Jump to content
"I can tell you the government ain't looking to defend or protect you, but to expand its power domestically and internationally."
A far cry from government's purpose being to protect our freedom, not our safety. Defending citizens from terrorists shouldn't even be an expectation of Americans. That isn't the oath.
I think if the 21st Century has taught us anything, it's that the Anti-Federalists were right about the dangers of standing armies. They were also right, to a certain extent, about militias -- witness whatever winter shortly after the 2003 Iraq War killed so many cattle on the Eastern Plains of CO, which normally would've had hay airlifted to them by the National Guard. Even if the personnel had been there, the equipment wasn't. Also absent for a few winters were recoilless rifles used in avalanche control.
(Don't get me started about wings falling off C-130 firefighting tankers the CIA used to use for drug running, or General Singlaub's compound up Poudre Canyon.)
Not only should the National Guard never have been mobilized for foreign wars, but the Posse Comitatus Act should never have been secretly rescinded (there's a suggestive unredacted footnote) to compensate. The 2nd Amendment is why I think the CO National Guard should stay here and be plenty busy -- for exactly the same reasons the Georgia militia didn't want to be marched to New Hampshire, except for the slave uprisings.
So I only digress a little.
I'm just sittin' here tryin' to count police chiefs in Oak Creek stretchin' back to Reggie. On average, one every two years? Compared to two per year in Oakland? At least that's my perspective on things these days. OCPD's as good as it's ever been, right now, so I see and hear. Keep up the good work, guys! Thanks for the friendly VIN inspections (Sheriff's Dept. too on that, recent housetruck purchase), etc.
On that note, thanks to State Patrol around here (well, post-Trooper-who-shall-not-be-named) as well! I recently had some not-so-pleasant things to say about a spokesperson over in the Vail Valley, what I forgot to say is that Sgt. Elliott does one heckuva job hereabouts in that capacity, and many others. New Unimog needs certified VIN inspection, but I swear I'm not greasin' the skids or anything! :)
SSPD -- jury's still out, all I'm sayin'.
It's really sad that Scott has to be the one to surface this. Council members should be aware of their legal responsibilities, and the City Attorney should be the one to remind them if need be. Not private citizens.
Except it really isn't. At least, I don't find it funny that a young local female service-industry worker would for one second, when considering reporting herself or another gal being victimized this way, think, "I'd call the cops, but why bother?"
It's also not funny to say, "Well, at least Steamboat isn't as bad as Oakland." Or at least, it isn't funny to me that the two can actually be mentioned in the same post as having any similarities. Same attitude, smaller department, taking a wait-and-see attitude instead of assuming new regimes are automatically the solution.
Especially given the events in Oakland three years ago -- in the space of three months, they went through three Police Chiefs. I sh** you not.
"For the most relevant interpretation of the Second Amendment, let the Supreme Court of the United States explain to you that it protects an individual Right to posses a firearm for self-defense, independent of militia service"
Thank you for condescending to link to Heller again as if I was as ignorant of the facts of what I'm arguing against, as you appear to willfully be by simply attacking my person instead of reading what I've posted that you're obviously unfamiliar with, and rebutting my position. It doesn't change my opinion that it's off-the-wall erroneous (see Justice Stevens' dissent I concur with, like his should-be-required-reading-for-all-citizens-particularly-businesspeople dissent in Citizens United).
Professor Bogus, when asked about the constitutionality of open vs. concealed carry and other gun-control issues (see above-linked video, about 1hr in):
"What’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional? There’s no coherent answer to this… [T]he coherent answer is, 'you have a right to an armed militia.’ The Supreme Court just makes this stuff up about how, you have a right to a handgun, you have a right to a handgun in a home... [state and federal government can prohibit] taking a handgun to sensitive places… they do not want you taking handguns into their place of work!"
I have to agree. Going by any originalist, strict-constructionist, textual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it says not a damn thing about self-defense, handguns in the home, or anything else but 'you have a right to an armed militia.' Concise, to the point, STOP READING THINGS INTO IT WHICH ARE NOT THERE!!!
No, Ken, had you bothered to read the paper I linked to, Madison's entire position on the Bill of Rights evolved after that debate with Henry, and the entire thesis of one is that it's precisely what led to the 2nd Amendment being worded as it is. Your continued ad-hominem meltdown against me does not negate the fact that these papers were published in the accredited, peer-reviewed legal journals of both UC Davis and Syracuse. Furthermore:
This issue has been the subject of actual, reasoned debate sponsored in part by the Federalist Society. So while I congratulate you for having the Freeper playbook down pat, in terms of assassinating the character of those you disagree with instead of engaging on the issues...
"Once again, your warped interpretation of the Constitution is way off-base and not a cogent view shared by the Courts."
I assure you it is not, and yes, it most certainly is. The conservative scholar who lost the above-linked debate continually referenced the opinions of a contemporary legal scholar, repeatedly insisting that we examine what's closest in time to the actual ratification of the Bill of Rights. Professor Bogus relied on the decisions handed down by those contemporary courts, vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment, unanimously agreeing that it enumerates a collective right to gun ownership.
Virginia ratifying convention, June 2, 1788, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry on state militias:
"Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress… Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia."
IOW, we need something like the 2nd Amendment otherwise the abolitionist North will find ways to eliminate Southern slave patrols. One of many, many examples that day, if the only one which uses the term "slavery" outright it's quite obvious that's what's being discussed.
Some very compelling reading, fits Ockham's Razor because it's the simplest explanation of the 2nd Amendment -- just read what the Founders have to say about it, and understand that America at the time was an apartheid police state.
The Second Amendment certainly mentions militias, membership in which was restricted to white males 18-45. Verifiable historical facts, as referenced above.
I did not say the Bill of Rights only applies to white males, that's you putting words in my mouth; the remainder of your post consists of you arguing against your resulting strawman.
Not sure what to make of anyone who thinks that's "reasoned debate."
Well, it's bound to be confusing when you start answering rhetorical questions as if they were asked directly of you. And that is my rebuttal against your whole citing of F 46 in this thread -- you're taking Madison's words out of the context of them being a rhetorical question he considers absurd (insurrection), and stating that Madison supports insurrection because he said those words.
I'm willing to give folks a break on that last one, though. Madison speculates on some bizarre-o America where constitutional government has utterly broken down to the point of failure, to concede a "then and only then" point. So I can see where folks get confused -- modern reality rings frighteningly true with Madison's nightmare vision of America in F 46.
Even then, though, Madison's vision of insurrection was realized by the Civil War and put to rest. I also get testy when I argue Madison was opposed to Insurrectionist Theory, and the rebuttal is "Madison talked about insurrection so you're wrong."
George, I've already posted that. "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" and "Heller and Insurrectionism" are scholarly works full of footnotes.
Last login: Saturday, July 16, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |