 May 1803. He also lashed out at the Maryland legislature for eliminating property qualifications for the franchise and for interfering with the operation of Maryland's courts. Chase railed that America was risking a descent into "mobocracy," This led to his impeachment
Of course, you probably believe that the US is a democracy if you believe the Second Amendment allows you the right to wage war upon the US government.
Usually this neglects Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Quick question how does the Second Amendment negate Article 3, Section 3 and allow for citizens to wage war against the US government?
Of course, people who buy into the RKBA myth usually neglect logic such as that.
Anyway, here are some quotes from the founders about rebelling against an elected government.
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Samuel Adams about Shay's Rebellion
"I would infinitely prefer a limited monarchy, for I would sooner be the subject of the caprice of one man than the ignorance of the multitude." Noah Webster
"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious." General George Washington about Shay's Rebellion.
James Madison once described democracy as the “most vile form of government”. In Federalist Paper No. 10, he had the following to say about democracy:
“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration of independence and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, delivered a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in which he blasted Congress and the Jefferson administration for repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801 which unseated federal circuit court judges on 2 May 1803. He also lashed out at the Maryland legislature for eliminating property qualifications for the franchise and for interfering with the operation of Maryland's courts. Chase railed that America was risking a descent into "mobocracy," This led to his impeachment
Of course, you probably believe that the US is a democracy if you believe the Second Amendment allows you the right to wage war upon the US government.
04 July 2007
The Key to Peace
Ever notice that Palestinian sites have pictures like this of people with the Keys to their houses? Like this one:
According to legend, when the Jews were also expelled from Spain in 1492, they took with them the keys to their homes and synagogues hoping that one day they would return.
Sound familiar?
Those keys - large iron keys in the old Spanish style - lay in drawers and boxes, gathering dust, getting lost among clothes and cooking pots, sometimes for years until the family moved or someone died. Others were hung proudly above the front door; reminders of a culture they had loved and hoped to maintain.
Some years ago an Indiana University professor named Joelle Bahloul wrote an article in a journal that told of a rabbi in New Jersey whose ancestors had lived in Spain. One summer, the rabbi went back to the city of Toledo and tried to fit the family's ancient key in the door of the house where they were supposed to have lived. According to the rabbi, it fitted the lock perfectly! But, of course, these are legends. We don't know for sure. As symbolism, however, his gesture was very meaningful. The presence of the key really did "open" the door to memories and traditions of the past, allowing later generations to learn about the old customs.
Sephardic Jews like Yair Dalal treat their Palestinian friends as friends and see the similarities not the differences.
Why should the law of return only apply to Jews in the Holy Land? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right ot leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." This is reiterated in the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Article 13(2)). UN Resolution 194 ratified on 11 December 1948 was the first of many to affirm this right of return. There have been 130 UN resolutions on the Right of Return which have been ratified to almost unanimously (exceptions Israel and the US).
Support for Israel places the United States in violation of its own laws which require it to not fund regimes which violate human rights and basic freedoms. The right of return, as shown above, is a basic right. I could add that Israel is a rogue state as well, but that would include discussion of its attacks such as the one on the USS Liberty.
The US could exert enough pressure on Israel to force it to comply with international law, yet the US refuses to show the leadership to do this. In fact, the US slavishly aids Israel.
In short. The right of return is an inalienable right which politicians cannot negotiate. Israel has not fulfilled the legal conditions required for its membership in the UN based upon the enactment of these resolutions in practise. The international community can impose sanctions upon Israel until it complies with international law.
The right of return is not hard to implement.
The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has existed since 1948. This means there exists a huge database of millions of Palestinians - where they come from in Palestine, and where they are residing today, their family structure and their ages. Today, 90% of them reside within 100 km of their homes, 50% within 40km and many can actually see their home on the opposite hill.
That is not all. The refugees’ land is still sparsely populated. Eighty per cent of Israeli Jews still live in the same area they acquired during the Mandate and a little more, but 15% of Israel in total. About 18% of the remaining 20% of the Jews live mostly in half a dozen originally Palestinian or mixed cities, considerably enlarged. This leaves 2% of Israeli Jews who are the members of Qibbutz and Moshav.
This small number of population, in addition to the army, use and control 85%-88% of Israel’s area, which is the patrimony of 6 million Palestinian refugees. To take an example, all the rural Jews in the southern district from Ashdod (Isdud) to Eilat (Umm Rashrash) are less in number that one refugee camp in Gaza. Their density is six persons per square kilometre while that of Gaza population - the owners of this very land - is 6,000 per square kilometre. These owners of the land are held captive by the occupier in a concentration camp called Gaza.
