NRA?
David E. Powell
news:10006-3E...@storefull-2331.public.lawson.webtv.net...
SNIP
One star troll, and WebTV to boot.
PLONK
Barlow2
more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
a child dies.
DUH. More kids drown in back-yard swimming pools than are injured by firearms.
So:
SAVE CHILDREN—FILL IN ALL SWIMMING POOLS. IT JUST TAKES A LITTLE DIRT.
Lensman
Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions.
Here they come, and they gonna go boom
cMAD
> Guns are nothing
> more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
> and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
> a child dies.
>
> DUH. More kids drown in back-yard swimming pools than are injured by firearms.
> So:
>
> SAVE CHILDREN—FILL IN ALL SWIMMING POOLS. IT JUST TAKES A LITTLE DIRT.
Moreover, if you train your children early on (age 4 seems to be about right) how
to handle firearms, it's OTHER children that will die, not yours.
As an example, take a semi-orphaned street thug from a dirt poor town in Iraq.
His childhood training with guns didn't hurt him at all.
> Lensman
> Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions.
> Here they come, and they gonna go boom
cMAD <- speaking of hit song cover versions by celebrities: the good and sound
advive of Mr Tamb^H^H^H^HLensman comes a little late for William Shatner.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5b9d6ae4cfa1a440...@free.teranews.com...
Hardly a star. His bait smelled so bad that skunks were holding their
noses!
Rybolton
of mrdoubter and the many like him*
V-Man
>more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
>and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
>a child dies.
My father has several firearms and he has seven children, ranging from 7 to
38. No accidents yet, spanning a period of 38 years.
Stick to facts, because you are a poor clairivoyant.
Play more with Claymore! V-Man
Living Vicariously through my Characters...
zach
> >Guns are nothing
> >more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
> >and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
> >a child dies.
>
> My father has several firearms and he has seven children, ranging from 7 to
> 38. No accidents yet, spanning a period of 38 years.
>
> Stick to facts, because you are a poor clairivoyant.
Went to high school not that long ago in the '80s... small town
environment where most people had at least a loaded .22LR and a
shotgun behind the front door ("for snakes and such"). Knew one kid
who attempted to blow himself away, and another who succeeded. Knew of
over half a dozen kids who died in car accidents, and one who killed
at least one other person in a head-on. It's called "Pareto Analysis"
Solve the one or two issues that really are contributing to the
majority of the problem or problems, rather than focusing on the
issues that you _feel_ are causing the most problems. But then the
real issue gun banners are concerned with isn't death, really, but
rather what makes them feel better in their frightened, insulated and
ignorant little minds.
The Carrolls
"Barlow2" <bar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030610111640...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> Guns are nothing
> more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
> and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
> a child dies.
>
>
> DUH. More kids drown in back-yard swimming pools than are injured by
firearms.
> So:
>
>
> Lensman
> Hey, Mr. Taliban, tally me munitions.
> Here they come, and they gonna go boom
Exactly. Guns aren't the problem, it's the people who illegally possess and
use them that are. You never see the figure for the number of crimes
committed with a firearm that is possessed legally by the person committing
the crime. It's too much lower than the number you are given for gun crimes.
Between the fact people who are under 21 can't possess handguns, and a felon
can't posses any gun, how many crimes are committed by people who use their
gun legally? The only problem the NRA made was losing their reputation as a
sporting organization. If people are taught how to use guns properly and
safely at a young age, as well as being taught when they are a kid NEVER to
play with guns, all of these accidental shootings wouldn't happen. This is
just a guess, but I would bet that most of these kids who are playing with a
gun, and accidently shoot a friend, have never been taught how to safely and
properly use a gun. Had they been taught that 1. Every Gun is always loaded,
2. A gun is not a toy, 3. Never point a gun at a person, most of these
shootings would be avoided. The reason these kids don't get this safety
training along with "look both ways when you cross the street" or "stop,
drop, and roll" is because the gun control lobby wants everyone to think
that it is evil to even teach our kids that much.
Andy
BlackBeard
> The reason these kids don't get this safety
> training along with "look both ways when you cross the street" or "stop,
> drop, and roll" is because the gun control lobby wants everyone to think
> that it is evil to even teach our kids that much.
> Andy
Interestingly it's the same side of the spectrum that claims the
only way to keep kids from getting pregnant and spreading STD's is to
provide more and more education at an earlier age.
Or so it seems...
BB
cMAD
It seems that all the necessary education can be summarized easily:
This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for shooting, this one's for
fun.
cMAD
Fred J. McCall
have to read more than the first sentence or two.
Yeah, you used to be involved in crime and were armed and think that
everyone who obeys the law should be disarmed. Yeah, I can understand
why you'd want that.
<plonk>
mrdo...@webtv.net wrote:
:
:Is the National Rifle Association the last refuge of scoundrels? Of
:course it is. Long headed by the now slipping Charlton Heston (aka
:Moses) this pack of fools has convinced most Americans that guns are
:actually a good thing! We at ACH beg to differ. We have been in the
:military and were involved in crime for years before seeing the lite so
:naturally we used guns and from this perspective we say what should be
:obvious: guns are worthless in the hands of the public. Guns are nothing
:more than accidents waiting to happen. They are there for your children
:and grand children to find when you aren't home and then they go off and
:a child dies. They are there for the demented kid to take to school, for
:the psychotic to play the avenging angel and sniper the innocent. They
:are never there when some bad guy does show up. That is only in the
:movies. At Wanted by the Sheriff-- www.armchairhoodlum.com -- we tell
:the true story of counterfeiting money, corruption in the federal
:government and in San Luis Obispo California and now we are featuring
:the best anti gun song since Bang Bang by Tracy Chapman. See our index
:for Bad Dog mp3 and listen to '2'. There aren't that many tunes about
:the second amendment. Put aside your misguided faith in Moses and 'go to
:the cemetary on any sunday.' What say you?
:note: audio is poor on webtv, use a computer.
loki
>
> My father has several firearms and he has seven children, ranging from
7 to
> 38. No accidents yet, spanning a period of 38 years.
>
> Stick to facts, because you are a poor clairivoyant.
Hey, when did you show up here????????
Loki - been missing too many things of late
Harold Hutchison
> Went to high school not that long ago in the '80s... small town
> environment where most people had at least a loaded .22LR and a
> shotgun behind the front door ("for snakes and such"). Knew one kid
> who attempted to blow himself away, and another who succeeded. Knew of
> over half a dozen kids who died in car accidents, and one who killed
> at least one other person in a head-on. It's called "Pareto Analysis"
> Solve the one or two issues that really are contributing to the
> majority of the problem or problems, rather than focusing on the
> issues that you _feel_ are causing the most problems. But then the
> real issue gun banners are concerned with isn't death, really, but
> rather what makes them feel better in their frightened, insulated and
> ignorant little minds.
It comes down to a very basic prejudice that is ultimately unfair,
combined in some cases with an attempt to make someone pay for the
horrible actions of another person. In essence, punishing innocent
people for the criminally/insanity-driven action of another person.
My Glock 17 has never fired a round unless *I* pulled the trigger.
Yet some do not like the fact I can own the thing. Well, whatever
happened to live and let live, or does that not apply in some cases?
Marten Kemp
It does not apply in this case. Those who want to ban guns, not just
some guns, but *all guns*, have the fear that either you or the Glock
will have a malfunction and shoot someone. Since they can't make you
illegal (nor are they able to classify the desire to own a firearm as
a mental aberration sufficiently severe to have you involuntarily
committed until this desire is "fixed"), they want to make the Glock
illegal.
Of course, in this world view, people can't be held accountable for
their actions and therefore the evil emanations given off by the
Glock must have softened your cognitive abilities enough to cause
this malfunction, which is another reason why the Glock must be banned.
Just my 2 zorkmids' worth.
-- Marten Kemp
Grey Satterfield
Marten Kemp <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > It comes down to a very basic prejudice that is ultimately unfair,
> > combined in some cases with an attempt to make someone pay for the
> > horrible actions of another person. In essence, punishing innocent
> > people for the criminally/insanity-driven action of another person.
> >
> > My Glock 17 has never fired a round unless *I* pulled the trigger.
> > Yet some do not like the fact I can own the thing. Well, whatever
> > happened to live and let live, or does that not apply in some cases?
>
> It does not apply in this case. Those who want to ban guns, not just
> some guns, but *all guns*, have the fear that either you or the Glock
> will have a malfunction and shoot someone. Since they can't make you
> illegal (nor are they able to classify the desire to own a firearm as
> a mental aberration sufficiently severe to have you involuntarily
> committed until this desire is "fixed"), they want to make the Glock
> illegal.
>
> Of course, in this world view, people can't be held accountable for
> their actions and therefore the evil emanations given off by the
> Glock must have softened your cognitive abilities enough to cause
> this malfunction, which is another reason why the Glock must be banned.
>
> Just my 2 zorkmids' worth.
This is sad but true. The social engineers on the left think that it is
far too dangerous to what their is their notion of a well ordered
society to let the "little people" have handguns (or, in their heart of
hearts, have any guns at all). Further, they believe that any
enlightned person, that is one who thinks as they do, wouldn't want a
gun, anyway. Thus, why not outlaw the awful things? Oh, yeah, I
forgot, the U.S. Constitution says something about the right to keep and
bear arms.[1]
Grey Satterfield
[1] Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I have not owned a firearm of
any kind for more that 40 years.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Grey Satterfield" <gsatte...@cox.net> wrote
> This is sad but true. The social engineers on the left think that it is
> far too dangerous to what their is their notion of a well ordered
> society to let the "little people" have handguns (or, in their heart of
> hearts, have any guns at all). Further, they believe that any
> enlightned person, that is one who thinks as they do, wouldn't want a
> gun, anyway. Thus, why not outlaw the awful things? Oh, yeah, I
> forgot, the U.S. Constitution says something about the right to keep and
> bear arms.[1]
>
> Grey Satterfield
>
> [1] Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I have not owned a firearm of
> any kind for more that 40 years.
