muff528

Humble Pie

Don't forget the pig fest in Lakeland. And, I think there's supposed to be some sort of BBQ competition going on somewhere around here, too.

Batman, too.

I say we let California take no more than 2 nukes and then we let 'em have it. Maybe 3, but no more.

Not a Baltimore fan but Ray Lewis is a hometown hero ....although he did graduate from a rival high school and then go to Miami. ...Go Ravens!

I think this was a plan proposed by Congress. Lincoln seemed to have agreed and suggested to Frederick Douglass that that might be a viable option for freed slaves. Douglass rightly and indignantly dismissed that idea completely, although some freed slaves did relocate to Liberia. I think Lincoln even told Douglass something to the effect that they would never be fully accepted into society. "......In view of this proposition, we would respectfully suggest to the assembled wisdom of the nation, that it might be well to ascertain the number of free colored people who will be likely to need the assistance of government to help them out of this country to Liberia, or elsewhere, beyond the limits of these United States—since this course might save any embarrassment which would result from an appropriation more than commensurate to the numbers who might be disposed to leave this, our own country, for one we know not of. We are of the opinion that the free colored people generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable number of the free colored people to quit this for a foreign land. For two hundred and twenty-eight years has the colored man toiled over the soil of America, under a burning sun and a driver's lash—plowing, planting, reaping, that white men might roll in ease, their hands unhardened by labor, and their brows unmoistened by the waters of genial toil; and now that the moral sense of mankind is beginning to revolt at this system of foul treachery and cruel wrong, and is demanding its overthrow, the mean and cowardly oppressor is meditating plans to expel the colored man entirely from the country. Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here—have lived here—have a right to live here, and mean to live here." ~ Frederick Douglass

I was only referring to the habeas corpus thing.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16588357-anger-violent-thoughts-are-you-too-sick-to-own-a-gun?lite excerpts: But under a new law in New York, one of the strongest to be passed to date, therapists may feel compelled to report every instance of violent talk, lest they face legal consequences if something happens. And some say ordinary patients may wind up suffering the most. “There’s one group of people who are gun owners who may reasonably or unreasonably think, ‘I’m not going anywhere near a mental health person, because if they misinterpret something I say as an indication I’m going to hurt myself or someone else, they’re going to report me and take away my guns,’” Applebaum said. “Now if you’re mistaken, you’re wrong about this, and you don’t report it, you could face criminal sanctions. I’m not taking any chances at that point,” Dubovsky said. That could encourage therapists to over-report, he said.

Was Anders Breivik an NRA member?!

People better start waking up. Global Islamic Jihad has nothing to do with oil or Mali or the French or Youtube or Israel or cartoons or the Pope or Iraq or Palestine or springtime or sanctions or embargoes or........

Yes, this! But remember that Lincoln, himself, perverted the Constitution ...maybe.

I'll take (5), Muff. Yeah, I was pretty sure I left out a few other ways a citizen could be disenfranchised or bureaucratically abused. Ways that could reach far beyond 2nd Amendment rights. Fill me in.

Westerners need to think long and hard before taking a job in Algeria. Jihadists need to think long and hard before taking hostages in Algeria.

I don't think I've stated my position either way on the "gun control" question ...only on how the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted. (this stuff is extremely interesting to me). So, I'll just come right out and state my position. I could be for gun control or against it. I need more info before we loan the government that power ...specifically: (1) how are various firearms going to be classified and how is any proposed regulation going to affect possession of each kind. (i.e., is an "assault weapon" going to be any firearm that merely "looks like" a military weapon or is it actually a fully automatic military weapon)? (2) how will "crazy" be defined for this purpose, how will that be determined and by whom. Who oversees and evaluates this determination? How long before an "applicant" gets his answer? Will there be "levels" of craziness (you can have a single shot .410 but we're going to have to deny that Glock you were hoping to get)? What protections or procedures will be in place to ensure an applicant can dispute or contest a ruling of incompetence or craziness? Would it be possible for a person who has been deemed too crazy to own a firearm to still be allowed to drive a car? etc., etc. (3) who is responsible for a mental evaluation gone bad ...one way or the other. What will be the penalties for falsely or incompetently making that decision and what protections will be in place for any shooting victims or for an applicant who is unfairly deemed crazy and denied his 2nd Amendment rights? (4) after gun control takes effect, how are we going to deal with the actual problem of felons, criminals, or would-be criminals, getting guns illegally? (5) other stuff.

