A stupid comment

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

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

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

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

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

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

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

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

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

The monetary crash is inevitable

If you are a good capitalist, then you should have no problem with banks failing, or people losing their houses since they are making bad money decisions. The problem is that you have been deceived. This video is an excellent exposition on the monetary system:

14 October 2008

I have been seeing a lot of things like this posted on the Internet recently:

My Dear brothers and sisters of light, I have just registered on ATS to send you this wonderful news and confirm something great that is about to happen. I am also a channeler for the Pleiadians and Galactic Federation of Light and there is a message I would like to share. I would like to confirm Blossom Good Childs message that I have also received and it’s wonderful news that this year on October 14th the GFL will show up in a super galactic space ship beyond human comprehension in size. I have channeled some of the details about the ship and it will be around 2,000 of our earth miles in diameter and will send loving messages to all the people of the world. This ship will cover entire cities and circle areas of earth for 3 days, no sky will be seen upon it’s arrival for those viewing it and this will cause panic among the masses but we shall not fear because they are here to reveal to the world that it’s time for our awakening, it’s time to realize we are not alone and that we are being watched over by a benevolent group of loving ET’s who look almost identical to us and consider us family in the stars.

They have carefully selected this time to show up and are doing it out of goodwill because of the great evils behind this world that we as humans cannot see for this cause they have decided to take action before it‘s to late, they do love us and care for us like family, they realize most of us our blind to the truths of this world and being controlled by something we do not really fully understand. It’s time to break free from wars, pestilence, famine, poverty, sickness, disease, rich and poor and all the world sufferings that people have purposely caused us. It’s time for us to demand these world afflictions and sufferings stop once and for all so everyone may ascend and properly evolve as the due time of the galactic alignment is coming soon. The help will soon arrive but we need to work together and assure each other not to lose faith, be prepared and spread the word, keep love in your heart, this love is the very light that connects us together with all life and light in the universe.

For this reason our family of light has chosen to come for us in this great time of need because they do know what the rulers of this world who are not even human are about to unleash before a great awakening occurs on the planet and they are here to set us free. These evil rulers have controlled those who rule as puppets and been the very reason for wars, famine, starvation, disease and great sufferings and they do not want the human race to succeed in a great awakening of the soul. They do not want us to learn who we really are and what are true capability is but for those who stand firm in love and light there is no stopping us.

If you are not a believer in any of this please remember I warned you as I have heard their voices personally and know of a surety this will happen. Please follow your heart and at least keep an open mind as they will surely show up as they have promised. When they do maybe then you will see the reality of this and then you can consider that all we have said is true, be prepared in mind and heart as those who rule this world will do all they can to stop you from believing and containing this information.

Please watch this video with love and Light to all!



Well, it beats what is contending to be elected in the States!

Why is the term "Conservative" synonymous with "Cretin" in US English?

Try this lady if you want a conservative woman: not some cretin like Sarah Palin. She can't have a thought on her own.

Tyranny

OK, isn't tyranny where people who are not local enact unpopular laws upon people without a vote? Isn't tyranny where people are spied upon for their political views? Isn't tyranny where people talk about Freedom, yet advocate policies which eliminate freedom?

Funny, but I am thinking about a group that runs around saying it protects America's First Freedom, yet works to overturn locally enacted laws enacted by locally elected officials. In particular, those of Washington, DC.

As I like to point out, Washington, DC's gun laws were popular among the people who enacted them: the citizens of Washington, DC.

But they sure pissed off people who didn't live there!

Now, it seems that the NRA wants to tell the US legislature how to draft Washington, DC's gun laws.

Funny, but the "Patriots" (or "traitors" in my opinion) during the War for American independence were protesting just that kind of action. Legislators from far away creating legislation for a populace without a vote. The United States would be much better off taking its legislation from Britain if that is the way it wishes to act.

I won't get into the spying aspect, but I will reiterate something I like to quote, Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Tell us more Mrs. Palin!

From Time Magazine:

The Obama campaign has a lot less margin for error than Reagan did in 1984, and it knows that. So while it is quick to point out inaccuracies in Palin's record — her claim that she firmly opposed the so-called Bridge to Nowhere and other wasteful Washington earmarks — the campaign is primarily relying on the public and the media to press Palin. Answers may be a long time coming, though, if McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace is to be believed. She suggested on MSNBC Thursday that the media has been so unfair to Palin that it doesn't deserve a chance to interview her, and that all anyone will see of Palin will be her public speeches. The Obama campaign wasted little time in latching onto this: "I assume the American people are going to demand that she account for her own record and for John McCain's agenda," says David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

OK, if Mrs. Palin is so tough, let her explain her record.

Not to mention the fact that she is supposedly very abrasive. Any opposition is seen as personal, which has no place in politics. Sarah Palin is divisive, not inclusive.

Shark Food Sarah.

Funny

Shouldn't this be in Red, White, and Blue?

These are the Alaska State Colours!

This is not a beauty contest Mrs. Palin!

Washington, DC is full of sharks and "Sarah Barracuda" will be shark food.

Her handlers are doing a wonderful job of keeping her out of the public eye and in an arena where she will be turned into mooseburgers. I mean why did she name her daughter a word that means "tits" anyway? I can't keep my mind off of that one and it would be a scream if the late night crowd found that one and started harping on it.

But what do you expect from a woman who has never been out of the US?

I am not sure if she considers the US a foreign country anyway.

I mean even though they are obfuscating her connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, that video makes me really question her connections to it.

I mean would Margaret Thatcher have done a welcome video for the Scottish National Party? She was for competition as well.

We need the truth here!

Anyway, I make no bones about it, my loyalties are to the UK, not the USA. So, Sarah, you are in good company!

At least Ms. Palin is willing to put her son where her mouth is as far as the Iraq war. Will she be so confident of a victory if he comes back in a box, or without some of his limbs?

Sorry, Sarah, but you are no Mrs. Pritchard.

You will be ripped to shreds.

It's 9 O'Clock. Do you know where your daughter is Mr. and Mrs. Palin?

Now, I know everyone is saying: lay off poor Bristol Palin (editorial note: WTF did the Palins give their kid a name which means "breasts" in British slang?) and her parents, but these are people who purport to believe in family values. Despite Sarah's claim that she is against corruption, she did fire an Alaskan State Trooper because he was having custody problems with Ms. Palin's sister.

Now, why couldn't they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don't run about saying "family values" like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself "a fucking redneck" who doesn't want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.

We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.

Also, doesn't "family values" mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?

OK, The Palins don't believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn't fair as she wasn't responsible in the first place. It's fine that the Palins don't believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.

On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.

If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people's business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person's personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.

On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.

Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others' religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.

Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.

I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.

I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.

So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.

You have nothing in common with those citizens of the "lower 48".

Sarah Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party

Lately, the Alaskan independence Party has changed its tune that Sarah Palin was a member. For some reason, the leader of the party remembered her as a member, but now the records show that it was only her husband. This is despite comments by high ranking AIP members that Gov Palin was a member.

Why the change of tune?

Also, why would Gov. Palin make an introductory address for a convention to a party of which she was not a member? Why would she say she holds the same ideals?



This video is an edited version of the above which has more info on Gov. Palin's relationship to the Alaskan independence Party:



Of course, I see nothing wrong with Gov. Palin wanting to see the destruction of the Failed states of America, but I worry about what will take its place. Those who rebelled against the Crown over 200 years ago were like bratty children, but we have to live with their mistakes.

So, fess up Sarah, what are your connections to the AIP?

Palinguage

John Ridley came up with a guide to Sarah Palin's Palinguage. A couple of examples are:

If you live in an urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy."

If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning, noon and night.)


Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

I would add in that it's useful that Sarah Palin is a life member of the NRA since it makes it easier to ensure her daughter will have shotgun weddings.

Sarah Palin is indeed a Washington outsider since she belongs to the extreme right wing fringe. I would say she is on the outside of most American politics.

I'll take my religious fanatic extra crispy!

The religious right needs to remember that the First Amendment was written to provide us from government interference in religious affairs. In fact, the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral.

Unfortunately, countries such as Britain with an official church show a much better example of religious tolerance than the religiously neutral United States. Somehow the belief that this is a Christian nation has become popular.

And given the tendency of Justice Robert's Supreme Court's to neglect inconvenient language in the constitution, we may be able to kill Catholics and burn protestants.

Nothing like a nice religious war.

I love Sarah Palin!

How can you not love someone who belonged to a political party that is dedicated to the destruction of the United States? Sarah was a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s, but I guess she decided to go more mainstream with the new Republican Party, which is working on making the Failed States of America a reality.