I hope the Palestinians do not have to wait hundreds of years for their right of return to be implemented.
According to legend, when the Jews were also expelled from Spain in 1492, they took with them the keys to their homes and synagogues hoping that one day they would return.
Sound familiar?
Those keys - large iron keys in the old Spanish style - lay in drawers and boxes, gathering dust, getting lost among clothes and cooking pots, sometimes for years until the family moved or someone died. Others were hung proudly above the front door; reminders of a culture they had loved and hoped to maintain.
Some years ago an Indiana University professor named Joelle Bahloul wrote an article in a journal that told of a rabbi in New Jersey whose ancestors had lived in Spain. One summer, the rabbi went back to the city of Toledo and tried to fit the family's ancient key in the door of the house where they were supposed to have lived. According to the rabbi, it fitted the lock perfectly! But, of course, these are legends. We don't know for sure. As symbolism, however, his gesture was very meaningful. The presence of the key really did "open" the door to memories and traditions of the past, allowing later generations to learn about the old customs.
Sephardic Jews like Yair Dalal treat their Palestinian friends as friends and see the similarities not the differences.
Why should the law of return only apply to Jews in the Holy Land? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right ot leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." This is reiterated in the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Article 13(2)). UN Resolution 194 ratified on 11 December 1948 was the first of many to affirm this right of return. There have been 130 UN resolutions on the Right of Return which have been ratified to almost unanimously (exceptions Israel and the US).
Support for Israel places the United States in violation of its own laws which require it to not fund regimes which violate human rights and basic freedoms. The right of return, as shown above, is a basic right. I could add that Israel is a rogue state as well, but that would include discussion of its attacks such as the one on the USS Liberty.
The US could exert enough pressure on Israel to force it to comply with international law, yet the US refuses to show the leadership to do this. In fact, the US slavishly aids Israel.
In short. The right of return is an inalienable right which politicians cannot negotiate. Israel has not fulfilled the legal conditions required for its membership in the UN based upon the enactment of these resolutions in practise. The international community can impose sanctions upon Israel until it complies with international law.
The right of return is not hard to implement.
The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has existed since 1948. This means there exists a huge database of millions of Palestinians - where they come from in Palestine, and where they are residing today, their family structure and their ages. Today, 90% of them reside within 100 km of their homes, 50% within 40km and many can actually see their home on the opposite hill.
That is not all. The refugees’ land is still sparsely populated. Eighty per cent of Israeli Jews still live in the same area they acquired during the Mandate and a little more, but 15% of Israel in total. About 18% of the remaining 20% of the Jews live mostly in half a dozen originally Palestinian or mixed cities, considerably enlarged. This leaves 2% of Israeli Jews who are the members of Qibbutz and Moshav.
This small number of population, in addition to the army, use and control 85%-88% of Israel’s area, which is the patrimony of 6 million Palestinian refugees. To take an example, all the rural Jews in the southern district from Ashdod (Isdud) to Eilat (Umm Rashrash) are less in number that one refugee camp in Gaza. Their density is six persons per square kilometre while that of Gaza population - the owners of this very land - is 6,000 per square kilometre. These owners of the land are held captive by the occupier in a concentration camp called Gaza.
I hope the Palestinians do not have to wait hundreds of years for their right of return to be implemented.
29 June 2007
Gun control in the Talmud
First off, one principle of Judaism is that of Tikkun Olam, or healing the world. Jews are supposed to be an example of good in the world. That's what being chosen is about. It is to be an example of how to be Godly and show the light into the world.
What does that have to do with firearms anyway? Some Jews, such as JPFO, use appeals to history and the Judaic tradition. These pleas to oppose gun control are far from convincing. To argue that Jews must respond to gun violence with a paranoid impulse to grab guns in self defense is a dangerous perspective. This is using darkness ro fight the darkness in the world
The bigger picture does not support opposition to firearms regulation, especially if that will lead to the prevention of harm. Life is sacred in Judaism. Preservation or a human life can even justify violating mitzot with only three exceptions: avoda zarah [idol worship], shfichas damim [murder], and giluy arayus [illicit relations]!
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern, especially if protecting human life is involved. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety (Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control places high value on safety.
In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).
