GeorgiaDon

Not exactly. He completed a pre-trial diversion program, which is commonly offered to first-time offenders. (link) Completing a diversion program involves an admission of guilt, but a conviction is not entered on your record. Different from "oops we made a mistake, you are totally innocent of the charge". In fairness, this was in 2005, so some time ago. The issue with the former girlfriend turned into tit-for-tat accusations, and the injunctions were ultimately sealed by the court, so it's hard to know what that all means. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Indeed. Nevertheless, I think that the issue is one where the use of the term "right" is shown in its folly. Compare, if you will, the right to speech. Or the right to practice a religion. Or to remain silent. With the exception of the right to a jury, the rights given cause no duty upon others. Others need not pay the price for a person's exercise of right. When a person has a "right" to healthcare, it necessarily costs another person. If the homeless person wanted to spend the whole day immersed in prayer, it wouldn't cost anybody anything. But when the homeless guy gets his "right" to medical care, it creates a cost to others, which means it is not a "right" at all. I understand the sociological argument. I also understand the individual dignity of humans. Nevertheless, there is a definite cost/benefit analysis to be done. These are individual choices, of course. However, people also have a right to legal representation, and if they cannot afford such representation it is provided for them, and I pay for it despite the fact that I would not qualify for free legal representation myself. Nevertheless, I do not object to the principle of the thing, as a system of justice that put people on trial without any representation would not be justice at all. It would be an affront to my sense of our principles as a nation to have people railroaded into long prison sentences, or even the death penalty, because they weren't able to contend with the judicial system on their own. I can complain about particular details, such as spending over $3 million dollars on a single defendant, Brian Nichols, who murdered a judge and court reporter in front of a courtroom full of witnesses. But those details don't overwhelm the principle that trial without legal representation would be a farce. Some principles are worth paying for, just as some (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc) are worth fighting for. What is your opinion of taxpayer funding for indigent defense? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care. The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix. I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this. Is that the right link? I get a news story about the day's testimony, and didn't see any discussion of EMTALA. Anyway, I recall past threads where you made your dislike for EMTALA clear. I asked you a question then, which you didn't respond to, and I'll ask it again. A former student of mine worked as an EMT for a local ambulance service after he graduated. One time when he stopped by my office, I asked him how common is it that they transport accident/heart attack/other seriously injured patients without making sure they had their wallet/purse with ID and insurance info. He said it was very common, at least 10% of such patients. In a violent car crash your wallet or purse can end up anywhere, and their concern is stabilizing the patient and transporting as quickly as possible. [I can testify to the car crash issue a bit, as I was once rear-ended by a logging truck, and although I was kept in place by my seat belt, I eventually found my cell phone, which had been in my pocket, underneath the rear seat of my Jeep.] Also when they arrive at a residence and find a patient in full cardiac arrest, they don't spend time searching the house for ID/insurance cards. A family member, or the police, can bring that along later. So here is my question for you. How do you suggest an ER/trauma center should respond to a seriously ill or injured patient who is brought in without ID, insurance cards, a checkbook, or other proof that they will be able to pay? You seem to advocate a can't pay = no treatment ethic. Have I misunderstood? Anyway, in a situation where the patient needs immediate treatment to have a chance at survival, do you really believe they should withhold treatment until someone shows up with a checkbook or insurance info? Should someone who has paid for insurance diligently be allowed to die because their wallet is under a back seat in their wrecked car? Wouldn't that be a consequence of repealing EMTALA? Is your outrage at being taken advantage of by freeloaders so great that you'd push a system that would deny life-saving care to tens of thousands of people who in fact have paid for insurance? What do you think ERs/trauma centers should do in such a case? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The skittles, maybe that could be forgiven. But the sweet iced tea, that's too much for anyone to tolerate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If that account is correct, I think the question becomes when the confrontation started. Did it start with Zimmerman's decision to start following Trayvon? Would you feel threatened if somebody started following you at night? Interesting, the subtle meaning of words. When I think of someone "following me", I think of a situation where I'm walking (or driving) somewhere and I notice someone behind me, then a few blocks later I see they're still there, so I turn a few corners at random, look back, and they're still behind me. The kind of thing that might make me want to go to a place where there's a lot of people around, or police maybe, but as long as there is some distance between us I'm not likely to feel at fear for my life at that instant. Now a scenario where I notice someone staring at me, so I walk away and notice the guy start running towards me, so I start to run and the guy is still running, trying to catch me... Well, I don't know if "following" really applies to that situation. I think it's inherently much more threatening, the difference between someone keeping their distance and someone who is actively trying to catch you. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Excellent advice. Here in Georgia there are no CCW classes required. All you need to obtain a permit is a clean background check. No familiarity with the law, or proficiency in the care and use of firearms, is required. I wonder what the situation is in Florida? I would think sensible people would want to know the law, and correct firearm use, if only to protect themselves against stumbling into trouble due to ignorance. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. Perhaps the police investigated this, perhaps not; I haven't seen anything one way or the other, but it might be like the incident reports where we have to wait for the "official report". I would think a timely examination of the scene might have revealed what really happened. Footprints made while running are different than footprints made by a walking person. Did Martin drop his iced tea/skittles? The location could say something about the dynamic of the chase. I hope the information wasn't lost because of a poor police investigation. Could be. Jakee's suggestion that "OK" is what someone would say if their intent was to blow off the 911 dispatcher is also possible. As above, timely investigation could have supported or refuted this. Again, what I have seen is a statement from a witness that he heard a commotion, looked out the window, and saw one guy (presumably Martin) on top of, and striking, another person (presumably Zimmerman). It seems clear a fight occurred between the two, also based on Zimmerman's condition (grass stains, bloody nose). I haven't seen anything that says who threw the first punch. I certainly haven't seen anything from anyone who saw Martin hiding in the bushes and jumping out at Zimmerman. So far I haven't seen anything that alleges that Zimmerman had his gun drawn as he was chasing Martin. Did I miss something? I understood he drew his gun as he was getting the worse end of the fight. Well, this is one of the central points of the issue. Martin was not "out of place", he had every right to be there. Maybe he hadn't been there many times before and was unsure where the house was (as one possibility). I agree that a person wandering around, checking building numbers or something, might attract attention. I often see students wandering around my work place (University research labs) looking lost. I always stop and ask if I can help them. They could be looking to steal computers or balances or something, that has happened on rare occasions. Invariably, though, I find they are looking for some professor's office or lab. Usually I will take them there (a 1 or 2 minute walk down the hall), and in every instance it turns out they were expected and their story is legitimate. It would be really weird if I were to stop and stare at them until they freaked out and took off running, and even weirder if I were to chase them. For Zimmerman, appropriate behaviors would have been to politely ask Martin if he needed help, or to just observe him and let the police handle the questions. Staring and chasing IS initiating a confrontation. I haven't heard of him drawing on anyone, I'm sure there would be a police report on such an incident so I doubt anything of the sort happened. There's a very fine line between "just verbal" and "picking a fight". People complained about his rude and aggressive interrogation of people who were doing nothing wrong, just (for example) visiting someone in the neighborhood. Those people were intimidated enough to answer his questions. Imagine this interaction instead between Zimmerman and your typical Type A personality skydiver. Such questions would be met by a pointed "fuck off". Where would things go from there? It's easy to imagine an arm grasped to keep our skydiver from walking away, a punch thrown in response... Zimmerman's attitude was not helpful, or appropriate. Zimmerman made numerous statements to the 911 dispatcher that indicated an unwarranted aggressive attitude, actual anger in fact, towards Martin. Yet the argument is that Martin, for no reason, came after Zimmerman. Please pardon my skepticism. Jackson/Sharpton/NPP have done nothing but pollute this incident for their own gain. Those guys did good work back in the civil rights era, but unfortunately their business model requires them to keep perpetuating old problems. I give them no account. I'd also prefer to avoid the lynch mob mentality too. I'd just like to see a thorough vetting of the evidence. I hope a proper investigation was done, and all the evidence is eventually presented to the public. Yet I'm sure you teach them to get away from strangers who are trying to accost them. Getting away might very well involve hiding. Was Zimmerman walking directly back to the truck, perhaps whistling a happy tune to boot? Or was he perhaps still looking for Martin? Checking in doorways and bushes for that drug-addled asshole? Perhaps checking in THAT BUSH, the one Martin has hidden in to escape? So what is Martin to do? Here comes that pedophile, OMG he's coming right here! He'll find me! I can't let him take me! So in this scenario, who has really initiated the confrontation? If someone is stalking you, hunting you, chasing you, and now is coming right to your hiding place, is it reasonable to expect that you should just sit there and meekly allow him to discover you and do who-knows-what to