Shiftless2
Well-known member
Organized religion!
Quotable Quotes
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Thanks for the clarification.
It reminds me of the following Durant quotation:
I suppose Spence has a more sensible perspective:
Shiftless2
Well-known member
"I call them out, but they should really be called out by the Courts, and should not be allowed to enter the White House premises, or Press Room, because they are CORRUPT and DISHONEST!" ~ Trump, on "The Fake News Media"
Operation "Report Exactly What He Said" is working as planned.
Operation "Report Exactly What He Said" is working as planned.
- ha -
But:
Sensible human systems tend to be somewhat designed for self-preservation.
A law against theft may not prevent all theft. BUT,
other components of the system deal with thieves albeit within the Constitutional proscriptions against cruel & unusual punishments.
I'm all for slamming Trump with honest candor.
But why if we are to adhere to the Constitution has Trump not been excluded from serving in this 3rd term to which Trump publicly admits he's been elected to?
So we enforce the law, provided it's NOT extremely important?!
Shiftless2
Well-known member
point:
"If you know the difference between good advice and bad advice, you don't need advice." somebody's uncle
counterpoint:
The above quoted insight is premised on structurally bad advice.
It's simplistic to think of advice as offering a single course of action.
That approach merely displaces the perception of the advisee with the perspective of the advisor.
The wise advisor reviews potential risks, and then offers constructive options, and their likely consequences.
It's generally best to leave the choice to the advisee, even in child-rearing.
"If you know the difference between good advice and bad advice, you don't need advice." somebody's uncle
counterpoint:
The above quoted insight is premised on structurally bad advice.
It's simplistic to think of advice as offering a single course of action.
That approach merely displaces the perception of the advisee with the perspective of the advisor.
The wise advisor reviews potential risks, and then offers constructive options, and their likely consequences.
It's generally best to leave the choice to the advisee, even in child-rearing.
And in addition:
lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb′ər-târē-ən)
n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
[From LIBERTY.] lib′er·tari·an adj. lib′er·tari·an·ism n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
note:
The Constitution enumerates the right of the People to keep and bear arms. BUT !!
I sincerely emphatically believe private citizens should not be allowed to own cataclysmic doomsday weapons, such as a spectacularly contagious pathogen more deadly than Ebola
no vaccine, no cure, no chance.
I'm all for individual rights, BUT ! their right to flail their fist ends short of where our noses begin.
I think I tend to agree some limits are necessary and reasonsble.
But the 2nd amendment was pretty clear that when you have limits on weapons, that is up to the states or cities.
For example, the gun rules in Alaska one would expect to be different than NYC.
And clearly federal organizations are all too inherently corrupt, like the BATF and FBI shooting people at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The word "cities" does not appear in 2A.
The word "State" appears once, but not in the context of "limits on weapons" other than there are no enumerated limits. Explicitly to the contrary, the exact 2A wording is "... shall not be infringed."
The elephant in the living-room goes flagrantly ignored.
I understand the merit of the equal protection clause:
But we already institutionalize age discrimination in a variety of ways.
18 to vote
21 is the age of adult emancipation in some other cases
Young inexperienced drivers may have to pay higher premia for car insurance, "assigned risk" etc.
The 2A implications?
Men in their 20's may tend to be more aggressive than men in their 70's.
Individuals that have reached retirement age may not only be less aggressive, but also more dependent on the system.
They have less to gain, and more to lose than an angry 22 year old drunk dissatisfied because he doesn't earn as much as his long-tenured co-worker 3 times his age.
SO:
Yes, the distinction between gun laws in Alaska, and NYC. Fine. BUT !
Might it make sense for residents of NYC that have reached the age of 65 to receive consideration in application for concealed carry that 22 year olds do not?
Or is that precisely the kind of unequal protection our 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified to prevent? Even if it ignores basic human biology, AND progressive social entanglement?
In general the Bill of Rights implies it is mostly restrictions on the federal government.
The 9th and 10th amendment make it very clear that the feds have to be explicitly authorized by the Constitution before they have any jurisdiction and can pass any laws related to the matter.
And since no where does the Constitution authorize any federal gun laws, then all those passed are totally illegal.
There's a debate long simmering about whether the Constitution defines a sea of citizen rights with some islands of government authority, or
a sea of government authority with some islands of citizen's rights.
Many have picked a side in that debate. Some among them may consider the debate resolved.
It's not.
"Totally illegal"?
I have never heard from any legal scholar the following opinion. It is one I have arrived at on my own, even if others have also. (they haven't told me about it)
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
PREAMBLE:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [defense], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
According to what I've read the Constitution's Preamble is not enforceable law. Fine. BUT !
My opinion, the body of the Constitution including Amendments can be categorized as "letter of the law",
while the Preamble is the "spirit of the law", in my opinion.
I've long thought it shortsighted that there aren't spirit of the law preambles to more of our laws. Not necessarily only statutes, ordinances as well.
Auto-fire belt-feeders did not exist in 1791 when 2A was ratified. BUT !!
The Founders were realistic enough to understand progress would be made, and adjustments to our Constitution would be necessary.
Amendments 12 through 27 were ratified after the 18th Century, the century of our Founding.
There are historic accounts of Benjamin Franklin reassuring Founders hesitant to provide their support, that while their objections and reservations may be well-founded,
the compromises made were about the best that could be achieved, & deserves their support.
And their support was provided.
A screwdriver is a tool.
So is a can opener.
It's best to not interchange them.
A sensible citizen may have legitimate use for a gun.
A .22 to hunt varmints.
A .38 to defend against a rabid fox attack while hiking / camping. etc
The General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon that is primarily and most famously mounted in the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Designed to destroy a wide variety of ground targets, the Avenger delivers 30 mm rounds at a high rate of fire.
GAU-8 Avenger - Wikipedia
Fine.
Does Bruce really need two GAU-8/A mounted on his Winnebago ?
I'm not endorsing PRECISELY where the line is now drawn. BUT !
I acknowledge, we don't really want mentally unbalanced hot-heads with nuclear weapons circulating in our residential neighborhoods.
My objection is the a-wink-&-a-nod compromise of 2A. The wording is "shall not be infringed." BUT
the reality is monumentally to the contrary.
I understand the romantic appeal of leaving the Bill of Rights intact.
I also understand the detriment of hypocrisy within our "supreme law of the land", Art.6 Sect.2.