There were instances when allowances were made to these rules. In border communities, where there is a threat of marauders, owners of dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for protection. Some say that any dangerous city is similar to a border community (CM 409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be noted that many authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH 316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD 117:44)
There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against selling to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers will use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited to sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle owners.
Although halacha is extremely concerned about safety, it does not prohibit the ownership of guns. However, recognizing that a gun is a dangerous object, halacha (like many current gun control laws) requires that owners and vendors of guns take all possible precautions to prevent their guns from causing any harm.
Jewish tradition compels us to uphold the sanctity of life. An instrumentality like a firearm is not more valuable than a human life. The ownership of firearms must be responsible. These isntrumentalities must be regulated in a manner which respects life. Anyone who argues otherwise is going against Talmudic tradition.
What does that have to do with firearms anyway? Some Jews, such as JPFO, use appeals to history and the Judaic tradition. These pleas to oppose gun control are far from convincing. To argue that Jews must respond to gun violence with a paranoid impulse to grab guns in self defense is a dangerous perspective. This is using darkness ro fight the darkness in the world
The bigger picture does not support opposition to firearms regulation, especially if that will lead to the prevention of harm. Life is sacred in Judaism. Preservation or a human life can even justify violating mitzot with only three exceptions: avoda zarah [idol worship], shfichas damim [murder], and giluy arayus [illicit relations]!
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern, especially if protecting human life is involved. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety (Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control places high value on safety.
In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).
There were instances when allowances were made to these rules. In border communities, where there is a threat of marauders, owners of dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for protection. Some say that any dangerous city is similar to a border community (CM 409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be noted that many authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH 316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD 117:44)
There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against selling to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers will use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited to sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle owners.
Although halacha is extremely concerned about safety, it does not prohibit the ownership of guns. However, recognizing that a gun is a dangerous object, halacha (like many current gun control laws) requires that owners and vendors of guns take all possible precautions to prevent their guns from causing any harm.
Jewish tradition compels us to uphold the sanctity of life. An instrumentality like a firearm is not more valuable than a human life. The ownership of firearms must be responsible. These isntrumentalities must be regulated in a manner which respects life. Anyone who argues otherwise is going against Talmudic tradition.
17 May 2007
Gun control and Genocides
A tip of the hat to Matthew White who compiled this list (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm) with some additions from me.
There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", so wouldn't it be really ironic if a law created with the purpose of cutting back on the number of murders actually had the opposite effect?
Of course, there's another old saying: "Yew-juice is sovereign against snake-bite", which goes to show you that sometimes old sayings are just plain stupid. Sometimes good intentions turn out just fine, and sometimes laws don't have ironic outcomes.
But among the advocates of irony, the leading cause of 56 million needless deaths would seem to be gun control. Here's an account ledger that is reposted at several sites:
Well, right off the bat I can see that whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.
I am not sure that the assumption that Turkey's institution of "gun control" would have helped the Armenians either. One problem with "pro-gun" arguments is that they have the unspoken assumption that people owned guns prior to the enactment of these laws (such as comparisons to England and Australia). Usually, there wasn't wide spread gun ownership prior to the enactment of these laws, which is likely in the case of the Armenian genocide. Additionally, this happened during the First World War. The Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire (which is now called Turkey) army were disarmed, but again, this sounds like what happened in the Soviet union.
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time for that matter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
Just a few steps down, we can trim another 20 million from our total. Take a look at China, 1935. Picture, if you will, a long, peaceful line of naive little natives queueing up to dump their guns into an industrial smelter, while off to the side, a bureaucrat with a clipboard checks their names off the list. That's the image this list would like to create. The problem is, in 1935 China was in the midst of the Age of Warlords. Even if you know nothing about Chinese history, just the name "Age of Warlords" should tip you off. It was a pistol packer's paradise, a lawless Wild West where all power flowed from the barrel of a gun.
But it's not just the ready availability of guns in China that contradicts the Big Tally. No, it's just as important what everyone was doing with all those guns -- fighting for supremacy, fighting against the Communists, fighting the Japanese. In other words, gun control or not, everyone who had a side to take had already taken sides. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun. The enemies of the state who were killed after 1949 weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.
This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.