We had a local furor that went national concerning that nasty little second
amendment.
A grandparent of a junior high student purchased an advertisement in her
school yearbook. The ad consisted of the text of the second amendment and
an NRA emblem. Another student took umbrage at this and called the media,
claiming that the ad somehow promoted gun violence. I find this kind of a
stretch, but the news media was over it like flies on dung. I foresee a lot
of ads in that yearbook in the future! :)
George
cMAD
> [1] Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I have not owned a firearm of
> any kind for more that 40 years.
Why bother?
The most devastating weapon known to US society is a good lawyer, anyway.
cMAD <- wonders which is higher: the US defense budget or the Sum of All
Fees paid to US attorneys.
DDENT
>From: cMAD cm...@freenet.de
>Date: 6/15/2003 11:51 PM Ce
>Why bother?
>The most devastating weapon known to US society is a good lawyer, anyway.
>
>cMAD <- wonders which is higher: the US defense budget or the Sum of All
>Fees paid to US attorneys.
>
To start another rant......this is the primary reason the local attorneys are
so violently protesting the new tort reform laws just passed in Texas. Gov.
Perry had quite a ruckus here when he signed the bill (which is watered down at
this point) at a hospital in town. This county has the highest rate of return
for lawsuits, in addition has lost an unbelievable amount of doctors for
"greener pastures". Our state rep who voted for it has been threatened. The
trial lawyers will spend billions before the referendum in September. We shall
see who spends more to win, the doctors or the lawyers.
Fran
Harold Hutchison
Very true, very true.
Trial lawyers are safe from shark bites and snake bites on grounds of
professional courtesy.
Michael Kennedy
<Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote in message news:3eed...@news.bnb-lp.com...
The chief argument has to do with the term "militia" in the second
amendment. A couple of years ago I spent the summer reading a three volume
biography of Andrew Jackson. Terrific biography. Jackson's political career
was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men between
the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult men
in an era when women had no vote.
A few years ago a liberal talk show host in LA spent a day on the subject of
concealed weapons. His name was Michael Jackson. Not that Michael Jackson.
Most of his callers were women who carried handguns in their purses even
though LA will not give a CCW permit to anyone but a movie star. It was
funny to hear him trying to convince them that what they were doing was
wrong and illegal. The standard response to his pleading to them was "I will
not be a victim".
With the crime wave in London since guns were banned, I wonder how long
before civil disobedience reas its ugly head. Maybe the Brits are too
civilized.
Mike Kennedy
>
> George
>
>
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Michael Kennedy" <mtken...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:17OHa.29744$1e.6394@fed1read04...
This has been hashed out many times and will never be agreed upon as long as
people have axes to grind.
However, I found it ironic that someone considered that quoting a part of
the Constitution somehow "promoted gun violence". I suppose that quoting
the first amendment would promote sexual harassment. Nasty thing, that
Constitution!
V-Man
I could answer that, but it'd involve personals facts involving yourself.
:-)
Shortly after I found out that Chuck frequents this place.
>been missing too many things of late
'bout three weeks, more or less.
V-Man
>enlightned person, that is one who thinks as they do, wouldn't want a
>gun, anyway. Thus, why not outlaw the awful things?
While I generally agree with you one this I have a point to make.
The Gun lobby and it's general supporters have what I consider to be a
mistaken impression, and it's derived from their fears, not facts.
What is it? That registration is, in and of itself, infringement. The cry
against it is that the next step is confiscation, the fear-drivien response.
Frankly, more registration would be useful in solving crimes committed by
criminals. And without an actual order to cinfiscate, regfistration is just
taht.
I support registration simply as a solution to the current impass with the
anti-gunners. They want it, it doesn't actually interfere with keeping &
bearing, and if the gun lobby agreed to it, the ball (of honest participation
in the ongoing debate) would then be in the anit-gunner's court - they'd have
to give some on thier position, too.
loki
> >Hey, when did you show up here????????
>
> I could answer that, but it'd involve personals facts involving
yourself.
> :-)
>
> Shortly after I found out that Chuck frequents this place.
Heh. I didn't realize you guys knew each other.
> >been missing too many things of late
>
> 'bout three weeks, more or less.
Oh yeah. I've been out of it...
Loki
Gml...@scvnet.com
"V-Man" <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
news:20030617234838...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> I support registration simply as a solution to the current impass with
the
> anti-gunners. They want it, it doesn't actually interfere with keeping &
> bearing, and if the gun lobby agreed to it, the ball (of honest
participation
> in the ongoing debate) would then be in the anit-gunner's court - they'd
have
> to give some on thier position, too.
The anti-gunners consider any concession as a new starting point. You don't
see them lightening up on handguns in California now that semi-autos have
been banned. No way the anti-gun folks are going to make any concession of
their own! We're talking about polar opposites here.
Nohbody
> >Further, they believe that any
> >enlightned person, that is one who thinks as they do, wouldn't want a
> >gun, anyway. Thus, why not outlaw the awful things?
>
> While I generally agree with you one this I have a point to make.
>
> The Gun lobby and it's general supporters have what I consider to be a
> mistaken impression, and it's derived from their fears, not facts.
You mean like the fact that there's tens of thousands of federal,
state, and local laws regarding firearms, and most of them aren't
enforced currently? Of the 200K people Clinton touted as having been
stopped by the so-called "Brady Bill", not a word was said about them
being arrested for violating _existing_ federal firearms laws that
prohibit felons, ex- or otherwise, to even _attempt_ to acquire a gun,
let alone actually get one.
And it's not just on the issue of guns that I object to throwing more
laws at a problem when existing laws aren't being enforced.
> What is it? That registration is, in and of itself, infringement. The cry
> against it is that the next step is confiscation, the fear-drivien response.
> Frankly, more registration would be useful in solving crimes committed by
> criminals. And without an actual order to cinfiscate, regfistration is just
> taht.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the defining traits of
criminals that they DON'T obey laws?
Unless my admittedly imperfect memory is failing me about what makes
someone a criminal, it seems to me that registration would have a
minuscule effect on the lawbreakers, save for the relative few that
use guns stolen from legitimate gun owners.
> I support registration simply as a solution to the current impass with the
> anti-gunners. They want it, it doesn't actually interfere with keeping &
> bearing, and if the gun lobby agreed to it, the ball (of honest participation
> in the ongoing debate) would then be in the anit-gunner's court - they'd have
> to give some on thier position, too.
What registration does open itself up to is some distant burrocrat
(not a typo) deciding whether a citizen (yes, speaking from a US
viewpoint, because a) I live in the US, and b) my knowledge of
non-USian gun laws is, to put it mildly, somewhat lacking) can or
can't practice their constitutional rights. That's not "fear", that's
historical fact. Burrocracy (again, not a typo) has, for many years,
repeatedly been used to thwart basic rights under law, by people who
for the most part have no accountability to the public, being
virtually unfireable civil maste^H^H^H^H^Hservants*. (One _can_ get
fired from the Civil Service for outright felonies, but even that's
not an absolute.)
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
* "In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to
'civil _master_'." - L. Long
V-Man
>see them lightening up on handguns in California now that semi-autos have
>been banned. No way the anti-gun folks are going to make any concession of
>their own!
But in the minds of that great majority of those whose minds are not made up
or who don't really care, *right now*, the anti-gunners have the moral high
ground.
If the gun lobby were to actually compromise, and in the process lose it's
rabid, "don't shoot till you see the whites of thier eyes" appearance
(APPEARANCE - different from reality), then the *gun lobby* would have the
moral high ground.
At that point, the anti-gunners would *have* to conceed something, else
they'd look unreasonable and rabid.
Think it through before replying. Do so honestly and you'll see my point,
even if you don't agree with it.
V-Man
>You mean like the fact that there's tens of thousands of federal,
>state, and local laws regarding firearms, and most of them aren't
>enforced currently?
This has been the clairion call for 25 years. What good has it done you?
Try a new tactic.
Try forcing the anti-gunners into being the ones that look rabid. Right now,
they make the gun lobby look rabid, and the above is why. You are focussing
not on the issues and how to resolve them, but on gripes.
Quit griping and try tactics that have a change of winning the hearts and
minds of the people that, *right now*, don't care. They are the ones you have
to convince. Otherwise, you are limiting your audience to either the peopel
that agree with you or those that will never agree with you.
Fred J. McCall
:>Further, they believe that any
:>enlightned person, that is one who thinks as they do, wouldn't want a
:>gun, anyway. Thus, why not outlaw the awful things?
:
: While I generally agree with you one this I have a point to make.
:
: The Gun lobby and it's general supporters have what I consider to be a
:mistaken impression, and it's derived from their fears, not facts.
Then you need to look at the facts more closely.
: What is it? That registration is, in and of itself, infringement. The cry
:against it is that the next step is confiscation, the fear-drivien response.
Both because that is what many of the anti-gun groups claim is their
actual goal and because that is what has happened pretty much
everyplace that has gone down that road.
: Frankly, more registration would be useful in solving crimes committed by
:criminals.
Not really. All guns are already registered when manufactured.
There's a Federal form that follows them through their first private
purchase. Criminals don't buy guns through gun stores, so
registration of second sales does very little insofar as tracking guns
actually used in crimes.
:And without an actual order to cinfiscate, regfistration is just
:taht.
And without knowledge of where all the legally held guns might be, an
actual order to confiscate is much less effective.
: I support registration simply as a solution to the current impass with the
:anti-gunners. They want it, it doesn't actually interfere with keeping &
:bearing, and if the gun lobby agreed to it, the ball (of honest participation
:in the ongoing debate) would then be in the anit-gunner's court - they'd have
:to give some on thier position, too.
How much have you seen the anti-gun side 'give' in the last 35 years,
since GCA 1968? How much have you seen them give since Brady was
enacted? This is a one-way street and it is foolish to go down it
unless you share the same goals as the anti-gunn folks, whose stated
goal is eventual confiscation.
--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.
