Helpless dependence on society was considered a personal flaw back then. It seems like the frustrated misfits on the Left side of the Bell curve have taken over the educational system and become able to decide elections.
It wasn't the first. After one incident I found myself trying to calm an angry crowd, then realized I was standing and speaking in front of a Nazi flag. It was meant to protest the police overreaction, not me, but the positioning was unfortunate. Luckily that was before cell phone cameras and no one took a picture before I moved. I did tell the crowd what it wanted to hear and it broke up.
It's hard to say how well trained in MOUT we should want the police to be for what we hope are uncommon occurrences.
The regional SWAT commander teaches at the SIG Academy, which tells what at least some of the police think of armed civilians. I'm tempted to attend.
Unless you've been to reenactments it's hard to appreciate how much dense smoke obscures the area between the lines on a calm day. Movies don't really show it properly because a blank white screen isn't interesting.
But the whole human race does that, too.
Ed, would you share your thoughts on this?
Interesting entry in Wiki for the 10th Amendment:
"In 1998, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Actviolated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional."
What ever happened to that ruling?
sucksrangers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You argue that modern weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment, because they did not exist, and could not have been foreseen, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Yet you reject the entirely parallel argument that modern communications media are not protected by the First Amendment, because they did not exist, and could not have been foreseen, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Your hypocrisy could not be more plain.
That's interesting. I've wondered why Howe abandoned Boston without a fight.
Or failed to cooperate with Burgoyne.
-jsw
Ed, would you share your thoughts on this?
Interesting entry in Wiki for the 10th Amendment:
"In 1998, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Actviolated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional."
What ever happened to that ruling?
=============================================================== [Ed]
The description of the case is incorrect. What was challenged by Printz was an interim provision of the Brady Bill that required state police officials to conduct background checks. He did not challenge the entire Brady Bill.
Congress had no trouble changing the provision because the *voluntary* compliance by the states was almost universal. Then, shortly thereafter, the federal database was established, which took the police (and the states) out of the equation.
The issue, therefore, is now moot.
I'm sure the FBI still has their remote photo in your file, Jim. ;) Hopefully, it also has the text of your quick speech.
P.S: I wouldn't want to be photographed in front of one, either.
For their sake, lots. It may save many of their lives. For our sake, in our cities, none. Military mindset is kill first, then ask questions; just the opposite of proper police mindset. They also escalate a bit more quickly. (pistol => tank)
It all depends on how it's used, and how good the intel driving it. Generally, the militarization of our police force is a bad direction, one which could easily be mistaken by us. Hmm, militarization of police, billions of rounds of ammo, thousands of full-auto rifles, millions of body bags, millions of plastic coffins, estimates of freeze dried food mfgr stocks, thousands of armored personnel tanks, all going to Homeland Security? I don't think we're mistaken in being extremely uneasy with all those orders piled on top of each other in the past couple years...
Go for it, Jim. Get to know the guy so you have an insider's feel of the pulse during situations around your area. It could prove to be a life-saving acquaintance. And gun training of _any_ sort is always a plus.
Wow, their $215 basic practical handgun course round count is 250! That's some hands-on course. Cha-ching!
A belated -hearty- thanks to Gen. Howe!
Once again: I did NOT say that the 1A doesn't apply to modern media. I said that WHEN someone challenges the rights of a person to communicate on modern media based on the 1A not being applicable, there will be something to talk about.
The significant difference between guns and telephones is that it's very, very rare that someone gets killed with a telephone.
====
False. One immediate response to a terrorist threat is to shut down cellular service to disable phone-triggered bombs. The retreating Wehrmacht booby-trapped phones to kill Allied officers.
The Second confers the right to -possess- firearms, but the threshhold to legally use them against others is so high that fearing armed law-abiding citizens is neurotic paranoia, for which the proper treatment is psychiatric rather than political.
The First however is a license to freely attack and kill a political career.
====
False. One immediate response to a terrorist threat is to shut down cellular service to disable phone-triggered bombs. The retreating Wehrmacht booby-trapped phones to kill Allied officers.
The Second confers the right to -possess- firearms, but the threshhold to legally use them against others is so high that fearing armed law-abiding citizens is neurotic paranoia, for which the proper treatment is psychiatric rather than political.
================================================================ [Ed]
But how do you know which one is the nutcase or criminal? I mean, the law-abiding citizens are armed in the first place because they know the nutjobs and criminals are out there, right?
Can you tell by the shine on their shoes? d8-)
Once the paranoia begins, it tends to accelerate. For example, cops carrying AR-15s.