It's just as hard to label the Cambodians defenseless when you remember that they had just spent five years and a half million lives trying to stop the Khmer Rouge. It's also hard to call the Guatemalans defenseless when it took a 30-year civil war to rack up their body count. Even most of the victims of Hitler went down kicking and screaming. The majority of the Jews and Gypsies were hunted down in countries like Poland and Russia that had been overrun in open battle, and if they were lacking guns, it certainly wasn't German laws that created the situation.
Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.
There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", so wouldn't it be really ironic if a law created with the purpose of cutting back on the number of murders actually had the opposite effect?
Of course, there's another old saying: "Yew-juice is sovereign against snake-bite", which goes to show you that sometimes old sayings are just plain stupid. Sometimes good intentions turn out just fine, and sometimes laws don't have ironic outcomes.
But among the advocates of irony, the leading cause of 56 million needless deaths would seem to be gun control. Here's an account ledger that is reposted at several sites:
CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...
* In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
Well, right off the bat I can see that whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.
I am not sure that the assumption that Turkey's institution of "gun control" would have helped the Armenians either. One problem with "pro-gun" arguments is that they have the unspoken assumption that people owned guns prior to the enactment of these laws (such as comparisons to England and Australia). Usually, there wasn't wide spread gun ownership prior to the enactment of these laws, which is likely in the case of the Armenian genocide. Additionally, this happened during the First World War. The Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire (which is now called Turkey) army were disarmed, but again, this sounds like what happened in the Soviet union.
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time for that matter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
Just a few steps down, we can trim another 20 million from our total. Take a look at China, 1935. Picture, if you will, a long, peaceful line of naive little natives queueing up to dump their guns into an industrial smelter, while off to the side, a bureaucrat with a clipboard checks their names off the list. That's the image this list would like to create. The problem is, in 1935 China was in the midst of the Age of Warlords. Even if you know nothing about Chinese history, just the name "Age of Warlords" should tip you off. It was a pistol packer's paradise, a lawless Wild West where all power flowed from the barrel of a gun.
But it's not just the ready availability of guns in China that contradicts the Big Tally. No, it's just as important what everyone was doing with all those guns -- fighting for supremacy, fighting against the Communists, fighting the Japanese. In other words, gun control or not, everyone who had a side to take had already taken sides. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun. The enemies of the state who were killed after 1949 weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.
This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.
It's just as hard to label the Cambodians defenseless when you remember that they had just spent five years and a half million lives trying to stop the Khmer Rouge. It's also hard to call the Guatemalans defenseless when it took a 30-year civil war to rack up their body count. Even most of the victims of Hitler went down kicking and screaming. The majority of the Jews and Gypsies were hunted down in countries like Poland and Russia that had been overrun in open battle, and if they were lacking guns, it certainly wasn't German laws that created the situation.
Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.
16 May 2007
The Myth of Nazi Gun Control
By N. A. Browne
from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.
In other words, people should stop mindlessly repeating the same nonsense and start thinking for themselves. RKBA is a myth, the tyranny the founding fathers had in mind, a large standing army, is here.
from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.
In other words, people should stop mindlessly repeating the same nonsense and start thinking for themselves. RKBA is a myth, the tyranny the founding fathers had in mind, a large standing army, is here.
14 May 2007
Is the US becoming facist or just going Insane?
I have to admit that the reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings that we need more guns and have armed students on campus and that it was gun control which caused the shootings which seems ubiquitous has me dumbfounded. I mean, the lack of a decent background check was what really caused these shootings, not gun control. The kid couldn't have bought a gun if there had been adequate gun control!
Additionally, the masses say that Parker v. DC was "correctly decided" despite the fact that it goes against just about everything proper in legal reasoning (e.g., stare decisis).
As P.T. Barnum said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".
Another thing which has me amazed is that public transport in the US is pitiful (with the exceptions of Washington, DC and New York). The price of fuel is finally catching up with the rest of the world, but it seems everyone wants and SUV or other gas guzzler. People also move out of the cities to the middle of nowhere and increase the traffic and amount of services needed so that there will soon be no natural spots.
Never mind global warming or recycling. Instead of demanding better public transport, people want more roads and bypasses. Sort of like some people think more guns means less crime, more cars will mean less traffic.
Oh, yeah, how could I forget health care, which sucks in the USA. I mean I have health insurance and I get the bottom of the barrel care. A national health service, "socialised medicine" seems to be a fantastic idea. It's that word "socialised" which sounds like "Socialism".
Oh, yeah and a woman's right to choose is getting more and more under threat.