Fred J. McCall
:Of the 200K people Clinton touted as having been
:stopped by the so-called "Brady Bill", not a word was said about them
:being arrested for violating _existing_ federal firearms laws that
:prohibit felons, ex- or otherwise, to even _attempt_ to acquire a gun,
:let alone actually get one.
In fact, not a word has been said to indicate that they were in
violation of any gun law at all. What Clinton didn't tell you was
that the overwhelming majority of those denied purchase fell into that
category for nothing more heinous than unpaid traffic tickets. Ask
the folks responsible for your local background investigation sometime
what the usual cause is for denial.
--
"Now this is the Law of the Jungle --
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."
-- "The Law of the Jungle", Rudyard Kipling
Howard Berkowitz
<mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> The chief argument has to do with the term "militia" in the second
> amendment. A couple of years ago I spent the summer reading a three
> volume
> biography of Andrew Jackson. Terrific biography. Jackson's political
> career
> was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men
> between
> the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
> nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult
> men
> in an era when women had no vote.
Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
them?
That would seem a logical consequence of the interpretation that the
militia clause includes the "unorganized militia." Now, that
immediately gets into interpretation -- is the unorganized militia the
"rest of the citizenry," so when the citizenry began to include women,
they were automatically part of it? But that still leaves the problem
that older men clearly existed at the time the militia clause was
written.
I've never been opposed to "well-ordered" private ownership of firearms.
But the militia clause has repeatedly been cited to say that it's a
general right -- but this more specific interpretation of the
unorganized militia part seems to argue to the contrary: the unorganized
militia is "men of fightin' age."
Fred J. McCall
:In article <17OHa.29744$1e.6394@fed1read04>, "Michael Kennedy"
:<mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
:
:> The chief argument has to do with the term "militia" in the second
:> amendment. A couple of years ago I spent the summer reading a three volume
:> biography of Andrew Jackson. Terrific biography. Jackson's political career
:> was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men between
:> the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
:> nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult men
:> in an era when women had no vote.
:
:Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
:meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
:them?
No, because it's a DEPENDENT CLAUSE in the 2nd Amendment, offered by
way of explanation.
:That would seem a logical consequence of the interpretation that the
:militia clause includes the "unorganized militia."
As opposed to the other interpretation, which says that you don't get
any private arms at all, no matter who you are?
:Now, that
:immediately gets into interpretation -- is the unorganized militia the
:"rest of the citizenry," so when the citizenry began to include women,
:they were automatically part of it? But that still leaves the problem
:that older men clearly existed at the time the militia clause was
:written.
You're starting from several misconceptions:
1) The misconception that the 'militia clause' is intended as a LIMIT
on the right to keep and bear (military) arms rather than an
explanation for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment at all.
2) The misconception that the phrase "keep and bear arms" was EVER
intended to apply to civil weapons. It was intended to apply to
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of MILITARY WEAPONS. It never did mean pistols and
hunting pieces. The right to have those was pretty much simply
assumed and their regulation, if any, was left to the States. Hence,
a State might have the right to pass a law outlawing target pistols,
but they could not restrict the ownership of military sidearms. We
seem to have this understanding precisely backwards these days.
3) That the 'unorganized militia' is somehow an undefined amorphous
mass. It is not and never has been. The current legally extant
version of the definition is delineated as follows:
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL
§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a
person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
:I've never been opposed to "well-ordered" private ownership of firearms.
:But the militia clause has repeatedly been cited to say that it's a
:general right -- but this more specific interpretation of the
:unorganized militia part seems to argue to the contrary: the unorganized
:militia is "men of fightin' age."
True. But note that the intent of the Second Amendment is with regard
to MILITARY WEAPONS, not fowling pieces and dueling pistols. Private
ownership of non-military arms (hunting, etc.) was assumed to be a
given.
--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer
Howard Berkowitz
fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
I understand the reserved powers clause, but I would have expected that
the states be able to extend, not the Federal.
Fred, my major point is not to argue much more than the militia clause
is terribly written.
>
> 2) The misconception that the phrase "keep and bear arms" was EVER
> intended to apply to civil weapons. It was intended to apply to
> PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of MILITARY WEAPONS. It never did mean pistols and
> hunting pieces. The right to have those was pretty much simply
> assumed and their regulation, if any, was left to the States. Hence,
> a State might have the right to pass a law outlawing target pistols,
> but they could not restrict the ownership of military sidearms. We
> seem to have this understanding precisely backwards these days.
What is the authority for this assumption? Admittedly, the distinction
between military and civilian weapons was not as strong in those days.
>
> 3) That the 'unorganized militia' is somehow an undefined amorphous
> mass. It is not and never has been. The current legally extant
> version of the definition is delineated as follows:
Other than you are saying under 45 and including females, it's still
restrictive as far as I can see. At 54, I still am not in the militia.
>
>
> UNITED STATES CODE
> TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
> Subtitle A - General Military Law
> PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
> CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
>
> § 311. Militia: composition and classes
>
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
> at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
> title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
> declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
> of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
> National Guard.
>
> (b) The classes of the militia are -
>
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
> the Naval Militia;
>
> and
>
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
> militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
> Militia.
>
>
> :I've never been opposed to "well-ordered" private ownership of firearms.
> :But the militia clause has repeatedly been cited to say that it's a
> :general right -- but this more specific interpretation of the
> :unorganized militia part seems to argue to the contrary: the unorganized
> :militia is "men of fightin' age."
>
> True. But note that the intent of the Second Amendment is with regard
> to MILITARY WEAPONS, not fowling pieces and dueling pistols. Private
> ownership of non-military arms (hunting, etc.) was assumed to be a
> given.
basis for assumption, especially given there was very limited
differentiation at the time?
Gml...@scvnet.com
"V-Man" <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
Your assertion that the group supposedly holding the "moral high ground"
would have to make a concession after their opponents make a concession is
faulty. Human nature just does not work that way.
The anti-gun folks have the support of the media, who prefer juicy rhetoric
to facts, so no matter what the pro-gun folks do they will be demonized.
Your appeasement idea depends upon the anti-gun folks acting fairly. They
have never done so in the past and they won't in the future. They're
trumpet any "reasonable concession" by the pro-gun folks as an admission
that the anti-gun lobby was right and that the pro-gun people have seen the
error of their ways. This will hardly improve the public's view of the
pro-gun folks, as they will now be perceived as _both_ weak and not
occupying the "high ground."
Eric Pinnell
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
>meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
>them?
>
>That would seem a logical consequence of the interpretation that the
>militia clause includes the "unorganized militia." Now, that
>immediately gets into interpretation -- is the unorganized militia the
>"rest of the citizenry," so when the citizenry began to include women,
>they were automatically part of it? But that still leaves the problem
>that older men clearly existed at the time the militia clause was
>written.
>
>I've never been opposed to "well-ordered" private ownership of firearms.
>But the militia clause has repeatedly been cited to say that it's a
>general right -- but this more specific interpretation of the
>unorganized militia part seems to argue to the contrary: the unorganized
>militia is "men of fightin' age."
You have to understand the viewpoints of the Federalists and
Republicans in order to understand the bizarre wording of the 2nd
amendment.
The Federalists wanted all able men to be armed to repel invasions,
suppress insurrections, etc. The Anti-Federalists wanted all people
to be armed to deal with a tyrannical government.
Since the Bill of Rights was created to prevent dissolution of the
Federal government by the Republicans, one has to take their view into
account as well.
One cannot allow a tyrannical government the power to decide what
arms the people can have, nor maintain a list of who has what arms.
Gage's seize of private arms in Boston based on registration lists is
proof of this.
Besides, if one were to argue military utility for arms, then it
would be constitutional to own nuclear weapons, since they are
manifestly useful in a military role.
Eric Pinnell
(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")
For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"
Eric Pinnell
> While I generally agree with you one this I have a point to make.
>
> The Gun lobby and it's general supporters have what I consider to be a
>mistaken impression, and it's derived from their fears, not facts.
> What is it? That registration is, in and of itself, infringement. The cry
>against it is that the next step is confiscation, the fear-drivien response.
No, it's already been done before. See New Jersey, Boston during
the Revolution, etc, etc.
> Frankly, more registration would be useful in solving crimes committed by
>criminals. And without an actual order to cinfiscate, regfistration is just
>taht.
How? Are you under the impression that criminals will register
their weapons?
> I support registration simply as a solution to the current impass with the
>anti-gunners. They want it, it doesn't actually interfere with keeping &
>bearing, and if the gun lobby agreed to it, the ball (of honest participation
>in the ongoing debate) would then be in the anit-gunner's court - they'd have
>to give some on thier position, too.
>
>
>Play more with Claymore! V-Man
>Living Vicariously through my Characters...
You support registration because you are a statist.
Howard Berkowitz
You are broadening the argument. I was speaking to the militia clause,
and whether it applied to men under 35 (45), to women, to slaves, etc.
If not, what extended the definition to include them? It's certainly
not a constitutional amendment. I could see an argument under the
reserved powers clause for states to have done so, but have they?
> One cannot allow a tyrannical government the power to decide what
> arms the people can have, nor maintain a list of who has what arms.
> Gage's seize of private arms in Boston based on registration lists is
> proof of this.
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments are informative, but they
are not embedded in the Constitution. I keep hearing arguments for
strict interpretation from people who insist on it for everything except
the militia clause.
Hey, I'm perfectly willing to go along with saying 'boy, that was a
really badly written clause and needs clarification.' But the tendency
is for everyone to interpret it to their own meaning.
> Besides, if one were to argue military utility for arms, then it
> would be constitutional to own nuclear weapons, since they are
> manifestly useful in a military role.
>
By that last point, are you advocating the constitutionality of
individual possession of nuclear weapons...in contrast to the Federal
procedures for nuclear weapon command and control that goes right up to
the NCA, with numerous checks and balances, the Personnel Reliability
Program, the rest?
