A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you have evidence of this, or can you just imagine how it could be true?

You run out of Gilligan episodes, or are you a one trick pony?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point was not about the limits or extent of state authority. My point is that though you seem to think that by "militia" the framers were refering to whatever unruly mob might show up on the spur of the moment to protect the commonweal, and that the framers meant to ensure that these villagers had not only torches and pitchforks but guns as well, in point of fact the colonial militias were organized affairs that were "regulated" by state law requiring, e.g., regular muster and things of that sort. Colonial militias looked more like today's National Guard than you seem to think. And if you don't believe me, read Miller.

That was your smaller point. Your bigger point, I think, was that the proposed SF ban on guns would be constitutional, and that is what I was referring to.

As for the intent, like I said before, I could care less. Maybe its just the corporate lawyer in me, but as I'm sure you can imagine, there are countless drafts that are exchanged between parties before a definitive agreement is reached, and what matters is the words that appear on that page, because, in the end, that is the language all could live with. Some of the language is crystal clear. Other language is left open intentionally, usually because one or more of the parties think they have an advantage in keeping that way. To try to reconstruct what the various parties were thinking at the time is futile. And all that is just for a basic contract.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your kids, or whomever you bequeath it to - not the government - have the equitable, legal* and moral right to your money.

You do realize that to the extent that this is true, it is only because that is what the society and the state have decided, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That was your smaller point. Your bigger point, I think, was that the proposed SF ban on guns would be constitutional, and that is what I was referring to.

I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what. In my view, the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry firearms for people who are not in a militia.

As for the intent, like I said before, I could care less. Maybe its just the corporate lawyer in me, but as I'm sure you can imagine, there are countless drafts that are exchanged between parties before a definitive agreement is reached, and what matters is the words that appear on that page, because, in the end, that is the language all could live with. Some of the language is crystal clear. Other language is left open intentionally, usually because one or more of the parties think they have an advantage in keeping that way. To try to reconstruct what the various parties were thinking at the time is futile. And all that is just for a basic contract.

That makes sense with a contract, where there is a Parole Evidence Rule,* and other law establishing background presumptions that the parties can build on. That backdrop just isn't there with the Constitution. I don't personally subscribe slavishly to original intent, but that's because you have years of judicial decisions interpreting the document. To say that you're going to interpret the Constitution according to its words, stripped from their original context and without regard to what courts in the interim have made of them, strikes me as lunacy. Though potentially interesting as an academic matter.


*WARNING: May not apply in California.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The FCC is going to lose it all if it persists in the massive fines against broadcasters. Powell needs to worry not about expanding the scope of indecency regulation, but retaining any authority whatsoever. It boggles my mind as to why he'd push the issue to the front burner, given his desire to censor. Better to issue small fines, that companies won't challenge, and cause the nets to self-censor.

How will they challenge them, and how will the FCC "lose it all"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
You run out of Gilligan episodes, or are you a one trick pony?

You ain't Gilligan, no offense. If you had been around back then, when GGG was all full of himself and all, you might have taken Gilligan honors. But you weren't around.

By the way, I was going to leave you alone after my post- but now? You've picked the scab. Guardez!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because a normal lay wouldn't be enough to loosen you up. You need something a little saucier.

mmmm saucier

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You ain't Gilligan, no offense. If you had been around back then, when GGG was all full of himself and all, you might have taken Gilligan honors. But you weren't around.

By the way, I was going to leave you alone after my post- but now? You've picked the scab. Guardez!

I don't know if my fragile psyche can handle it...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suspect that those numbers and the current numbers are fairly close as a percentage of the population.

I know I should STP, but Club -- the "permanent Army" (i.e. active duty) now numbers about 600,000 IIRC. Adding the other branches take the total well over a million. (Too lazy to look it up.)

So, your suggestion that the ratio of Army to Population is the same now as when the USA was in its infancy, is a suggestion that the combined population of the first thirteen states was less than 18,000 people (very roughly).

That's a bit low.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by baltassoc

mmmm . . . . saucier!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
How will they challenge them, and how will the FCC "lose it all"?

The FCC imposes a fine. The network say "you can't"under the governing authorities. It then takes the case to a court of appeals (or the FCC seeks to collect the fine). Network bases appeal on ground that imposing fines violate first amendment. Court pops FCC, overrulign Red Lion etc.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I know I should STP, but Club -- the "permanent Army" (i.e. active duty) now numbers about 600,000 IIRC. Adding the other branches take the total well over a million. (Too lazy to look it up.)

So, your suggestion that the ratio of Army to Population is the same now as when the USA was in its infancy, is a suggestion that the combined population of the first thirteen states was less than 18,000 people (very roughly).

That's a bit low.

[deleted] misread your post.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what. In my view, the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry firearms for people who are not in a militia.

I understand your view, but I'm trying to figure out how you get there. Your view makes sense with respect to the prohibition on the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms, because it assumes state regulation of militias. But I don't follow how that applies once the 2nd amendment is applied to the states.

That makes sense with a contract, where there is a Parole Evidence Rule,* and other law establishing background presumptions that the parties can build on. That backdrop just isn't there with the Constitution. I don't personally subscribe slavishly to original intent, but that's because you have years of judicial decisions interpreting the document. To say that you're going to interpret the Constitution according to its words, stripped from their original context and without regard to what courts in the interim have made of them, strikes me as lunacy. Though potentially interesting as an academic matter.

I don't view them as that different. A contract is a memorialization of an agreement, which is the product of negotiation. Same with the constitution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand your view, but I'm trying to figure out how you get there. Your view makes sense with respect to the prohibition on the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms, because it assumes state regulation of militias. But I don't follow how that applies once the 2nd amendment is applied to the states.

Then state regulation is similarly constrained -- no more, no less.

The colonial "regulation" of militias that I was describing had more to do with what had to be done to ensure a functioning militia than with limiting other activities of citizens.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I know I should STP, but Club -- the "permanent Army" (i.e. active duty) now numbers about 600,000 IIRC. Adding the other branches take the total well over a million. (Too lazy to look it up.)

So, your suggestion that the ratio of Army to Population is the same now as when the USA was in its infancy, is a suggestion that the combined population of the first thirteen states was less than 18,000 people (very roughly).

That's a bit low.

The Boston Globe had an article on the armed forces today that put total numbers in the armed forces at about 1.2 million, down from 2 million in 1990.

The 1790 census showed a population of about 4 million. Oddly, the population may have been in decline at that moment, since a lot of tories had been moving to Canada over the prior decade. Also, the census wouldn't have reflected the full slave population and was pretty iffy in the frontier areas. (Native Americans wouldn't have been reflected but are likely better conceived of as a separate nation sharing some of the same geography; certainly they wouldn't be contributing much to military forces). So gross up by some factor from the 4 million.

The important thing though is not the number but the different conception of the militia and of guns, which is really radically different than the roles played today.

I believe the right to bear guns at the time of the constitution was probably conceived as a near universal right for white men who were loyal to the government and available for military service. It certainly would not extend to blacks or Native Americans, and suspect there were mixed views on tories and immigrants (the US at the time had not seen large waves of immigration for some time, since the great migration and the palatine immigrations ended). Certainly, there was a feeling you could disarm the upstarts involved in Shea's rebellion.

I also think that the right to bear arms was likely linked with the idea that you needed an armed population without the government paying for the arms.

I'm not sure what this says about the 2nd Amendment today, since the idea of universal service is very far from anyone's agenda, especially with a President who has pledged not to draft.