This is by the same people who say they support the Constitution, yet try to get religion (usually Christianity) in under the radar. The US is supposed to be religiously neutral, which works for me as I would take all of December off (12 days of Christmas, Hanukkah, St. Stephen's day, St. Nicholas's Day, etc.)
I could go on, but this ramble is getting me annoyed.
Additionally, the masses say that Parker v. DC was "correctly decided" despite the fact that it goes against just about everything proper in legal reasoning (e.g., stare decisis).
As P.T. Barnum said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".
Another thing which has me amazed is that public transport in the US is pitiful (with the exceptions of Washington, DC and New York). The price of fuel is finally catching up with the rest of the world, but it seems everyone wants and SUV or other gas guzzler. People also move out of the cities to the middle of nowhere and increase the traffic and amount of services needed so that there will soon be no natural spots.
Never mind global warming or recycling. Instead of demanding better public transport, people want more roads and bypasses. Sort of like some people think more guns means less crime, more cars will mean less traffic.
Oh, yeah, how could I forget health care, which sucks in the USA. I mean I have health insurance and I get the bottom of the barrel care. A national health service, "socialised medicine" seems to be a fantastic idea. It's that word "socialised" which sounds like "Socialism".
Oh, yeah and a woman's right to choose is getting more and more under threat.
This is by the same people who say they support the Constitution, yet try to get religion (usually Christianity) in under the radar. The US is supposed to be religiously neutral, which works for me as I would take all of December off (12 days of Christmas, Hanukkah, St. Stephen's day, St. Nicholas's Day, etc.)
I could go on, but this ramble is getting me annoyed.
10 May 2007
Zionists!
Anybody who knows me, knows that I am not anti-Jewish or even really anti-Israel.
Well, other than having qualms about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, but not every Israeli tolerates that either. So, as long as someone supports the right of return and full citizenship for everyone in the state of Israel, I don't have a problem.
And I'd send you to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ as well.
On the other hand, I have a problem with Zionists.
You might be surprised who they are. Sure, there are a few Jews in that crowd, but a whole lot of them are Christians.
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to God's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.
Examples of Christian leaders combining political conservatism with Christian Zionism are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leading figures of the Christian Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Falwell said in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel." They cite part of Genesis 27:29 Those who curse you [Israel] will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.
The government of Israel has given official encouragement to Christian Zionism, allowing the establishment in 1980 of an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The main function of the embassy is to enlist worldwide Christian support for Israel. The embassy has raised funds to help finance Jewish immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union, and has assisted Zionist groups in establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Deep down, these folks would be happy if every Jew in Israel were incinerated, especially if that brings the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times.
Oy gevalt!
Well, other than having qualms about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, but not every Israeli tolerates that either. So, as long as someone supports the right of return and full citizenship for everyone in the state of Israel, I don't have a problem.
And I'd send you to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ as well.
On the other hand, I have a problem with Zionists.
You might be surprised who they are. Sure, there are a few Jews in that crowd, but a whole lot of them are Christians.
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to God's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.
Examples of Christian leaders combining political conservatism with Christian Zionism are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leading figures of the Christian Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Falwell said in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel." They cite part of Genesis 27:29 Those who curse you [Israel] will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.
The government of Israel has given official encouragement to Christian Zionism, allowing the establishment in 1980 of an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The main function of the embassy is to enlist worldwide Christian support for Israel. The embassy has raised funds to help finance Jewish immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union, and has assisted Zionist groups in establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Deep down, these folks would be happy if every Jew in Israel were incinerated, especially if that brings the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times.
Oy gevalt!
07 May 2007
More Parker vs. the District of Columbia
I called Judge Silberman senile in a previous post and I now stand by that after reading this decision.
Unlike everyone else on the web who has no legal knowledge and calls this "the correct decision", this decision is only worthy of picking up my dog poop. Silberman must have let his clerk write this and not proof read it if he isn't senile.
There are four reasons this is crap:
1) Stare decisis
2) Misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
3) Poor scholarship and use of citations.
4) Silly logic
Let's start with stare decisis. Judge Silberman should know this as it's something everyone learns before law school and should have grasped by first term. Sure US law schools are dogshit, but come on--it's a basic.
Stare decisis for those of you who don't understand it. including you Judge Silberman, is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. More fully, the legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet" (the phrase "quieta non movere" is itself a famous maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").
The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.
Stare decisis is one of the basics for the rule of law, which is predictability. It screws the system up if some joker judge decides he doesn't like precedent.