Oh -- and how do I distinguish between the guy with the homebrewed B-61
who wants it to protect against tyranny IF it evolves, a domestic
terrorist, and a supporter of a foreign terrorist cause?
Paul J. Adam
Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> writes
>In article <17OHa.29744$1e.6394@fed1read04>, "Michael Kennedy"
><mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Jackson's political
>> career
>> was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men
>> between
>> the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
>> nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult
>> men
>> in an era when women had no vote.
>
>Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
>meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
>them?
And if you're being strict, wouldn't Negroes only be allowed
three-fifths of a firearm? (Or am I misremembering, which is likely?)
>I've never been opposed to "well-ordered" private ownership of firearms.
>But the militia clause has repeatedly been cited to say that it's a
>general right -- but this more specific interpretation of the
>unorganized militia part seems to argue to the contrary: the unorganized
>militia is "men of fightin' age."
I'm of fighting age, and will demonstrate that on anyone who claims
otherwise :)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5vJ0vGDN...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <hcb-86F189.0...@text.giganews.com>, Howard
> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> writes
> >In article <17OHa.29744$1e.6394@fed1read04>, "Michael Kennedy"
> ><mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>Jackson's political
> >> career
> >> was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men
> >> between
> >> the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
> >> nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult
> >> men
> >> in an era when women had no vote.
> >
> >Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
> >meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
> >them?
>
> And if you're being strict, wouldn't Negroes only be allowed
> three-fifths of a firearm? (Or am I misremembering, which is likely?)
No, the "3/5" only applied to calculation of population for reasons of
representation in Article 1, Section 2. The 13th and 14th amendments
rendered this language obsolete.
In that era, firearms were common tools (revisionist scholars
notwithstanding) and I've a feeling that if dinner walked by a woman would
have no qualms about using one. I doubt that the societal norm would allow
arming slaves, but it wouldn't be inconceivable if the firearm had a use,
such as obtaining food, etc.
It was a given at that time that most folks would have arms. The second
amendment simply ensured that those arms could not be confiscated by an
oppressive government.
The second amendment says "...the right of the people..." which means that
this right was assumed to already exist. The second amendment didn't give
us the right to bear arm, it prohibited the government from violating the
existing right.
I really wish that the founding fathers had clarified this amendment. They
obviously found it to be important, as they put it second, but what was
short, simple, and easily understood at the time has become confusing with
age.
Howard Berkowitz
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <hcb-86F189.0...@text.giganews.com>, Howard
> Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> writes
> >In article <17OHa.29744$1e.6394@fed1read04>, "Michael Kennedy"
> ><mtken...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>Jackson's political
> >> career
> >> was supported early on by the "militia" which consisted of all men
> >> between
> >> the ages of 17 and 35. That was the bulk of the electorate and it had
> >> nothing to do with a "well regulated milita". The term refers to adult
> >> men
> >> in an era when women had no vote.
> >
> >Then if the militia clause is to be interpreted with the original
> >meaning, does that mean that I give up my guns at 36 and women never get
> >them?
>
> And if you're being strict, wouldn't Negroes only be allowed
> three-fifths of a firearm? (Or am I misremembering, which is likely?)
Or could they just have sawed-off shotguns and short-barreled handguns?
Does one person get 2/5 of a stock and trigger while somebody else gets
the barrel?
Howard Berkowitz
Understood and a bit tongue and cheek. The question could be argued,
however, whether the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the 19th (from
memory the female suffrage) should have clarified the militia clause.
One might argue that women were not expected to be in combat roles at
the time they were granted suffrage. It then could be argued that they
were not part of the unorganized militia, so had no right to arm
themselves against tyrannical men (cough, cough).
>
> In that era, firearms were common tools (revisionist scholars
> notwithstanding) and I've a feeling that if dinner walked by a woman
> would
> have no qualms about using one. I doubt that the societal norm would
> allow
> arming slaves, but it wouldn't be inconceivable if the firearm had a use,
> such as obtaining food, etc.
Actually, it's my understanding that some house slaves were sometimes
assigned to hunt game.
>
> It was a given at that time that most folks would have arms. The second
> amendment simply ensured that those arms could not be confiscated by an
> oppressive government.
>
> The second amendment says "...the right of the people..." which means
> that
> this right was assumed to already exist. The second amendment didn't
> give
> us the right to bear arm, it prohibited the government from violating the
> existing right.
>
> I really wish that the founding fathers had clarified this amendment.
> They
> obviously found it to be important, as they put it second, but what was
> short, simple, and easily understood at the time has become confusing
> with
> age.
George, you make my real point. It really is ambiguous, and it allows
both sides to interpret it to their own ends.
Fred J. McCall
: Besides, if one were to argue military utility for arms, then it
:would be constitutional to own nuclear weapons, since they are
:manifestly useful in a military role.
But damned difficult to 'bear'.
Howard Berkowitz
fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
Oh, a SADM is lighter than a Revolutionary War cannon...
I freely admit having a bear to bear the arms would be useful.
Confiscating arms from armed bears is more of a challenge, when Smoky
suggests you pull it out of his cold, dead paws.
J.T. McDaniel
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-C5A52A.2...@text.giganews.com...
I find myself remembering the time when the Tonight
Show ran a contest with a 37mm antitank gun as the
prize. Allen or Paar period. The times, they have
changed. (I think the winner gave it to a VFW post,
IIRC.)
--
Jack
http://riverdaleebooks.com
U-859, a novel by Arthur Baudzus, who was a
member of the real boat's crew.
V-Man
>actual goal and because that is what has happened pretty much
>everyplace that has gone down that road.
WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
V-Man
So what? In other causes, with other groups, this is not, in and of itself,
a bar to victory.
>Your appeasement idea depends upon the anti-gun folks acting fairly.
I dislike that word. I was merely trying to apply the political methods
used in all other US politics to that issue. I do not favor appeasement, I
favor fighting the battles you can win.
Heston got plenty of media coverage when he did the "Blood on hands" thing.
If the message is different, if it *seems* rational, it'll win the support of
some of the many undecided. I know people that won't support the NRA due to
it's rabid appearance. they favor gun ownership, but won't associate with the
NRA's fanatics for fear of guilt by association.
>They
>have never done so in the past and they won't in the future.
GOOD! That means the tactic would work. The goal is not concessions from
the anti-gunners, bot exposing them, despite the media bias, as being even more
rabid than the NRA.
You make a concession, use all the media resources you can for airtime to
annouce such a change in policy, and in the course of that annoucement,
challenge the other side to be as honest and to make some of thier own.
When they *don't*, who looks rabid?
Gml...@scvnet.com
"V-Man" <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
> >so no matter what the pro-gun folks do they will be demonized.
>
> So what? In other causes, with other groups, this is not, in and of
itself,
> a bar to victory.
>
> >Your appeasement idea depends upon the anti-gun folks acting fairly.
>
> I dislike that word.
Too bad. Neville Chamberlain made it a bad word by thinking that if you
give your enemies a concession that they will not take more. Stupid then,
stupid now.
> I was merely trying to apply the political methods
> used in all other US politics to that issue. I do not favor appeasement,
I
> favor fighting the battles you can win.
There is no middle ground on an issue where a vocal minority demands the
complete elimination of its opponents' rights. The only goal the
anti-gunners will accept is making possession of any firearm illegal.
> >They
> >have never done so in the past and they won't in the future.
>
> GOOD! That means the tactic would work. The goal is not concessions
from
> the anti-gunners, bot exposing them, despite the media bias, as being even
more
> rabid than the NRA.
>
> You make a concession, use all the media resources you can for airtime
to
> annouce such a change in policy, and in the course of that annoucement,
> challenge the other side to be as honest and to make some of thier own.
> When they *don't*, who looks rabid?
Hard to make a positive expression in the media when virtually everyone in
the business is working against you. Your plan relies on a very rosy view
of the media.
V-Man
>of the media.
If you get one outlet to cover your press conference, they'll all be there.
Fox News, right now, has been accused of unbiased reporting, of having a
*Conservative* slant. They are international, ISTR.
How did the "blood on your hands" press conference of DEC 2000 get such a
turnout of the press? I saw the coverage, the room was packed. Pack a room,
lay out your strategy, let them run with it. The other side will have to
comment, so your initial statement needs to cover, quickly, what they will say.
"For years, we at the NRA have been called rabid and irrational. Here is
where we show it's the other side that is irrational. We are willing, at this
time, to agree, in principle, to the idea of a national registration program
for all firearms.
"This has been what our opponents ahve wanted for a long time. Now, it's
their turn to put up or shut up. We want from them no less than a public
statement where they annouce that the Anti-Gun lobby will renounce, as a
policy, as a goal, the outlawing of privately owned firearms.
"We at the NRA have been saying for years that this is the ultimate goal of
our opponents, they have, of course, denied it. We'd like them to do it one
more time."
Perfect? No. Better than grandstanding about blood on a politician's hands?
you bet.
Fred J. McCall
:>Both because that is what many of the anti-gun groups claim is their
:>actual goal and because that is what has happened pretty much
:>everyplace that has gone down that road.
:
: WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
:hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
The UK. Australia.
Fred J. McCall
:The second amendment says "...the right of the people..." which means that
:this right was assumed to already exist. The second amendment didn't give
:us the right to bear arm, it prohibited the government from violating the
:existing right.
Note that there is a Supreme Court case to this effect.
:I really wish that the founding fathers had clarified this amendment. They
:obviously found it to be important, as they put it second, but what was
:short, simple, and easily understood at the time has become confusing with
:age.
The problem is that ANYTHING can be obfuscated, given people who are
interested in doing so who are not particularly honorable about what
they do. This is the case with the Second Amendment. The intent of
the Founding Fathers is quite clear, if one looks at their own
statements and writings at the time.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
Fred J. McCall
:One might argue that women were not expected to be in combat roles at
:the time they were granted suffrage. It then could be argued that they
:were not part of the unorganized militia, so had no right to arm
:themselves against tyrannical men (cough, cough).
Well, under the current legal definition of 'militia' you have a
point. However, the Founding Fathers were quite clear on this point.