Not to mention she is the embodiment of the Bimbos for McCain caucus.

I also love her belief in family values and the advocacy of abstinance-based sex education. I know that oopses can happen in any family, but Sarah, you need to talk with your daughter about sex if you believe in abstinance-based sex education.

I mean isn't parental responsibility the real basis for abstinance-based sex education?

Another thing is that family values means you spend time with your family, not run around being mayor, governor, or vice president. You have a special needs child and a daughter with a bun in the oven, which shows you aren't being very good in the family values department.

Add in that it seems you cut funding for programs that help teenaged mothers. Now, Sarah dear, if you believe that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant, you are being a real hypocrite here. What are you doing running for political office? I guess it comes from the confusion between women's two roles in the far right wing paradigm, which doesn't account for women being anything of substance.

No, this isn't left wing hypocracy, but right wing hypocracy as someone attempts to force her beliefs upon other women. Sarah can remain confused whether she is a virgin or a whore for all I care, but other women would like to have a choice, especially when it comes to their reproductive rights. Abstinance-based sex education does not work, even in families which claim to have "family values", such as the Palins. And you can't go around cutting benefits for teen moms if you're going to advocate policies that bring more unwanted children into this world.

Do you realise how much grief poor, uneducated teenage mothers can bring to society, Sarah?

You can have 100 children, but that is your choice: do NOT force your belief about reproductive freedom on others.

As Cecile Richards said "expecting women to vote for Sarah Palin is like expecting chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders". The working class males who supported Hillary Clinton may support Sarah Palin since she is a piece of ass, but that is really hoping that the citizens of the United States are thicker than pig shit.

I guess that the republican party is really hopeful that racism will scare off voters from Obama to John McCain.

That is if Sarah Palin survives scrutiny. She may be the governor of the Largest US State (not for long if she had her way), but size doesn't matter, Sarah. It's population, not geographic size. The Alaska National Guard has fewer soldiers than a large lower 48 city has police officers.

So, the American people should vote for a bimbo from a huge ass state with more moose than people.

As for you, Sarah, you can do whatever you will with your life, but don't force your values upon others: especially if it will cost society.

Give me a break!

Yet another reason to not get a tattoo

if injecting car paint into the largest organ of your body wasn't enough of a reason. Karen Taylor from BBC 3 's Touch me I'm Karen Taylor

Crap this clip was yanked. Karen Taylor is a crappy tattoo artist with a hard man client who wants a tattoo that says "I love Arsenal" on his back, but she doesn't make it fit. Figure it out.

Instead, we have this method of dealing with armed robbers:

Joe Biden, DC v. Heller, and the Individual Right

When I thought I wasn't interested in the US Elections, the democrats give the ultimate fuck you to the RKBA crowd by putting Joe Biden in the Vice-presidential spot. You know, Joe Biden the bloke who told the dickless asshole with the assault rifle "if that is his baby, he needs help.I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns."

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:




Now, DC v. Heller, S.Ct Docket # 07-290, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) has come up with the most fucked up interpretation of the Second Amendment. Well, fucked up for everybody except the gun grabbers. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." That means pretty much that as long as guns are available, they can be regulated.

What did DC do? They went back to the pre-1976 law, which was still the strictest gun laws on the books! It just allowed for the possession of .38 revolvers with 4 inch barrels! Well, Heller can have his gun for self-defence.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Not to mention dickhead Bob Levy has come out to say that the Second Amendment cannot infringe upon property rights. He supports those business owners who want to keep guns off their property. What was he thinking?

Bob, if you lived in Germany in the 20s you would have supported Hitler because he hated Communists. I mean all that anti-semitic stuff wasn't really pertinent was it?

The problem is that the self-defence interpretation from New Scholarship which has become precedent for the time being only came about in the last 20 or so years.

As I like to say: show me where in the Second Amendment the term "self-defence" is mentioned! They only time the word defence is used in the Constitution is in regard to the "Common defence".

So, after the courts get pissed off with the frivolous law suits from felons who want to own guns and trying to sort of which right takes precedence self-defence or property, there is only one proper interpretation of the Second Amendment: the collective/civic/public/militia right. That is the one that ties the Second Amendment guarantee to ensuring the efficacy of Article I, Section 8 militias.

Anyway, the upshot is that the Democrats will all say they can't ban guns, that's unconstitutional.

Thank you Antonin Scalia for a totally screwed up and unscholarly piece of shit decision. You can't base law upon a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

The Law of abundance, manifesting, and my opinion

As I said in a previous post, it seems to me that if someone had the secret on how to use quantum physics to really create a better world, he wouldn't need to charge for the secret for a multitude of reasons. The first one being that few people would believe it. The Second one being that if you could produce that much abundance in the world, why would you need more money or abundant whatever? Additionally, wouldn't people be so grateful they would give you money?

I am reading a book called "Seed Money in Action" by Jon Speller and Kathleen Shedaker where they talk about how people give them donations after making money using the seed money concept. I am not really sure what the concept is, but it sounds a bit like the economic concept of the velocity of money, where money in use seems like there is a larger pool because it is being used. But they talk of "green energy" (or money energy if you live in countries where the currency is multicoloured) which something I have mentioned other places, maybe not here.

There was a program called "Jute City" that had one very memorable quote going along the lines of "money is basically an accounting principle in that it is used to trade resources. Once it becomes a commodity and can be horded, then it becomes evil because people are moving away from using it as a resource for facilitating trade". In other words, money as something that can be used to trade my services for tangiable goods is useful. But it's useless if I let it just accumulate.

So, "trickle down" economics is great in theory, but it's useless as a reality if the money isn't really moving and it gets stuck in the hands of a few people. But money isn't really the issue to me, although it is very nice and useful.

I have to admit if it comes to giving money and services in the belief that there will be an eventual return, I should be one of the world's wealthiest men. I mean part of the reason I do court appointments is the "pro-bono" aspect since it sure as heck isn't the money. And I have done loads of work for "pro-bono" without pay. Also, there is the Healy money, which if that ain't seed money, I don't know what it. I am still waiting for that one to come around and I could buy a few real Scottish Castles, like Balmoral.

But, the problem is that I can have all the money in the world, but I am still stuck with things as they are if that is where I put my focus. And if we are going with something like winning the big lottery prize, it is somewhat limited, unless I invest it as well.

For example, I would love a Smart. I had a deposit in for one, but the dealer called me a week ago. I couldn't buy it even if I had the money. First off, I don't really have a place to park it that I consider safe, convenient, or affordable. On the other hand, I could make it the size of my Maisto diecast 1:18 Smart and put it on my mantle if I could do magic.

Likewise, I could have a Scottish castle like Eilean Donan wherever I wanted it. Better yet, if it is a recent knock off, I can have it look old like Eilean Donan. So, I could have a little Scottish Village in the Adirondacks compleat with a super Indian and Thai restaurant that is near my Scottish castle. Not to mention also having a great kiltmaker and Scottish crafts store. The town would look exactly like Lochdubh!

Now, back to where I started from. What would you give me if I told you I could help you control your life. I mean look at this blurb:

Turn your dreams into reality with Psychic Manifestation

This will give you a MUCH deeper understanding of manifestation and how to design the future you desire. You'll discover:

• The KEY missing ingredient to supercharge the manifesting of your desires
• Why conflicts between your conscious and your subsconscious mind will sabotage your efforts in achieving your goals and what you MUST do to prevent this
• The force that changes psychic realities into phyical realities - understand the manifestation process clearly, and it WILL help you get the results you are after
• Why the physical world is not as solid as you think and this is why your mind really does have power over matter.
• Why consciousness can over ride some laws of physics ...and many more hidden secrets

But the person wants me to pay. Maybe it's that "seed money" thing, But I think I would be happy as heck sharing this secret if I knew it. And, as they point out in "Seed Money in Action", I would be happy to donate after I hit the big one.

Anyway, maybe someone can give me a hint here. As I said before: "Tell everyone what you want to do and someone will want to help you do it."

After all, I have some bagpipes I want set up properly (and am too lazy to do it myself), a house I want clean, a dog I want back from the dead, and so on and so forth.

Things money just can't buy.

Another interesting aside

I said a while back that the best way to ban or regulate "assault rifles" was to consider them machineguns citing the Federal Definition of a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)):

any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

From VPC's website:

The Court’s ruling today does not appear to affect the District’s ban on “machine guns,” which under DC law includes any gun “which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.” This definition would include virtually all semiautomatic handguns. As a result, the District’s ban can remain in force for those types of handguns, commonly known as pistols. In essence, the Court’s ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers.