In short, Silberman, you have to follow precedent if the Supreme Court makes a ruling whether or not you agree with it until it is overturned. You buck that tradition in violation of the principle of stare decisis.
Which takes us to point number 2, misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Judge Silberman, while the ignorant classes can say that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the Supremes have said it only guarantees a collective right. Other courts understand this. You have the dubious distinction of writing an opinion which contradicts this rather large corpus of decisions which take the collective right position.
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002) isn't really an exception since the court there was sensible enough to use their opinion as a soap box for the idiotic "individual rights" argument you actually use! The Emerson court only spouted that shit as dicta, you actually use it as logic for your ruling.
I have serious wonders if you cheated to get through law school given the scholarship of your opinion. Did you actually read what you quote? I can expect that sort of ignorance from the hoi polloi, but not someone who is allegedly educated.
You would find that your sources contradict your opinion and support the dissent's opinion. I would much rather embarrass you in public by having you sue me for slander, but your quote From Cooley, which is short enough you should have read it:
SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared 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."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]
The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.
What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.[1]
-[1] 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.
Summing up Cooley, the Right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon militia service which is a counterbalance to a standing army. In fact, a militia means there shouldn't be a standing army.
Have you seen the how much money is budgeted lately for the military each year. Silberman? Doesn't sound like the militia is a very vibrant institution.
Actually, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840) is a much better repudiation of your logic since the right to keep and bear arms relates to military service, that is training for militia duty.
The right to keep and bear arms as mentioned in the Second Amendment is not a personal one. Look to state constitutions for examples of how it would be written if it were intended to have been a personal right.
Which takes me to point number 4: silly logic.
Using your logic, I am allowed to keep machineguns, tanks Chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons.
Take the recent US invasion of Iraq with it's shock and awe would a mere firearm do to repel such a foe? The same goes for a tyrant. I mean, People were, and are, armed to the teeth in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He just used Chemical weapons on them.
What would repel a tyrant like that other than an H-bomb?
Now, should individuals be allowed such weaponry?
Anyway, it is obvious from Cooley and the post-Miller precedents that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (Militia set up under Article I, Section 8) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
I mean, where does this stuff about not having standing armies come in? Does that make any sense to you? Did you miss that in what minimal research you did to write this?
What is the real agenda for trying to come up with an "individual right". I mean do you want to abolish the standing army in favour of a citizen's militia like what Switzerland had at one time? Does that really make any sense to you? Did you fail to think all this through?
Anyway, I have this H-bomb I need to register thanks to your categorising the right to keep arms "suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression" as an individual right.
Unlike everyone else on the web who has no legal knowledge and calls this "the correct decision", this decision is only worthy of picking up my dog poop. Silberman must have let his clerk write this and not proof read it if he isn't senile.
There are four reasons this is crap:
1) Stare decisis
2) Misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
3) Poor scholarship and use of citations.
4) Silly logic
Let's start with stare decisis. Judge Silberman should know this as it's something everyone learns before law school and should have grasped by first term. Sure US law schools are dogshit, but come on--it's a basic.
Stare decisis for those of you who don't understand it. including you Judge Silberman, is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. More fully, the legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet" (the phrase "quieta non movere" is itself a famous maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").
The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.
Stare decisis is one of the basics for the rule of law, which is predictability. It screws the system up if some joker judge decides he doesn't like precedent.
In short, Silberman, you have to follow precedent if the Supreme Court makes a ruling whether or not you agree with it until it is overturned. You buck that tradition in violation of the principle of stare decisis.
Which takes us to point number 2, misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Judge Silberman, while the ignorant classes can say that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the Supremes have said it only guarantees a collective right. Other courts understand this. You have the dubious distinction of writing an opinion which contradicts this rather large corpus of decisions which take the collective right position.
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002) isn't really an exception since the court there was sensible enough to use their opinion as a soap box for the idiotic "individual rights" argument you actually use! The Emerson court only spouted that shit as dicta, you actually use it as logic for your ruling.
I have serious wonders if you cheated to get through law school given the scholarship of your opinion. Did you actually read what you quote? I can expect that sort of ignorance from the hoi polloi, but not someone who is allegedly educated.
You would find that your sources contradict your opinion and support the dissent's opinion. I would much rather embarrass you in public by having you sue me for slander, but your quote From Cooley, which is short enough you should have read it:
SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared 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."
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]
The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.