One need merely look at what they wrote about the issue, some of the
alternate wordings offered for the Second Amendment, and what few
records there are of the Congressional debates over it at the time.
Three issues seem to be quite bound up together: the right of the
People to keep and bear arms; the right of the States to have their
own bodies of militia; the prohibition of a standing Federal army.
For example:
New Hampshire: "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such
as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."
Virginia: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a
well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to
arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State."
New York: "That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a
well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of
bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time
of War Rebellion or Insurrection."
House Committee report of 28 July, 1789: "A well regulated militia1,
composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to
bear arms."
House Resolution of 24 August 1789: "A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
compelled to render military service in person."
House Resolution amended 4 September, 1789: "A well regulated
militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
House Resolution amended 5 September, 1789: "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Meanwhile the Senate was going through a similar process. There are
also some rather spares records of Congressional debates on the
subject.
:George, you make my real point. It really is ambiguous, and it allows
:both sides to interpret it to their own ends.
No, it really isn't ambiguous at all, except insofar as folks opposed
to the intent of the amendment want to make it ambiguous.
If I were to say something like, "The avoidance of vehicular
collisions being a good thing, all vehicles shall obey all posted
traffic signals", is that ambiguous? Does it mean that vehicles only
need to obey traffic signals if there is another vehicle with which
there is risk of collision and that traffic signals may be otherwise
ignored?
Of course it doesn't. It means just what it says (all vehicles shall
obey all posted traffic signals) with an explanation of why the rule
exists. Note that the construction is virtually identical to that of
the Second Amendment.
So what's all the confusion with regard to what the Second Amendment
'really means'? It's deliberate distortion on the part of folks who
don't agree with the 'rule' - that the right of the people (by which
the Founding Fathers meant all free citizens) to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
At the time, this stricture only applied to the Federal government and
State governments were free to pass whatever restrictions they cared
to. With the addition of the Antebellum Amendments, extending the
government limitations in the Constitution to the States, now even the
States should not be allowed to pass such restrictions.
And that *IS* strict constructionism, Howard.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Howard Berkowitz
fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
> <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:
>
> :The second amendment says "...the right of the people..." which means
> :that
> :this right was assumed to already exist. The second amendment didn't
> :give
> :us the right to bear arm, it prohibited the government from violating
> :the
> :existing right.
>
> Note that there is a Supreme Court case to this effect.
Not sure which one you mean, but the ones I have seen still cite the
unorganized militia argument -- and I think it's fairly clear that the
framers' intent was to exclude women, slaves, and older/younger men from
the unorganized militia.
>
> :I really wish that the founding fathers had clarified this amendment.
> :They
> :obviously found it to be important, as they put it second, but what was
> :short, simple, and easily understood at the time has become confusing
> :with
> :age.
>
> The problem is that ANYTHING can be obfuscated, given people who are
> interested in doing so who are not particularly honorable about what
> they do. This is the case with the Second Amendment. The intent of
> the Founding Fathers is quite clear, if one looks at their own
> statements and writings at the time.
It's that "if" that gives me the problem. There's no question that
knowledge of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is important to
understanding the historical development of the Constitution. Indeed,
subsequent amendments also probably can be better understood when read
with documents of the time.
Obviously, there are partisan arguments that
make...interesting...arguments about the times of writing. The body of
scholarship indicating that small arms were a routine rural tool is
overwhelming, although it's arguable if they were as common in cities.
Nevertheless, the US of the time was predominantly rural.
One of the problems, which I have not seen contemporaneous writings
about, is that the Framers did not make a strong distinction between
military and sporting/hunting weapons, because there really wasn't a
strong distinction at the time.
But if one is going to take a strict constructionist view, if the
writing didn't make it into the Constitution, it can't be taken as
gospel explaining intent. Now, some constitutional argument can be made
if a Supreme (not lesser) Court decision cited these writings as part of
the precedent for the decision.
Loren Pechtel
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>> And if you're being strict, wouldn't Negroes only be allowed
>> three-fifths of a firearm? (Or am I misremembering, which is likely?)
>
>Or could they just have sawed-off shotguns and short-barreled handguns?
>Does one person get 2/5 of a stock and trigger while somebody else gets
>the barrel?
Nah, slice it all radially. That way none of them uppity slaves
get complete pieces that could be assembled into a gun to shoot their
owners with.
Loren Pechtel
> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
Canada Australia
Chris Manteuffel
> We shall
> see who spends more to win, the doctors or the lawyers.
I'm of two minds on tort reforms. On the one hand, one of my doctors
stopped practicing because of the cost of insurance. And I know that
courts give lots of money to patients, and that a lot of doctors
simply can't afford to stay in business any more which is a very bad
thing.
On the other hand... one of my friends was paralyzed from the waste
down for the rest of his life by a doctor who was, according to expert
witnesses (doctors themselves, of course, taking their cut) wrong
about something that every 1st year anesthesiologist learns. This was
a friend of mine since 4th grade, who before the operation was a
happy-go-lucky funny guy, and now ruminates constantly on his legs, is
depressed and smokes. And I want that doctor to pay personally rather
then letting the insurance cover it. It won't give him his legs back,
or make him happier, of course, but its better then nothing, and it
will pay for the new car and special services he will need for the
next couple of years.
Chris Manteuffel
Gml...@scvnet.com
> One of the problems, which I have not seen contemporaneous writings
> about, is that the Framers did not make a strong distinction between
> military and sporting/hunting weapons, because there really wasn't a
> strong distinction at the time.
Actually, there was zero functional difference in weapons. The only thing
that made a military rifle a military rifle was that it was purchased by the
military. Sporting weapons didn't exist at all, any more than a "sporting
hammer" exists now. I doubt that there was any concept of "sport shooting"
at all, as any shooting that was to be done was done either for food or
defense. The weapons of the time were fussy, and not at all easy to use.
You had to really need them before they were worth the hassle.
Howard Berkowitz
cman...@ozmail.cjb.net (Chris Manteuffel) wrote:
The question can be raised, however, if a medical tribunal might be the
better place to recognize the issues and award appropriate compensation
-- combined with corrective measures for the physicians involved.
And the latter is a terrible situation. In aviation, for example, there
are no-fault reporting systems for near misses, so people can focus on
resolving the problem. In medicine, there is so much fear of
malpractice that people aren't reporting mishaps from which the
profession should learn, because that's an admission of guilt.
There's no question that medical procedures have lots of failure modes
and physician inertia about better ways to do things. There's a
signficant article in today's New England Journal of Medicine about how
computerized ordering systems can significantly reduce errors.
Howard Berkowitz
Let's change all references to "sporting" to "hunting".
Cannon clearly had no hunting purpose. I suspect some of the
battlefield muskets, that did have a relatively high rate of fire,
differentiated from hunting rifles.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"V-Man" <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
"We at Handgun Control Incorporated applaud the NRA for coming to their
senses over the need for a national program of gun registration. We now
invite them to join with us in our fight to end handgun violence forever by
banning the ownership of handguns..."
Nobody says that the anti-gun groups have to address any deal proposed by
the NRA. They'll simply take the concession and run with it, ignoring the
proposed deal. The media will concentrate on the "victory by the anti-gun
lobby" and ignore the proposed deal as well. Do you think that HCI will be
pressured into just saying "OK, bye!" and folding its tent by a loss of the
"high moral ground"? If you do, I have this prime Lousiana bottom land...
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Chris Manteuffel" <cman...@ozmail.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:1cbcee05.03061...@posting.google.com...
> dd...@aol.comnospam (DDENT) wrote in message
news:<20030616075753...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
> > We shall
> > see who spends more to win, the doctors or the lawyers.
>
> I'm of two minds on tort reforms. On the one hand, one of my doctors
> stopped practicing because of the cost of insurance. And I know that
> courts give lots of money to patients, and that a lot of doctors
> simply can't afford to stay in business any more which is a very bad
> thing.
Note that the juries are well aware that judgments are paid by deep-pocket
insurance companies and adjust the numbers accordingly. They treat it more
like hitting the lotto than punishing negligence. They know that they
aren't taking money from kindly Dr Brown, they are fleecing the Big Bad
Insurance Company. The occasional big payout is a great sword to hang over
the heads of the insured, so the insurance company paying an excessive
judgment isn't really all that unhappy with the situation.
Insurance allows the "spreading of the pain", while supporting a huge group
of people who contribute absolutely nothing to society. It amounts almost
to a protection racket, except that the insurers don't come around to break
your kneecaps if you don't pay up.
Consider automobile insurance. How would folks drive if you knew that an
accident could result in _the driver_ actually having to pay for the damage?
We're so used to the blanket of insurance that we don't even think of this,
only of "my rates might go up!"
There are some places where insurance makes sense, such as for medical care.
The quality of our society has been improved by pooling the risk and cost of
medical care. However, pooling the risk and cost of being sued has only
produced aberrant behavior in our society, creating a group of insurers and
lawyers who fight it out like professional wrestlers, while the rest of
society pays for their "protection".
How about an tort-insurance-free society, in which each person actually
takes _personal_ responsibility for their actions? You screw up, you pay.
What a concept!
Gml...@scvnet.com
IIRC, one of the supposed differences between the revolutionary forces and
the British forces (other than the Brits standing in open fields wearing red
uniforms) was that the shooting of the revolutionary forces was more
accurate. It may well have been that privately-owned weapons were _better_
than the common military weapons at that time.
Howard Berkowitz
> >
> > Let's change all references to "sporting" to "hunting".
> >
> > Cannon clearly had no hunting purpose. I suspect some of the
> > battlefield muskets, that did have a relatively high rate of fire,
> > differentiated from hunting rifles.
>
> IIRC, one of the supposed differences between the revolutionary forces
> and
> the British forces (other than the Brits standing in open fields wearing
> red
> uniforms) was that the shooting of the revolutionary forces was more
> accurate. It may well have been that privately-owned weapons were
> _better_
> than the common military weapons at that time.