So, forget registering a semi-auto pistol, unless it cannot accept a magazine larger than 11 rounds!

Also, anyone wanting to ban assault weapons could take the DC statute definition of machinegun. That makes it hard to skirt the ban with "sporter models" that made the last assault weapon ban a joke.

So, the real winners in DC v. Heller aren't the RKBA crowd, but the gun control crowd.

Take about blowback!

Why repeal the Second Amendment?

People who say this seem to have neglected that not only was the first part of the Second Amendment trashed (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), Justice Scalia also chopped off the last clause (shall not be infringed) with the same axe. Why, because he says that the decision is not meant “to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

So, what is left is a wholly, new right created whole cloth by the justices: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Justice Scalia has created a bastard right, and like any illegitimate child has refused to give it the proper tools to go forth into the world. This right can be reasonably infringed. But Justice Scalia didn't give his bastard child any guidance. The right is no longer with heritage since it has been abandoned by the document that gave it birth. It will go forth into the world to cause havoc in the judicial system since lower courts will refuse to invalidate many other gun laws, citing the court’s caveat regarding not doubting longstanding laws.

So, it is a phrase that has no meaning since the meaning it has had no longer exists.

Don't mourn the passing of the collective right interpretation as it will make a comeback as courts have to grasp the meaning of this bastard right. An originalist interpretation, at a minimum, must give respect to the meaning of every word of the Second Amendment, including its preamble. Second, the interpretation must situate the Second Amendment intra-textually within the context of the entire Constitution: meaning relate it the Congress's power to regulate the militia in article I, Section 8. Third, an originalist interpretation must be honest about the possibility of obsolescence -- namely, that something is in the Constitution which may have no modern analog. Fourth, to the extent it is consistent with the original understanding, precedent must be respected.

What do these principles suggest is the meaning of the Second Amendment? Just this:

The Second Amendment reflects the concerns of the founders that the federal government might exercise its Article I militia power to subjugate the people by disarming local militias in the several states. The Second Amendment was drafted to combat this particular fear, and therefore, the Second Amendment is no limitation whatsoever upon the authority of the people within the several states, by the power reserved to them under the 10th amendment, either to broadly protect individual rights of gun ownership or the opposite. So, when it comes to the States, they must argue vociferously that the Collective right interpretation is the correct interpretation and that DC. V Heller does not apply to the States since DC is a federal entity!

The local jurisdictions must not make the mistakes made by Walter Dellinger in his oral argument. Precedent is that the Second Amendment is to prevent the Federal Government from exercising it's article I, Section 8 powers over the states. The arguments made by Justices Stevens and Breyers in their dissents, buttressed by the majority's admonition to not overrule longstanding laws must be what the local jurisdictions use in their battles to preserve their gun laws. Anyone arguing must point out that this had the force of precedent and must remain precedent.

The only real meaning of DC v. Heller is that guns will never be banned for lawful uses.

San Francisco to vote on naming sewer after George Bush

This puts the DC v. Heller decision in World Perspective:
By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
The Independent (UK)
Friday, 27 June 2008

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

The plant that could be renamed the George W Bush Sewage Plant

Some presidents get carved into Mt Rushmore; others have airports, motorways, and even entire cities named in their honour. But when George Bush leaves office, his most visible memorial may be a mouldering patch of human effluent.

In November, alongside casting their ballot for the next president, the people of San Francisco will also vote on a measure to rename one of the city's largest sewage works the George W Bush Sewage Plant, to provide a "fitting monument" to the outgoing commander-in-chief's achievements.

Activists from the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a mischievously-named group behind the move, will ask supporters to participate in a "synchronised flush".

It may sound like a student prank, but the proposal is almost certain to be passed. Democrats usually secure between 70 and 80 per cent of the vote in San Francisco – and in 2006 passed a proposition to impeach Mr Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney by a majority of almost two to one.

"In 50 years from now, we want people to see George Bush's name on that plant, and ask each other what went wrong," said Brian McConnell, the Memorial Commission's organiser. "We want them to be reminded of the Iraq war, and his other dramatic mistakes, and this is the perfect way to do it."

The ballot takes advantage of local government rules, which state that any proposal supported by a petition carrying the signatures of more than 7,168 voters must go to the polls. At present, the supporters of the sewage plant proposal claim to have 8,500 signatures, and counting. If the measure passes, city authorities will be forced to erect a prominent sign bearing the legend "George W Bush Sewage Plant" at the site of the bayside facility.

Local Republicans call it an "abuse of process" and promised to "use all means" to defeat it, Howard Epstein, the party's spokesman, told the San Francisco Chronicle: "There's no use to this other than to make these nutcases feel good." The proposal even jollified yesterday's White House press briefing, where a spokesman three times refused to comment.

However, Mr McConnell claimed to have only noticed two forms of opposition during his campaign so far. "First, we get people who say they just want to forget George Bush's presidency," he said. "Second, we hear from those who say that sewage plants perform a valuable public service and, as such, it does not make sense to name one after George Bush."

Nothing changes.

I decided to talk to Jon Mirowitz who is, not sure how to describe him since "gun nut" tends to come to mind, but he is the expert on this. Jon eats, sleep, drinks, breaths, etc. guns. The only person I know who is more fanatic is Evan Nappen (google HIM!), but he is in NJ. Jon is of the opinion that this will need to be fleshed out in the Courts, but this is only the slip opinion. The problem is that no standard has been set, which means loads of litigation. Jon pointed out that this stuff was already being litigated, as in the PA Open Carry cases.

The problem is that Scalia said that certain laws were constitutional, but will DC go to a system which makes registering a handgun more impossible than any other firearm? Also, DC had requirements on storage and inspection of the firearms, even during the "ban" phase, are those OK? I would prefer to get a better opinion than that offered by the "chattering classes". There was an interesting piece at the Blog of the American Constitution Society by Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, who points out, as I do that the majority refused to adopt a standard of review for judging future disputes.

In Heller, the majority said that the decision is not meant “to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The Court, once again, is trying to avoid the obvious implications of its broad statement of the right to bear arms.

The Court did not provide an indication of what laws might be undermined by the newly recognized right. Don’t be surprised if lower courts refuse to invalidate many other gun laws, citing the court’s caveat regarding not doubting longstanding laws. If so, Heller would constitute the high-water mark for the individual right to bear arms — and we’ll be writing articles years from now about the birth and sudden death of a strong Second Amendment right to bear arms.

We can also guess whether the "collective right" school is dead or dormant given that a lot of courts may give up and say that it makes more sense. That standard, after all was the rationale used for most of those gun laws. The individual right articulated by the court is worse than the collective right interpretation. As one person pointed out, DC can ban guns while Kennesaw, GA can require everyone own them since the Amendment doesn't really go either way. This standard means that not much may change except politicians can keep repeating the mantra of gun rights to placate certain segments of the population as they enact strict gun laws.

We respect your gun rights, there can't be a complete ban on firearms since that's unconstitutional!

Nope, this will only lead to loads of litigation, so the Lawyers win! Not to mention, all those who were trumpeting their victory will be eating humble pie (Ha Ha, Gene Volokh!). Guns cannot be banned, but they can be strongly regulated. From the WSJ blog The District goes back to the law that existed prior to 1976. Back in those days, people could get handguns, subject to certain restrictions. There were, for instance, restrictions on the use of ammunition, and gun owners had to register their firearms. DC has a few federally licensed gun dealers who don't sell to the public (e.g., VPC's Josh Sugarman) and very stringent zoning laws that severely restrict where explosive devices can be sold. The powers that be in the District, the mayor, the city council, the police, and a good portion of DC's populace, are still very against the sale of guns and will do everything in their power to restrict it. At this point, bets are on that they use the zoning laws to keep the stores out.

A gun dealer looking for a place to open a shop in D.C. will have to take on the liability of opening a store in a crime-ridden area where the likelihood exists that he will be robbed and undergo an extremely tough background check. Not to mention that 76% of DC residents supported the gun ban. On the other hand, he tries to open in a more affluent part of the city where you’re going to get fought tooth and nail on zoning ordinances which has happened in Chevy Chase, MD when a fancy outdoors outfitter tried opening a "gun shop" that sold expensive shotguns. Either option, the gun dealer will have to deal with local opposition to opening a store. So, even if there is an "Individual right", the gun dealer with have to deal with local opposition to outside interference in DC's politics.

Also, there will be loads of opposition to gun ownership if there is an increase in "Gun violence" due to the creation of this new right. Not to mention the implications that this decision has on Constitutional interpretation. The real upshot is that the DC v. Heller decision has opened a pandora's box of litigation and implications that show it was not well thought out.