What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.[1]
-[1] 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.
Summing up Cooley, the Right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon militia service which is a counterbalance to a standing army. In fact, a militia means there shouldn't be a standing army.
Have you seen the how much money is budgeted lately for the military each year. Silberman? Doesn't sound like the militia is a very vibrant institution.
Actually, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840) is a much better repudiation of your logic since the right to keep and bear arms relates to military service, that is training for militia duty.
The right to keep and bear arms as mentioned in the Second Amendment is not a personal one. Look to state constitutions for examples of how it would be written if it were intended to have been a personal right.
Which takes me to point number 4: silly logic.
Using your logic, I am allowed to keep machineguns, tanks Chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons.
Take the recent US invasion of Iraq with it's shock and awe would a mere firearm do to repel such a foe? The same goes for a tyrant. I mean, People were, and are, armed to the teeth in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He just used Chemical weapons on them.
What would repel a tyrant like that other than an H-bomb?
Now, should individuals be allowed such weaponry?
Anyway, it is obvious from Cooley and the post-Miller precedents that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (Militia set up under Article I, Section 8) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
I mean, where does this stuff about not having standing armies come in? Does that make any sense to you? Did you miss that in what minimal research you did to write this?
What is the real agenda for trying to come up with an "individual right". I mean do you want to abolish the standing army in favour of a citizen's militia like what Switzerland had at one time? Does that really make any sense to you? Did you fail to think all this through?
Anyway, I have this H-bomb I need to register thanks to your categorising the right to keep arms "suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression" as an individual right.
01 May 2007
"Mission Accomplished"?????
It was four years ago that George Bush announced that the mission was accomplished in Iraq.
Sure, it doesn't seem that way to the vast majority of us, but I've been thinking about it.
The Iraqis don't really need democracy. And the US can't really expect to install it there anyway for a myriad of reasons. The US system is a republic, not a democracy for one. The other is that the US has a president who wasn't popularly elected (Well, I didn't vote for him). Anyway, the will of the people is thwarted by special interest groups, such a AIPAC and the NRA.
I mean is that a democracy?
AIPAC is the group which really wanted this war to try and relieve Israel and put a US base in the region to save Israel's sorry ass. I don't think there were many people who wanted this last war.
Well, maybe with the exception of the people who thought there REALLY were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the mission was accomplished. This is the crowd that thinks having a gun in your home makes you safer despite much more scientific showings that you are more likely to harm a family member with your gun. You know "more guns, less crime."
Which brings us to the NRA, which tells us that it is freedom if everybody has a gun. Going on that Iraq was free under Saddam. But they are freer now since Saddam is gone and lord knows who is really running the show. I mean the daily body count.
As the NRA tells us: "It's the price of freedom!"
Which is why nothing gets done about firearms in this country and we have a long way to go until we are as free as Iraq. Hell, they top Virginia Tech everyday and everybody has a gun.
Never mind that most people in this country want firearms regulation, but that is blocked by a minority of gun toting [insert your choice of epithet here].
Now, isn't an armed minority holding the will of the people hostage tyranny?
I mean we are living in terror which is similar to Iraq. Of course, we are going to teach the Iraqis about democracy and the American system. But, how can we do that when the will of the people is thwarted by lord knows who.
So, does all that explain to you how Dubious could say "Mission Accomplished" on that battleship four years ago?
Sure, it doesn't seem that way to the vast majority of us, but I've been thinking about it.
The Iraqis don't really need democracy. And the US can't really expect to install it there anyway for a myriad of reasons. The US system is a republic, not a democracy for one. The other is that the US has a president who wasn't popularly elected (Well, I didn't vote for him). Anyway, the will of the people is thwarted by special interest groups, such a AIPAC and the NRA.
I mean is that a democracy?
AIPAC is the group which really wanted this war to try and relieve Israel and put a US base in the region to save Israel's sorry ass. I don't think there were many people who wanted this last war.
Well, maybe with the exception of the people who thought there REALLY were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the mission was accomplished. This is the crowd that thinks having a gun in your home makes you safer despite much more scientific showings that you are more likely to harm a family member with your gun. You know "more guns, less crime."
Which brings us to the NRA, which tells us that it is freedom if everybody has a gun. Going on that Iraq was free under Saddam. But they are freer now since Saddam is gone and lord knows who is really running the show. I mean the daily body count.
As the NRA tells us: "It's the price of freedom!"