>
>
Depends on the tactics used. In extended-order as the rebels used,
accuracy was more important. In the tight British formations, the Brown
Bess and its ilk had a better rate of fire.
The red uniforms and crossbelts, incidentally, weren't stupidity when
dealing with European tactics. They were an aid to command and control.
The crossbelts helped commanders judge distances.
Obviously, generalship involves getting the other guy to fight under the
conditions more favorable to you.
David Loewe, Jr.
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>In article <3ef0...@news.bnb-lp.com>, <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:
>> In that era, firearms were common tools (revisionist scholars
>> notwithstanding) and I've a feeling that if dinner walked by a woman
>> would
>> have no qualms about using one. I doubt that the societal norm would
>> allow
>> arming slaves, but it wouldn't be inconceivable if the firearm had a use,
>> such as obtaining food, etc.
>
>Actually, it's my understanding that some house slaves were sometimes
>assigned to hunt game.
My reading indicate that the "hunters" would not be considered "house"
slaves. Of course, neither would they be field hands, either.
--
"Small wonder that human beings in general disgust me."
Fred J. McCall in <qoil6vog8pbc1m252...@4ax.com>
DDENT
>From: Gml...@scvnet.com
That's quite an interesting concept. I've just found the results of our
litiginous society frightening. You'll find it's not as difficult to get into
medical school these days, as the stresses of lawsuits are scaring away our
brightest candidates. Doctors are practicing defensive medicine more often
than not, which is driving up the costs to everyone. I could go on, but won't.
There just has to be a better way. On a personal level, I wouldn't wish the
medical profession on anyone, and am a bit relieved my son has changed his
intended college major.
Fran
charles krin
among other things, the rate of necropsy (post mortum examination) is
abysmal...even though one of the things that advanced medicine so much
from 1900 to 1980 or so was the correlation of advancing imaging with
the ultimate test of the pathologist's knife.
Now a days, almost none of the insurers (including Medicare and
Medicaid) will pay for the final test, and very few physicians will
push for one, knowing that the family will end up paying between $500
and $5000 for the answers. About the only posts I've sent out in the
last 15 years were ordered by the Coroner/Medical Examiner (and that
includes the times when I *was* acting as the Coroner/ME).
>
>There's no question that medical procedures have lots of failure modes
>and physician inertia about better ways to do things. There's a
>signficant article in today's New England Journal of Medicine about how
>computerized ordering systems can significantly reduce errors.
heck, just changing away from hand written notes will help reduce
these errors.
ck
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message news:hcb-
> Depends on the tactics used. In extended-order as the rebels used,
> accuracy was more important. In the tight British formations, the Brown
> Bess and its ilk had a better rate of fire.
>
> The red uniforms and crossbelts, incidentally, weren't stupidity when
> dealing with European tactics. They were an aid to command and control.
> The crossbelts helped commanders judge distances.
How did they do this? Or do you mean that they allowed the opposing
commander to judge distances to the troops wearing the crossbelts? That
would be taking fair play a bit too far!
Fred J. McCall
:In article <p583fv80vlongpne9...@4ax.com>,
:fmc...@earthlink.net wrote:
:
:> <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:
:>
:> :The second amendment says "...the right of the people..." which means
:> :that
:> :this right was assumed to already exist. The second amendment didn't
:> :give
:> :us the right to bear arm, it prohibited the government from violating
:> :the
:> :existing right.
:>
:> Note that there is a Supreme Court case to this effect.
:
:Not sure which one you mean, but the ones I have seen still cite the
:unorganized militia argument --
US v Cruikshank (1876): "The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than
that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the national government."
:and I think it's fairly clear that the
:framers' intent was to exclude women, slaves, and older/younger men from
:the unorganized militia.
Why is that "fairly clear", when every statement by the Founding
Fathers numbers as the militia "the whole of the people able to bear
arms"? What is your source for this belief?
:> :I really wish that the founding fathers had clarified this amendment.
:> :They
:> :obviously found it to be important, as they put it second, but what was
:> :short, simple, and easily understood at the time has become confusing
:> :with
:> :age.
:>
:> The problem is that ANYTHING can be obfuscated, given people who are
:> interested in doing so who are not particularly honorable about what
:> they do. This is the case with the Second Amendment. The intent of
:> the Founding Fathers is quite clear, if one looks at their own
:> statements and writings at the time.
:
:It's that "if" that gives me the problem.
As does, apparently, reading standard English. Why is it that only in
the case of the Second Amendment do people insist that a dependent
clause giving a rationale for the following statement is actually
meant to restrict the following statement?
It seems quite clear that if one simply reads this single sentence,
the right is one guaranteed or already inherent in "the People" and
that the particular arms covered by the Amendment are any and all
which are suitable for militia use. Note that this reading is also in
accord with EVERY Supreme Court decision that exists on the subject.
:One of the problems, which I have not seen contemporaneous writings
:about, is that the Framers did not make a strong distinction between
:military and sporting/hunting weapons, because there really wasn't a
:strong distinction at the time.
Oh, but there certainly WAS a distinction between arms suitable for
'militia use' and other arms.
:But if one is going to take a strict constructionist view, if the
:writing didn't make it into the Constitution, it can't be taken as
:gospel explaining intent. Now, some constitutional argument can be made
:if a Supreme (not lesser) Court decision cited these writings as part of
:the precedent for the decision.
If one wants to take a strict constructionist view, one has to take
the Amendment for what it says. Torturing the language into the
assumption that a right guaranteed to "the People" only applies to
actual members of the militia hardly falls into the realm of 'strict
constructionism'.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Howard Berkowitz
kri...@aol.invalid.com wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:24:24 -0400, Howard Berkowitz
> <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
> >And the latter is a terrible situation. In aviation, for example, there
> >are no-fault reporting systems for near misses, so people can focus on
> >resolving the problem. In medicine, there is so much fear of
> >malpractice that people aren't reporting mishaps from which the
> >profession should learn, because that's an admission of guilt.
>
> among other things, the rate of necropsy (post mortum examination) is
> abysmal...even though one of the things that advanced medicine so much
> from 1900 to 1980 or so was the correlation of advancing imaging with
> the ultimate test of the pathologist's knife.
>
> Now a days, almost none of the insurers (including Medicare and
> Medicaid) will pay for the final test, and very few physicians will
> push for one, knowing that the family will end up paying between $500
> and $5000 for the answers. About the only posts I've sent out in the
> last 15 years were ordered by the Coroner/Medical Examiner (and that
> includes the times when I *was* acting as the Coroner/ME).
>
*sigh* My requesting a necropsy for my mother (I held medical power of
attorney and had discussed this) caused the cutoff of all contact with
the rest of my family. It was in a VA hospital (1975), so cost wasn't an
issue, just the emotional and (their) religious issues.
It will be interesting to see if there is any change either in quality
or litigation with HIPAA regulations allowing patients access to charts.
Now, I've rarely had problems myself in getting the data, and
occasionally spotting a lab trend someone missed. I've even had some
physicians give me standing orders for labs, with orders to give me the
results, while titrating meds.
In contrast, I have a friend in British Columbia, in a medium sized town
(still with some specialists). Apparently, it's extremely difficult to
get one's own results under Canadian custom. I have a strong suspicion
that I can explain her complex disorders, but I have to see the immune
panels -- they are just saying "it's lupus like" rather than honing in
on MCTD, Sjogren's, etc. Hopefully, she will be able to change to the
one primary practitioner that really has communicated (the college
physician who now takes individuals).
> >
> >There's no question that medical procedures have lots of failure modes
> >and physician inertia about better ways to do things. There's a
> >signficant article in today's New England Journal of Medicine about how
> >computerized ordering systems can significantly reduce errors.
>
> heck, just changing away from hand written notes will help reduce
> these errors.
And I'm struggling to get funding to develop and install such systems.
Howard Berkowitz
Wellington, IIRC, described using them to judge angles of lines, based
on parallax distortion of the X of the crossbelts. When the main tactic
was volley fire at short ranges, it was essential for the commanders to
be able to judge angles and distances, especially through a telescope.
Even without a telescope, experience taught how to judge distance by
relative size of the X.
Gml...@scvnet.com
Gee, I'd be alternating tall and short soldiers in the front line! That
probably wouldn't be considered "sporting" though!
cMAD
IIRC, a while ago a top German banker, giving unsolicited comments on
Leadership, Now and Then, described 16th to 19th century warfare as method for
controlling the population of the "small people".
cMAD
V-Man
Excuse me. Let me refine the question. WHERE in the (US* has confiscation
followed registration.
V-Man
>>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
>
> Canada Australia
A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
B) Where in the *US* has this occurred?
Norman Bullen
>
> IIRC, one of the supposed differences between the revolutionary forces and
> the British forces (other than the Brits standing in open fields wearing red
> uniforms) was that the shooting of the revolutionary forces was more
> accurate. It may well have been that privately-owned weapons were _better_
> than the common military weapons at that time.
Or that revolutionists who fed their families with their hunting weapons
were better skilled than Brittish soldiers.
Norm
Fred J. McCall
:>:>Both because that is what many of the anti-gun groups claim is their
:>:>actual goal and because that is what has happened pretty much
:>:>everyplace that has gone down that road.
:>:
:>: WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
:>:hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
:>
:>The UK. Australia.
:
: Excuse me. Let me refine the question.
You mean let you weasel, now that folks have pointed out several
examples to you.
:WHERE in the (US* has confiscation
:followed registration.
Brady.
Washington DC.
Where in the US *IS* there mandatory registration? In those places
where it exists, take a look at how restrictive the purchasing and
ownership requirements are.
Care to try for strike 3? What 'refinement' are we going to see next?
Fred J. McCall
:>> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
:>>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
:>
:> Canada Australia
:
: A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
You said "a specific, non-German case". Now you've been given three
of them in rapid succession, so you want to change the question to
something much less relevant.
It's not hard to invent such questions. What's hard is convincing
anyone that they're germane.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
loki
Yeah, and folks have known that FOREVER! Well, at least since computers
have been used *at all* in healthcare.
