Still Hating America.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Stick with the "then" part of my parenthetical, then.

Sure, Nino.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, but they're fundamentally different, in that it no longer makes sense to require (or permit) people to keep arms so that they can muster out to join the militia in times of emergency.

I think all of this business about individual vs. group rights w/r/t to the Second Amendment misses the point -- it presumes too much about the framers. They provided for an individual right to bear arms for militia service, not thinking that technological development would lead to an entirely different military. They were writing before the internal combustion engine. The army was, essentially, men and horses.

I think that the founding fathers also intended to have the Second Amendment act as a break on the power of the federal government. The militias of the several states served as an implied check on the ability of the federal government to exercise too much power over the states.

That issue aside, I agree that the relationship has changed, and that the Second Amendment should not limit the power of the government to regulate or prohibit the possession of firearms.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In response to both you and Ty - under that logic, courts should be able to read/interpret what a militia is.

In that case, welcome to the dark side.

As written, I don't believe the first amendment permits time, place and manner restrictions. I also think those restricitons are rational, as are certain restrictions or regulation of gun ownership.

I am not enough of a colonial historian to know whether such restrictions were contemplated at the time of drafting. but if not, I probably agree with you as a matter of pure theory.

[Adder]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that the founding fathers also intended to have the Second Amendment act as a break on the power of the federal government. The militias of the several states served as an implied check on the ability of the federal government to exercise too much power over the states.

Given that the constitution does not contemplate any standing federal army, I am not sure I agree.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wan-na be in an anarchy... but I just don't have the jam.*

I'm an annoyed moderate unable to reconcile that politics and governance will never be rational exercises, and that reasoned compromise is radioactive to both proceses. The futility, stupidity and craven self-interest of it will always drive me to rants.

*Ok, Tax... nail those two records. Released within 20 months of each other. The first is easy. Good luck on the second.

The Pistols line is embarassing. The second one, I have no idea. I don't mind pulling a disc out and listening to a few tracks to pin down a lyric, but if I have google it, then that's pretty much a concession of defeat right there.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Zep IV beats the pistols and the stones. You bolluxed the quote from "some girls"; it is "I just dont have that much jam"

The Stones line is "I just don't have that much jazz."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think it's much of a deterrent. It didn't help Germany's Communists when the Nazis took over.

I have to agree with Ty on this one. If the government decides to take over your smith and wesson and going to do you much good against the 101st Airborne.

I am sory but an M-1 Tank, Flamethrower, phosphorous grenade, bazooka, and a self propelled gun, beat a hunting rifle (semiautomatic or not) every time.

[Tables R Us]

They dig chicks with firepower.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have to agree with Ty on this one. If the government decides to take over your smith and wesson and going to do you much good against the 101st Airborne.

I am sory but an M-1 Tank, Flamethrower, phosphorous grenade, bazooka, and a self propelled gun, beat a hunting rifle (semiautomatic or not) every time.

I like guns, but I don't think gun control policy should be a question of constitutional interpretation.

And I'd rather shoot a rifle than a pistol. YMMV.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

WTF is wrong with FEMA?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Newt Gingrich's first wife was his high-school biology teacher. Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
The upside, of course, is that we have only had one civil war, and no revolutions.

We had the revolution of 1800.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is that any worse than reading words into the constitution that are not there? Where in the constitution are the time, place and manner restrictons on speech? Or put another way, why have the courts been inable comprehend 'Congress . . . shall meak no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech?

Club, just fyi - the proper federalist interpretation is quite the opposite. Adams imprisioned those who spoke ill of him, as well as anyone who encouraged those French terrorists who didn't like kings and stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Give it up, Hoss.

Of the 4 federalist/libertarians on the Board, Sebby's become an anarchist, you've become a libertine, I've become a fascist, and Club's become a.... where the F is Club anyway?

eta: Okay, 5. Spanky's become a farmer.

The idea that federalists and libertarians can coexist is quite odd.

I believe I am the closest thing to a true libertarian on the board.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The idea that federalists and libertarians can coexist is quite odd.

I believe I am the closest thing to a true libertarian on the board.

How? I thought you believed in social engineering policies.