Actually that is a very good point. This completely (and maybe intentionally) misses the point. The "militia" is not intended to fight against the US Armed Forces for the purpose of revolution against the United States (We the People).. So where does all this defense against a tyrranical government rhetoric come from, then, enquiring minds want to know? See post #18.

Actually that is a very good point. This completely (and maybe intentionally) misses the point. The "militia" is not intended to fight against the US Armed Forces for the purpose of revolution against the United States (We the People). But rather for defense against something like a personal or political "police force" (the "brownshirts" or "blackshirts" would be extreme examples). Such a force might be created originally for other, more benign purposes and slowly evolve into an "enforcement arm" by an overly ambitious and purposeful administration. This "police force" (for lack of a better term) might not even manifest itself as an organized group but may be disparate groups of "loyalists" with goals common to that of a rogue administration and which conflict with Constitutional protections.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. They are well armed and regulated. I suppose you could throw in Federal, State, County, and City law enforcement. Disagree with that interpretation. I think the point is not to "overthrow" the government as much as it is to defend ourselves against oppression by a government that goes "extra-constitutional" and governs outside the law. The problem is that there are probably 300,000,000 different ideas about when and how that line would be crossed.

Not quite sure what your point is but I think it's something like: We have already relinquished our rights and freedoms to the point that giving up 2nd Amendment rights will not be any more or less damaging to our freedom. ??

I agree with all those statements, except maybe [the last] one.

Regardless of various interpretations of pre-US Constitution documents, I simply have never been able to understand this logic. If that was the reason, then why didn't it say so in the Second Amendment? It certainly doesn't. Folks can say it does until they're blue in the face, but it simply doesn't say it. It talks about a well regulated militia and we could debate what that means for quite awhile, but it makes no sense whatsoever that it means it is promoting an armed insurrection against itself. If it did, it would say so just like it details every other course of action for the non-violent changes in government. So, no. You do NOT have a Second Amendment Right to violently overthrow the US government. ".......being necessary to the security of a free state,......" This may imply just that. Otherwise, why would the framers think that a "free state" could not secure itself with its armed forces? Why would they assume that the "state" also needs a well regulated, armed militia made up of "the people" that are "necessary" to that security? Would an oppressive, tyrannical state not also find a well regulated militia necessary to its security?

Coolest cars in the world are here.

If they leave their high beams on you are blinded. If you turn yours on to make a point, they are blinded. If this is on a dark 2-lane highway, you now have two cars approaching each other at ~120 mph separated only by a 4" painted line, with both drivers blinded. I'll flash them once and then just hope they can see well enough to miss me.

Nice hints with the pic names!

Really? I thought the right wing mantra is that government makes you poor, and that the rich got there ALL BY THEMSELVES. Gawd! We need a sarcasm icon. But, seriously, does anyone really think a private citizen, no matter how rich, could afford to acquire, keep and maintain sophisticated modern weaponry (of the types mentioned by Bill) ...even if the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to include them? Just to be clear ...I am not advocating that the 2nd Amendment refers to WMDs, RPGs, bombs, etc. Those are the types of weapons which are preferred (and have already been used) by lefties, anyway.

Well, you brought up the warships and cannons, and I provided a relevant historical example where private warships were used. But, yes, all of the above could be used by citizens to overthrow their government. But I wonder ...why would folks who could afford a nuke or an F-15 ("the rich") want to overthrow the government that made them rich?