==================== They are all guilty until proven innocent. Kill them all, let God sort them out.
sucksrangers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
I know that. That's exactly my point: you believe that the First Amendment *does* apply to modern media, but that the Second Amendment *does not* apply to modern weapons.
You're missing the point rather badly -- so badly, in fact, that it's hard to avoid concluding that you're doing so intentionally.
Ownership of both is a Constitutionally protected right, irrespective of their purposes.
sucksrangers wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
I know that. That's exactly my point: you believe that the First Amendment
*does* apply to modern media, but that the Second Amendment *does not* apply to modern weapons.You're missing the point rather badly -- so badly, in fact, that it's hard to avoid concluding that you're doing so intentionally.
Ownership of both is a Constitutionally protected right, irrespective of their purposes.
========================================================================== [Ed]
When you can mow down a couple of dozen schoolchildren with an electronic version of an Underwood typewriter, you'll have a point. Until then, the benefits of widely disseminating speech, versus the problem caused by widely disseminating bullets, makes the comparison sound a little nuts. I have no doubt the FFs would have recognized the distinction. Had they known what we know now, they might have written things a little differently.
A minor inconvenience for criminals leading to the first straw purchases. OTOH, they didn't have the Attorney General on their side wil the cartels do now.
Really? $200 was a months pay to register the Thompson or short barreled shotgun that you owned legally yesterday. I'd call that an infringement of their rights
SCOTUS says they do, but SCOTUS has been wrong before, especially when power wants to abuse human rights.
David
A minor inconvenience for criminals leading to the first straw purchases. OTOH, they didn't have the Attorney General on their side wil the cartels do now.
=============================================================== [Ed]
That's a nutty and inaccurate thing to say.
===============================================================
Really? $200 was a months pay to register the Thompson or short barreled shotgun that you owned legally yesterday. I'd call that an infringement of their rights.
============================================================== [Ed]
Then you'd need some more time spent studying constitutional law. A Thompson has no legitimate civilian use. It is a military gun designed for certain kinds of combat, which worked out well for gangsters in gang wars, for the same reason.
For law-abiding civilians, it's a toy. The 2nd doesn't say you have a right to keep and bear toys. It says "arms." And the S.C., and every historical commentator going back to the beginning of the 19th century, explained which civilian uses were legitimate. You could look at the drafts of the Virginia constitution, and the (defeated) proposal for the one in Pennsylvania, to see the extent of what was considered legitimate civilian uses. The Court, in Heller, cites several of the historical references.
Likewise, short-barreled shotguns. Their purpose is for concealment under a raincoat, for surprising an enemy in gang fights.
Two more points: If you follow the stream of thinking and rulings that led to confirmation of a constitutional right to own handguns (Heller), you'll see that it is based on ordinary civilian uses, not military uses.
And the second point: Guns aren't toys. You should have learned that in the Boy Scouts or in an NRA Safe Hunter course, if it wasn't part of your upbringing. If you want toy guns, get into paintball. It's fun.
SCOTUS says they do, but SCOTUS has been wrong before, especially when power wants to abuse human rights.
========================================================== [Ed]
They were right this time. All "rights" are subject to limitations, based on two (or three) different levels of "scrutiny" for their relationship to a compelling state's interest.
That's a judgment call. And that's why we have judges.
A minor inconvenience for criminals leading to the first straw purchases. OTOH, they didn't have the Attorney General on their side wil the cartels do now.
Really? $200 was a months pay to register the Thompson or short barreled shotgun that you owned legally yesterday. I'd call that an infringement of their rights
SCOTUS says they do, but SCOTUS has been wrong before, especially when power wants to abuse human rights.
David
============================================================= [Ed]
Eh, my last reply to your post was pretty short-tempered and crusty. 'Sorry about that. I had a long day and I had to close the August issue of my magazine today. That always makes me crusty. d8-)
Oh? I'm talking about an Attorney General who has been held in criminal contempt of Congress. Nutty, yes, inaccurate, no.
When did you get to decide that?
Ah, so it is an arm suitable for a member of the militia.
Nor does the 2nd say that some arms are militia arms and some are toys. Of course, you already noted that it was a military arm.
And in trench warfare, like the military has engaged in during WWI.
I see that as civilian as well as military uses.
I've done something like that with BB guns before paintball became popular. Fun for a while, but I found many in the group were deriving pleasure from it that I couldn't identify with.
I guess I see the compelling state's interests to be subserviant to the interests and rights of the citizen.
Who end up being, too often, just more political beasts.
I'm not able to place my faith and trust in the good will and integrity of politicians and bureaucrats. Their agendas seldom have much to do with citizen's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
David
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.