For Chrissakes, Lockheed developed an automated system for medical orders in
the 1960's! It's been in continuous use since then at many major medical
centers in the US. We're just now converting many of them away from that
and onto more advanced systems that do the same thing, but none of them as
well...
Loki - yeah, I used to implement that older system too
loki
> And I'm struggling to get funding to develop and install such systems.
The big players in the field are: IDX, McKesson HBOC, Cerner, Eclipsys, and
in smaller facilities you'll see Meditech, Keane, and a few others. There
are niche vendors such as SunQuest who do departmental systems (SunQuest
does lab). These become amazingly large and complex and need infinite
variability due to physician preferences and differences in practices. The
things they are attempting vary from the small departmental systems to one
attempt to link the medical records of an entire country.
The current trend is to include clinical content to assist the clinician in
their practice. Things like drug/drug and drug/food interactions and even
aides to diagnosis and information on various diagnoses. Most clinicians I
know HATE these things as the alarms are so frequent they get in the way and
most of the time, all but the really BIG ones get turned off. The clinical
data seems to get used as handouts for patient/family education but not used
much the the hospital personnel themselves.
They've all got versions that eliminate written orders. Some do it well,
some do it not as well but still acceptable and some are downright lousy.
Even the ones who do it well have other issues. <shrug>
AND lot's of smaller hospitals have systems that *could* be used to
eliminate errors but lack the funding to buy/implement and maintain the
things. <sigh> Thank you Ronald Reagan and Medicare Reform.
I think it may be time for me to get the hell out of this game and go train
dogs...
Loki - a pack of angry Rottweilers is easier to handle than 3 upset
physicians...
loki
>
> Or that revolutionists who fed their families with their hunting weapons
> were better skilled than Brittish soldiers.
Heh. That would still be true, but you might add that guys who feed their
families with their hunting weapons are better skilled than many US
soldiers...
Loki
V-Man
>
>You mean let you weasel, now that folks have pointed out several
>examples to you.
No, I had intended to be the US only, but my poor communications skills let
me omit it. This is what I mean by "rabid" apearance. i don't follow the
party line, so I *must* be against it, despite my real convictions.
>Where in the US *IS* there mandatory registration? In those places
>where it exists,
My point is simply that there are few actual examples of registration being
followed by actual confiscation. Your fears are based on one event, not facts.
>Care to try for strike 3? What 'refinement' are we going to see next?
None, now that you have made my point for me.
V-Man
>:
>: A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
>
>You said "a specific, non-German case".
Absolutely correct. My poor communications skills. My original intent, Your
Honor, since I seem to be on trial, was a specific case, in the *US*. A state
where mandatory registration, such as Indiana had for a time, is followed by
confiscation, which would actually justify fears.
Indiana not only still has guns, but no longer has registration.
Fred J. McCall
:>: Excuse me. Let me refine the question.
:>
:>You mean let you weasel, now that folks have pointed out several
:>examples to you.
:
: No, I had intended to be the US only, but my poor communications skills let
:me omit it.
Well, that does demonstrate a pretty poor ability to communicate (or
an abysmal knowledge of geography). "Non-German" equates to "US".
:This is what I mean by "rabid" apearance.
Yeah. You mean anyone who actually looks at reality and recognizes
it.
:>Where in the US *IS* there mandatory registration? In those places
:>where it exists,
:
: My point is simply that there are few actual examples of registration being
:followed by actual confiscation. Your fears are based on one event, not facts.
My 'fears' are based on the stated goal of many of the organizations
that want to start with registration, plus the bad example of most of
the world. Your 'lack of fears' is based on an artificial construct
that says that since they haven't come for your guns today, why, it's
just irrational to think it might happen.
One of us is working from reality and the other from wishful thinking.
Any guesses as to which I think is which?
:>Care to try for strike 3? What 'refinement' are we going to see next?
:
: None, now that you have made my point for me.
So your point was that if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets in the
sea and that we should make decisions based on the idea that wishes
ARE fishes, since nobody has cast a net in a particular sea to prove
that it's just like all the rest and wishes are NOT fishes?
Yes, if that was your point, you should consider it made.
Fred J. McCall
:>:> Canada Australia
:>:
:>: A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
:>
:>You said "a specific, non-German case".
:
: Absolutely correct. My poor communications skills. My original intent, Your
:Honor, since I seem to be on trial, was a specific case, in the *US*. A state
:where mandatory registration, such as Indiana had for a time, is followed by
:confiscation, which would actually justify fears.
So Washington DC doesn't count. All the guns confiscated under Brady
or in various other American cities don't count. You think you have
ONE counter-example, and, of course, that's the only one that counts.
: Indiana not only still has guns, but no longer has registration.
And just why do you think that is?
Howard Berkowitz
<lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote
>
> > And I'm struggling to get funding to develop and install such systems.
>
> The big players in the field are: IDX, McKesson HBOC, Cerner, Eclipsys,
> and
> in smaller facilities you'll see Meditech, Keane, and a few others.
> There
> are niche vendors such as SunQuest who do departmental systems (SunQuest
> does lab). These become amazingly large and complex and need infinite
> variability due to physician preferences and differences in practices.
> The
> things they are attempting vary from the small departmental systems to
> one
> attempt to link the medical records of an entire country.
>
> The current trend is to include clinical content to assist the clinician
> in
> their practice. Things like drug/drug and drug/food interactions and
> even
> aides to diagnosis and information on various diagnoses. Most clinicians
> I
> know HATE these things as the alarms are so frequent they get in the way
> and
> most of the time, all but the really BIG ones get turned off.
I have been amazed at how stupid most of the drug interaction systems
are -- they appear mostly to be parroting back the PDR printed
interactions. The systems I've been working on do such things as offer
prompts (with record retrieval) on consensus protocols, offer dose
adjustments for renal function/age/mass/etc., and consider interactions
both as "published" and based on molecular pharmacology and lab results.
> The
> clinical
> data seems to get used as handouts for patient/family education but not
> used
> much the the hospital personnel themselves.
By clinical data, are you referring to the drug instruction monographs,
or something that actually looks at specific patient information?
An interesting challenge in advanced pharmacy system design is balancing
several optimizations: minimize cost, maximize probability of
compliance (avoid "horse pills," try to recommend alternatives that give
simpler dosing schedules), and recommend optimal drugs given
comorbidities and lab & physical data (well, I've been doing that mostly
within the scope of cardiology).
>
> They've all got versions that eliminate written orders. Some do it well,
> some do it not as well but still acceptable and some are downright lousy.
> Even the ones who do it well have other issues. <shrug>
>
> AND lot's of smaller hospitals have systems that *could* be used to
> eliminate errors but lack the funding to buy/implement and maintain the
> things. <sigh> Thank you Ronald Reagan and Medicare Reform.
The sad thing is that many such systems have fairly fast economic
payback in that they improve billing and reimbursement efficiency. One
driver that hasn't yet happened is incentives by malpractice insurers to
implement error-reduction system.
>
> I think it may be time for me to get the hell out of this game and go
> train
> dogs...
>
> Loki - a pack of angry Rottweilers is easier to handle than 3 upset
> physicians...
>
>
Actually, I find considerable similarities between dealing with cats and
surgeons on keyboards.
Loren Pechtel
>How about an tort-insurance-free society, in which each person actually
>takes _personal_ responsibility for their actions? You screw up, you pay.
>What a concept!
Well, the guy who ran into us certainly wouldn't have had the
money.
Loren Pechtel
>>> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
>>>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
>>
>> Canada Australia
>
> A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
I don't remember the details in either situation. Somebody
else has also added the UK.
> B) Where in the *US* has this occurred?
So what? All the countries we are listing are western
democracies. Why shouldn't they be reasonable examples?
Loren Pechtel
> Excuse me. Let me refine the question. WHERE in the (US* has confiscation
>followed registration.
Why shouldn't the examples from the rest of the world apply?
charles krin
>>> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
>>>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
>>
>> Canada Australia
>
> A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
>
> B) Where in the *US* has this occurred?
>
California and NJ...while the 'confiscation' was 'voluntary', the
limitations imposed on existing owners were bordering on Draconian.
Eric Pinnell
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>You are broadening the argument. I was speaking to the militia clause,
>and whether it applied to men under 35 (45), to women, to slaves, etc.
>If not, what extended the definition to include them? It's certainly
>not a constitutional amendment. I could see an argument under the
>reserved powers clause for states to have done so, but have they?
The Federalists viewed the militia as all able bodied men between 17
and 44, wheras the Republicans viewed the militia as being the whole
of the body of the people.
>The Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments are informative, but they
>are not embedded in the Constitution. I keep hearing arguments for
>strict interpretation from people who insist on it for everything except
>the militia clause.
Since the reasons why the Federalists and Anti-Federalists wrote
the amendment are a matter of public record, one doesn't have to
"interpret" the second amendment other than to mean exactly what the
two parties intended.
>By that last point, are you advocating the constitutionality of
>individual possession of nuclear weapons...in contrast to the Federal
>procedures for nuclear weapon command and control that goes right up to
>the NCA, with numerous checks and balances, the Personnel Reliability
>Program, the rest?
Whether or not it would be constitutional for the government to
insist an individual has some form of PAL system for their own
privately owned nuclear weapon is a matter of debate. However, one
cannot argue that a nuclear weapon is not useful for fighting invaders
or keeping a tyrannical government in check.
>Oh -- and how do I distinguish between the guy with the homebrewed B-61
>who wants it to protect against tyranny IF it evolves, a domestic
>terrorist, and a supporter of a foreign terrorist cause?
You cannot. Preventing someone from exercising their rights
because they might do something bad is called prior restraint and is
illegal under free speech. Presumably it is also illegal under the
RKBA.
If you don't want terrorists getting their hands on nasty weapons,
don't let them in the country. Also note, the idea that Al-Qaeda,
etc, can't get their hands on weapons ignores the fact that they
already have heavy artillery, tanks, machineguns, rockets, SAMs, etc.