Which is why nothing gets done about firearms in this country and we have a long way to go until we are as free as Iraq. Hell, they top Virginia Tech everyday and everybody has a gun.
Never mind that most people in this country want firearms regulation, but that is blocked by a minority of gun toting [insert your choice of epithet here].
Now, isn't an armed minority holding the will of the people hostage tyranny?
I mean we are living in terror which is similar to Iraq. Of course, we are going to teach the Iraqis about democracy and the American system. But, how can we do that when the will of the people is thwarted by lord knows who.
So, does all that explain to you how Dubious could say "Mission Accomplished" on that battleship four years ago?
26 April 2007
Neo-Conned on gun control
Would it surprise you that one of the proposals for the Second Amendment was:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Not that I am making this up Elbridge Gerry said during the ratification debates:
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Usually, when people discuss this they neglect things like this from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the US Constitution:
. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
Patrick Henry's response to the Constitution Article I, Section 8 was "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny." Which then led to this great quote which has been taken out of context ""The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance....""
Now, I know it's a popular belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun, but why has this stuff about Standing Armies and congress's power over the militia been left out of the debate?
Even more salient, why has all this individual's right nonsense come up in the last 50 years? I mean up until the 1980s, the Second Amendment was pretty much a dead issue as far as scholarship goes. Then, there came all this "new scholarship" in the 1990s.
Actually, the confusion probably began back in the 50s and 60s when the term "citizen soldiers" came to mean draftees.
Excuse me. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."
That is the standing army v. the militia, the professional soldiers v. the amateurs. The militias are the citizen soldiers, as distinguished from those trained to arms as a profession, and who constitute elements of a standing army. Since both the States and Congress shared concurrent authorities over the militia, it was essential to protect the people who made up the militias from any pretense of Congress in disarming them for the establishment of a standing army.
Now, with Iraq, which is a perfect example of what the founders were afraid of in the debates, an out of control leader with a standing army running amuck, and Virginia Tech, which isn't what the founders had in mind, doesn't this seem particularly germane?
I mean who stands to gain from all this if the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear anything, but a security of the people to keep and bear arms for purposes of maintaining public militias as a guard against a standing army?
I mean everybody comes off looking like dickheads if what all this means is that Iraq shouldn't have happened, because we should have been demanding a Swiss style military instead of screaming about how having more guns in the streets makes us "safe".
So, while we are scared shitless of the Columbines and Virginia Techs, the Military Industrial Complex is laughing their asses off and seeing the tyranny that the founders anticipated happening with the establishment of a professional, standing army!
Think about it!
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Not that I am making this up Elbridge Gerry said during the ratification debates:
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Usually, when people discuss this they neglect things like this from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the US Constitution:
. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
Patrick Henry's response to the Constitution Article I, Section 8 was "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny." Which then led to this great quote which has been taken out of context ""The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance....""
Now, I know it's a popular belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun, but why has this stuff about Standing Armies and congress's power over the militia been left out of the debate?
Even more salient, why has all this individual's right nonsense come up in the last 50 years? I mean up until the 1980s, the Second Amendment was pretty much a dead issue as far as scholarship goes. Then, there came all this "new scholarship" in the 1990s.
Actually, the confusion probably began back in the 50s and 60s when the term "citizen soldiers" came to mean draftees.
Excuse me. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."
That is the standing army v. the militia, the professional soldiers v. the amateurs. The militias are the citizen soldiers, as distinguished from those trained to arms as a profession, and who constitute elements of a standing army. Since both the States and Congress shared concurrent authorities over the militia, it was essential to protect the people who made up the militias from any pretense of Congress in disarming them for the establishment of a standing army.
Now, with Iraq, which is a perfect example of what the founders were afraid of in the debates, an out of control leader with a standing army running amuck, and Virginia Tech, which isn't what the founders had in mind, doesn't this seem particularly germane?
I mean who stands to gain from all this if the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear anything, but a security of the people to keep and bear arms for purposes of maintaining public militias as a guard against a standing army?
I mean everybody comes off looking like dickheads if what all this means is that Iraq shouldn't have happened, because we should have been demanding a Swiss style military instead of screaming about how having more guns in the streets makes us "safe".
So, while we are scared shitless of the Columbines and Virginia Techs, the Military Industrial Complex is laughing their asses off and seeing the tyranny that the founders anticipated happening with the establishment of a professional, standing army!
Think about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