Eric Pinnell
(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")
For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"
Eric Pinnell
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Eric Pinnell <see my web site> wrote:
>
>: Besides, if one were to argue military utility for arms, then it
>:would be constitutional to own nuclear weapons, since they are
>:manifestly useful in a military role.
>
>But damned difficult to 'bear'.
One can wield any weapon. "Bear" in the RKBA does not mean "carry",
since "keep" means both "own" and "posession". Carrying would be part
of posession. The RKBA requires ownership and the ability to USE
those arms.
Even accepting portability as being a requirement, the SADM nuclear
bomb was designed to fit into a backpack.
Eric Pinnell
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And if you're being strict, wouldn't Negroes only be allowed
>three-fifths of a firearm? (Or am I misremembering, which is likely?)
Slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person for purposes of the
census. They were never consider to be part of "the people" for
purposes of the RKBA, although freed blacks were.
Eric Pinnell
>Actually, there was zero functional difference in weapons. The only thing
>that made a military rifle a military rifle was that it was purchased by the
>military. Sporting weapons didn't exist at all, any more than a "sporting
>hammer" exists now. I doubt that there was any concept of "sport shooting"
>at all, as any shooting that was to be done was done either for food or
>defense. The weapons of the time were fussy, and not at all easy to use.
>You had to really need them before they were worth the hassle.
Indeed. The M82A1 Barrett heavy sniper rifle started out as a
civilian target rifle.
Eric Pinnell
>IIRC, one of the supposed differences between the revolutionary forces and
>the British forces (other than the Brits standing in open fields wearing red
>uniforms) was that the shooting of the revolutionary forces was more
>accurate. It may well have been that privately-owned weapons were _better_
>than the common military weapons at that time.
Not strictly true. Most people (including the military)_ were
armed with smooth bore muskets. A few had rifled muskets.
The rifles were more accurate, but had a slower rate of fire. For
hunting, the rifle was a better choice, but even so, many people
hunted with a smooth bore musket. Some others used the Kentucky long
rifle, which was exceptionally accurate out to 300 yards.
Eric Pinnell
> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I keep
>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
New Jersey. New York. Boston during the Revolutionary War.
Howard Berkowitz
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:35:16 -0400, Howard Berkowitz
> <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >You are broadening the argument. I was speaking to the militia clause,
> >and whether it applied to men under 35 (45), to women, to slaves, etc.
> >If not, what extended the definition to include them? It's certainly
> >not a constitutional amendment. I could see an argument under the
> >reserved powers clause for states to have done so, but have they?
>
> The Federalists viewed the militia as all able bodied men between 17
> and 44, wheras the Republicans viewed the militia as being the whole
> of the body of the people.
So right away, you establish that some framers had one opinion and other
framers had a different opinion. Unambiguous intent. Feh.
>
>
> >The Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments are informative, but they
> >are not embedded in the Constitution. I keep hearing arguments for
> >strict interpretation from people who insist on it for everything except
> >the militia clause.
>
> Since the reasons why the Federalists and Anti-Federalists wrote
> the amendment are a matter of public record, one doesn't have to
> "interpret" the second amendment other than to mean exactly what the
> two parties intended.
Strict interpretation, construction, whatever you want to call it means
that if the words aren't in the Constitution, they don't have the force
of constitutional law. The reasons of the Federalists and
Anti-Federalists could be carven on a mountain, but if they don't make
it into the Constitutional document, they aren't constitutional law.
>
> >By that last point, are you advocating the constitutionality of
> >individual possession of nuclear weapons...in contrast to the Federal
> >procedures for nuclear weapon command and control that goes right up to
> >the NCA, with numerous checks and balances, the Personnel Reliability
> >Program, the rest?
>
> Whether or not it would be constitutional for the government to
> insist an individual has some form of PAL system for their own
> privately owned nuclear weapon is a matter of debate. However, one
> cannot argue that a nuclear weapon is not useful for fighting invaders
> or keeping a tyrannical government in check.
One can very easily argue it, given that the regular military itself has
found that precision guided conventional munitions often are more
flexible than nuclear weapons.
>
>
> >Oh -- and how do I distinguish between the guy with the homebrewed B-61
> >who wants it to protect against tyranny IF it evolves, a domestic
> >terrorist, and a supporter of a foreign terrorist cause?
>
> You cannot. Preventing someone from exercising their rights
> because they might do something bad is called prior restraint and is
> illegal under free speech.
I suggest you take a look at public health quarantine.
Jim Elwell
Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
> There is no middle ground on an issue where a vocal minority demands the
> complete elimination of its opponents' rights. The only goal the
> anti-gunners will accept is making possession of any firearm illegal.
Take a chill pill, George. There are extremists with utopian fantasies
on both sides of the argument. Neither side will get their ultimate
wishes answered and I suspect neither side reflects rank and file voters.
Recall the twin bills introduced in 2000 by State Rep Maslack of
Vermont? Bill H 760 would have required non-gun owners in Vermont to
register with the state and pay $500 registration fee for the privilege
of _not_ owning a firearm. Bill H 763 would have made military training
a prerequisite for obtaining a high school diploma in Vermont.
I have no problem with gun registration or gun ownership. I still have
the handgun that I purchased in the mid '70s. It was purchased via
mail-order when I was underage (16) and without my parents' knowledge.
As a parent, I'm glad that the laws have tightened up a bit since then.
-Jim
loki
> I have been amazed at how stupid most of the drug interaction systems
> are -- they appear mostly to be parroting back the PDR printed
> interactions. The systems I've been working on do such things as offer
> prompts (with record retrieval) on consensus protocols, offer dose
> adjustments for renal function/age/mass/etc., and consider interactions
> both as "published" and based on molecular pharmacology and lab results.
They are getting smarter. There are things like dose range checking out
ther now. One interesting thing that emerged recently was the concept that
some physicians are actually open to having a system make changes to their
orders, based on their having written and order to allow that. Not sure how
you'd put that into a system though. Sliding scale insulin would be a
rather simplistic example of this.
> By clinical data, are you referring to the drug instruction monographs,
> or something that actually looks at specific patient information?
No, more reference data. Stuff like the handouts that pharmacies give for
meds now, but for the diagnosis for that patient. The systems aren't smart
enough yet to do what you describe.
> An interesting challenge in advanced pharmacy system design is balancing
> several optimizations: minimize cost, maximize probability of
> compliance (avoid "horse pills," try to recommend alternatives that give
> simpler dosing schedules), and recommend optimal drugs given
> comorbidities and lab & physical data (well, I've been doing that mostly
> within the scope of cardiology).
Well, compliance is a problem in commercial pharmacies, but less so in the
inpatient setting. What you describe would result in a recommendation to
the clinician rather than an order though. I've not seen anything this
smart out there.
> The sad thing is that many such systems have fairly fast economic
> payback in that they improve billing and reimbursement efficiency. One
> driver that hasn't yet happened is incentives by malpractice insurers to
> implement error-reduction system.
True, but they just don't have the cash up front to do it. I agree that
having the malpractice insurers get into the act will get more of them to go
this route.
> Actually, I find considerable similarities between dealing with cats and
> surgeons on keyboards.
Oh yeah. Surgeons are the worse of the lot, no doubt about it. Talk about
a bunch of prima donas. <shakes head> Even they can be hearded as long as
you don't let them know you're doing it. <grin>
Loki
Howard Berkowitz
<lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
It's not a clear boundary, when you consider hospital outpatient
services and the pharmacy frequently associated with them. Even with
inpatients, though, thinking rationally about dosage schedules can
reduce nursing workload.
>What you describe would result in a recommendation to
> the clinician rather than an order though. I've not seen anything this
> smart out there.
>
*cough* you haven't seen my prototypes, then. Yes, definitely
recommendation, not an override of the physician, unless the latter is
specific policy (e.g., a resident needing an attending's signoff, a
general attending needing an infectious disease signoff to order
vancomycin).
> > The sad thing is that many such systems have fairly fast economic
> > payback in that they improve billing and reimbursement efficiency. One
> > driver that hasn't yet happened is incentives by malpractice insurers
> > to
> > implement error-reduction system.
>
> True, but they just don't have the cash up front to do it. I agree that
> having the malpractice insurers get into the act will get more of them to
> go
> this route.
>
> > Actually, I find considerable similarities between dealing with cats
> > and
> > surgeons on keyboards.
>
> Oh yeah. Surgeons are the worse of the lot, no doubt about it. Talk
> about
> a bunch of prima donas. <shakes head> Even they can be hearded as long
> as
> you don't let them know you're doing it. <grin>
It varies even with the subspecialty. Where the difference between God
and a neurosurgeon is that God doesn't think he's a neurosurgeon,
orthopod chart notes are more "bone break. Me fix." The danger with
orthopedists using email is that their orders may get mixed up with
those for the carpenters and plasterers.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"charles krin" <ck...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:cfv5fv8dqup9vrhqc...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jun 2003 02:02:32 GMT, velo...@aol.com.CanDo (V-Man) wrote:
>
> >>> WHERE? Where has registration been followed by confiscation? I
keep
> >>>hearing this but never a specific, non-German case.
> >>
> >> Canada Australia
> >
> > A) Your reply fails to meet the "specific case" requirement.
> >
> > B) Where in the *US* has this occurred?
> >
>
> California and NJ...while the 'confiscation' was 'voluntary', the
> limitations imposed on existing owners were bordering on Draconian.
Now V-man will pop back in and write "Well, where _other_ than CA and NJ..."
:)
V-Man
>:Honor, since I seem to be on trial, was a specific case, in the *US*. A
>state
>:where mandatory registration, such as Indiana had for a time, is followed by
>:confiscation, which would actually justify fears.
>
>So Washington DC doesn't count.
No, it does, thank you. As I wrote, and you seem to have missed, perhaps
intentionally, MY ORIGINAL INTENT...
I was explaining, a second time, not addressing the point raised.