you? Are you really the aggressor if you defend yourself by jumping out at this unknown aggressor who has been chasing you? Even if Martin hid in a bush, and jumped Zimmerman, the situation does not require Martin to be the aggressor, in my opinion. I was referring to the several minutes when Zimmerman was on the phone to 911 while staring at Martin, then chasing him. He could have called out to Martin and identified himself as being with Neighborhood Watch, but he didn't do that. So all the information Martin would have had is that "there's a strange guy starting at me, and now he's chasing me!" According to his girlfriend, who he was on the phone with at the time this was all happening, that is exactly what Martin thought. There's a reason the police identify themselves as police when they enter a premise, or seek to detain someone. When you say "you follow them a little bit" you make it sound like Zimmerman was trying to inconspicuously tail Martin. Initiating a full-on foot race is not just "following them a little bit". It's an action that any reasonable person would see as quite aggressive. Not sure how this is supposed to happen? So Martin outruns Zimmerman (very plausible), disappears somewhere up ahead, so Zimmerman gives up, turns around, and heads back to his truck. In the meantime Martin for some reason turns back, manages somehow to get past Zimmerman without being seen, and positions himself somewhere between Zimmerman and his truck so he can jump Zimmerman from behind as he innocently walks past? Somehow, to me, the alternative scenario that Martin was being chased, managed to hide so Zimmerman went past him, then fought with Zimmerman when his hiding place was discovered as Zimmerman returned to his truck, seems much more plausible. It still seems to me to be much more plausible that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by making unwarranted assumptions about Martin, and initiating a chase without identifying himself or his intentions to Martin. When he cornered Martin, who had no idea who Zimmerman was, a confrontation ensued and Zimmerman resorted to deadly force. Did Zimmerman go looking to kill someone? There is no evidence for that. Rather it seems he acted aggressively, overstepping his authority as a private citizen and attempting to take on the role of a police officer. Unwittingly he precipitated a situation in which a young man was forced to defend himself against an unknown pursuer. Zimmerman, not understanding that he was the one who initiated the confrontation, believed he was entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. As a result, a life has been wasted. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In the comments following one of the news stories, someone wrote: "Everyone's so wawawa about this little nigger boy. I say more of them should be put down, before they grow up to be gangstas." That wouldn't have been you, by any chance? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I didn't realize those were death penalty eligible crimes. Great. Now I'll be even more self-conscious about how I walk. Maybe some self-appointed Dirty Harry will decide I must be a violent criminal because I have a limp or something. Irrelevant if Jorges instigated the confrontation, as all the evidence suggests he did. You can't start a confrontation, then pull out a gun and claim self-defense when things start to go badly for you. Except, of course, if you make sure to kill the guy you confronted so there isn't any other side to the story. Hopefully there will be something in the forensics that puts a noose around his balls. Irrelevant. Whether or not he was "on duty" he had no right to confront. I'd argue he had no reasonable basis for any measure of suspicion, but in any event his responsibility as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer would have been to call the police, and observe what the guy was doing/where he went. Not to confront. Not to execute. No one has disputed his right to carry. One might dispute the wisdom of carrying while playing cop-wannabe with a chip on his shoulder. Just having a concealed carry permit does not give you any right to execute people you dislike. It does not give you any right to detain, interrogate, or otherwise harass law abiding people. It does not give you the right to provoke confrontations. If anything, concealed carry puts much more responsibility on your shoulders to avoid creating a situation where use of the weapon becomes necessary. Now that I think about it, I bet the concealed carry issue is why some people are so adamant in their defense of Zimmerman. The reality is, if you think you have to actually use your weapon, you had better be so sure of it that you're willing to risk a long prison sentence if a jury decides your perception of risk was not "reasonable". If Zimmerman is held to account for his actions, it makes it less likely that you'd be able to say, "Oh well, freedom's not free" if you overreacted and killed some kid on his way home from the store. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You think? Can you offer any justification for Zimmerman deciding Martin was a suspicious, high-on-drugs asshole who was "getting away with something", and initiating a chase that ended in Martin's death? All that you sweep under the rug. "Something unusual" indeed! I'll see your race card, and raise you a Dirty-Harry-wannabe card. "Go ahead, make my day!" "Stop in the name of the Neighborhood Patrol" (not that Zimmerman even bothered to identify himself that much). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I didn't comment on the police not arresting Zimmerman on the spot, so I don't know what you're bitching about. It may be a somewhat perfunctory investigation was done by the police, based on corroborating Mr. Zimmerman's story rather than trying to poke holes in it and seeing if it stood up. As a quick example of what I mean, a while ago in the town where I live there was a case that was called in to the police as a home invasion, where the homeowner killed the intruder in self defense. A quick examination of the scene did not contradict the homeowner's story, and he was not arrested at the time, but a detailed forensic examination of the scene was performed. This examination uncovered evidence that did not jibe with the homeowners story that the intruder was shot and killed inside the house. In particular, 1) there was evidence of a lot of blood (from the dead guy) on the driveway outside the house, which someone had tried to hose off; 2) blood spatter indicated he wasn't shot in the house, but was dragged in there after being shot, 3) autopsy of the dead guy indicated he had been struck with a blunt object (baseball bat as it turned out) as well as shot, and 4) he had been dead for an hour or more before police were called. It turned out Mr/Mrs Homeowner were dealing drugs from the house, the dead guy was a buyer, there was a dispute (he didn't have enough money, so grabbed the drugs and ran), and in the driveway Mrs Homeowner hit him with a bat and Mr Homeowner shot him. Then they dragged him inside, staged things (not very well as it turned out) to look like self-defense, cleaned up the driveway, and called the police. Cases like this are the reason police should never just accept a claim of self-defense at face value. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True. On the other hand, even as a neighborhood watch volunteer Zimmerman has no authority to detain or even question people. Since he had already called 911 and was told police were on the way, there was nothing to be gained from even trying to approach the kid. The fact that he disregarded the 911 dispatcher and went after the kid suggests to me that he was looking for a confrontation. This is consistent with his undisputed statements to the 911 dispatcher that Martin was "acting suspicious", was "high on drugs or something", and "these assholes always getaway with it". It's also curious that Zimmerman never identified himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer, and refused to give his home address to 911. Also on that 911 call he says of Martin "he's running", after which you can hear his truck door open, and his breathing becomes labored as if he is running. The dispatcher asks him "are you following him, to which Zimmerman answers''Yep" and the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says "OK", but his labored breathing continues suggesting he is still running. What happened after that is what is in dispute. Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin and returned to his truck to wait for the police. Out of nowhere the kid attacked him, knocked him down, and he had to draw his gun and kill the kid in self defense. Of course Martin is not here to tell his side, we can only hope that an objective forensic analysis will tell what really happened, if that can still be done at this point. I'm sure footprints that could verify how far the chase went, and whether or not Zimmerman stopped chasing and was walking back to the truck, are long gone. Zimmerman's account requires that Martin, while carrying a bag of skittles and a cup of iced tea, and while talking on the phone to his girlfriend, somehow snuck up on Zimmerman (a man who was conspicuously larger than Martin) and blind-sided him. As I understand it, the witness you mention saw Martin and Zimmerman fighting. I have not heard that the witness says he saw Martin stalk and attack Zimmerman. Maybe you can point me to a link where the witness makes such comments? So we have Zimmerman, who on no evidence at all prejudged Martin as "suspicious", "high on drugs", and an "asshole" who "always gets away with it" (whatever "it" is), and who chased after Martin based only on his paranoid fantasies, as the innocent aggrieved party. Zimmerman, who never called out to Martin to identify himself as being with neighborhood watch. Zimmerman, who according to residents of the neighborhood has a history of accosting people in a confrontational manner. Then we have Martin, a kid whose only previous "infraction" was tardiness at school. Otherwise a good student, never in trouble and never known to fight. Yet suddenly, for no reason, be becomes a raving homicidal maniac determined to kill a completely innocent random bystander (that would be Zimmerman), a man so dangerous he could only be stopped with deadly force. You think that version of events is probable? I think it's about as probable as a story that they were scooped up by aliens, transported half-way across the galaxy, forced to fight to the death in an arena for the entertainment of the alien masses, and at the climactic moment of the fight were suddenly teleported back to exact place and time they were snatched from, just in time for the one witness to see them fighting. YMMV, obviously. I suspect it is rather more probable that Zimmerman caught up to Martin and got the confrontation he so obviously was looking for. Put yourself in Martin's position for a moment (if you are capable of that). He's walking home, and sees this guy in a truck, staring at him. Is the guy a pedophile? Why's he staring at me like that? So Martin starts to run the rest of the way home, and the guy comes after him! Remember we have Zimmerman on the phone to 911 through all of this, so we know Zimmerman never tried to identify himself to Martin. Martin did exactly what we teach kids to do when accosted by strangers. Is Zimmerman a racist, did that provoke his behavior? I don't know anything about that. I can't make out the alleged "coon" statement on the 911 call, so unless some more sophisticated analysis of the recording clarifies things it's not relevant to me. Nevertheless no-one can deny that Zimmerman decided that a teen-aged boy, doing nothing illegal but just returning home with a bag of skittles for his younger soon-to-be (now never-to-be) step-brother and a cup of iced tea, was targeted by Zimmerman as a "suspicious" "high on drugs" "asshole", a chase ensued, and Martin is now dead. Maybe Zimmerman sees all teenage boys as "suspicious, high on drugs, assholes". Maybe only the ones wearing hoodies. Maybe only the black ones. Only Zimmerman can say. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm quite enjoying the circular firing squad aspect of the Republican primary season. I'm not sure many will remember it come November, given the millisecond attention span of the average voter, not to mention the level of of sophistication of their political analysis skills (what's in it for me right now?). Still, it's good fun while it lasts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, if they live in Georgia none of that applies. All that is needed for a CCW permit is a clean background check (no felonies, no "nutter" designation by a court). There is no requirement to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever regarding the law or the safe operation of a firearm. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How would you choose to define stage 6? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, you are a proponent of buying lottery tickets, then going out and buying a house before the winning numbers are announced? Also, even if the Bakken holds anything close to what the speculators suggest, it will be more expensive to access than more conventional reserves. Oil is sold on the world market. If an oil company can get $100/barrel on the world market, do you really believe they would voluntarily sell that oil to domestic refineries at $25/barrel? Or even $95/barrel? Domestic production can decrease prices only by acting on the global market, and US reserves are not large enough to compensate for OPEC reducing supply to keep prices high, as one example. We could launch a program to exploit all our oil reserves within 10 years, if we wanted to, but that would have little effect on prices and only accelerate our movement towards the day when we are totally dependent on foreign sources. Short of mandating that oil from US sources can only be sold to US refineries, please explain why you think domestic production will have a big effect on price/barrel? Reduced demand is a time-tested way of forcing competing suppliers to reduce their price. Do you disagree? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We consume more than a fifth of the world's oil production. That should be obvious, we can't use the oil when it's still in the ground. Does that really need to be spelled out for you? Somehow I don't think so, I suspect instead your ODS has you looking for things to jump on. Only the people who are so obtuse as to need the difference between "production" and "reserves" to be spelled out for them. And this is the big flaw in any notion that we can drill our way to energy independence and low gas prices. Oil companies sell the oil to the highest bidder. US reserves and production are not enough to significantly affect global supply, so they don't have much effect on prices. "Drill baby drill" will only lower prices if we can flood the world market with so much oil we drive prices down globally, otherwise all that oil will just be sold to the Chinese or to India if we don't want to pay market value. And of course you know that if we ramped up production to that extent, OPEC would just decrease theirs to keep prices high. We could have energy independence, and low prices, only if the government were to set the price and legislate that oil produced from US sources could only be sold in the US, at least until 100% of the domestic oil need was met. I somehow can't see anybody supporting that position. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

None of the above. We're not removing all 100% of our oil reserves in one year. Let's say, just for the sake of example, that we use up 5% in one year. The next year we could increase that to 10%, without increasing the size of the reservoir. That would certainly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Note that the two statements you quote talk about slightly different things, and there isn't any way to interchange them. The February statement mentions oil reserves, and the proportional use of oil by the US compared to world use, but you can't calculate the percentage of oil we get from non-US sources with only that information. So both the February and the March statements could be perfectly true. What is also true is that increasing the rate of exploitation of our domestic reserves will decrease the amount of time until they are gone. In practice, what will happen (is happening) is that we are developing more and more marginal elements of the reserve, so it costs more to get the same amount of oil. There is a huge difference in cost between the "gusher" well of yesteryear and the oil shale of the future (today in Alberta). When people argue that we can return to 1950s level gas prices (relatively speaking) they are just showing their ignorance of what it takes to get at the oil today. The "fuzzy math" is all yours, I'm afraid. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Cheers Mike. Have a good evening (I'm assuming you're still overseas). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. Agreed. However it would be silly to expect the FF to have discussed weapons that hadn't been invented yet. There will be no specific discussion of aircraft, or anti-aircraft weapon systems, as those things didn't exist at the time. Still, the constitution has proven to be broadly applicable to many modern problems if one can discern the underlying intent. There is no need for the FF to have discussed wiretaps for the courts to find that the 4th amendment requires a warrant for such a search to be legal. It seems to me one must discern if the intent of the 2nd was to provide for personal protection (no question about that), ability to participate in a militia that could be called up to defend the country (seems pretty clear this was intended too), and/or the ability to resist a tyrannical government. An argument could be developed that weapons that are consistent with these intents would be covered under the 2nd, even if those weapons are not specifically mentioned in the writings of the FF. Agreed. True, but you've pre-determined the value of infantries by constraining it to "armies". There is a reason the modern military invests so much in drones, and aircraft-mounted weapon systems. Agreed. But one might expect a tyrannical government to use aircraft and tanks, as well as infantry. Is the intent of the 2nd to provide for defense against a tyrannical gov't, or not? Why? It's not as if people are restricted to just one weapon, any more than they are restricted to owning just one gun. Maybe you have more than one missile, or a firearm, but it's unlikely you'll be unarmed. This has always been true of any weapon system, as well as of the means needed to get them to the battle lines. Doesn't stop modern militaries from investing in those systems. It's not like we only have infantry in the military, even if that's where things would ultimately end up in an actual conflict once all the more advanced systems were used up or destroyed. The military that limits itself to infantry on such an argument is going to lose to one that at least can start with an effective air force etc. Yes it is. I've stipulated several times that it's clear that nukes, as well as biological and chemical weapons, are off the table. So, the argument is that one should immediately go to the tactics of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. The fact that no modern military consists solely of infantry should indicate that other weapon systems can be much more effective in appropriate circumstances. The real point, I suppose, is that the "government" is so far ahead in the weapons they have at their disposal (more on this in a minute) that it is futile, and perhaps suicidal, for any individual or small militia to even attempt to match them. On the other hand one could at least be a nuisance as an underground militia. Such a force would probably never be able to overthrow a determined government, though. Non-violent resistance, such as mass refusal to cooperate with such a government, would be more likely to be effective in the long run. Times have changed since the days of the FF, when the federal military was intentionally restricted to a small force, smaller than most state militias. Ultimately, I think our best defense against a tyrannical government is that the military would be unlikely to support or enforce clearly unconstitutional actions, such as the suspension of free elections or an order for people to turn over their guns. I would like to believe that the government has the military "at its disposal" only to the extent that the government itself adheres to the law. The FF were able to create a system of checks and balances that, at least so far, allows for independent judicial review of proposed laws, and prevents the government from enforcing laws that have been found to be unconstitutional in the courts (whatever particular individuals may believe about those laws). I see your point, and in this case don't really disagree. However, often application follows from theory. This is especially true in constitutional matters, otherwise we might still have Jim Crow laws. Again, although I might not agree with all your reasoning I am happy to agree that the 2nd should not be applied to weapons such as Stinger missiles. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The problem with that being that property taxes are not employment taxes. I have to pay my property taxes regardless of whether or not I'm employed. Data from state income taxes collected by payroll deductions may be available, at least up to the end of the year, but that wouldn't include self-employment, and it wouldn't allow for data for January and February, where the >200,000 job gains were being reported. Anyway, it's quite possible to increase employment without increasing tax revenues if most of those jobs are McJobs that don't pay enough for state or federal taxes to be deducted. They probably still have to pay something towards social security and medicare, though, so you could capture the numbers by looking at those, which I believe is what the federal government does. I don't know if Forbes does that, though. Nobody goes out and asks every single employer in the country how many jobs they added to their work force last month. Everybody uses some combination of proxies to estimate the number. It's quite possible for two different agencies to honestly arrive at two different numbers, based on the proxies they use and how they analyze the data. Both numbers will be estimates, both will be off by some amount. Nobody has to be intentionally lying. The question is, whose methods are the best? Or, for some, whose results best fit their preconceived political biases? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's hard to know what to make of an article that just says "we're right and the government's wrong" without any explanation of how they get their numbers and how that differs from (and is more accurate than) the government's methodology. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Because you wrote: "*Did* private individuals own cannons (the equivalent of the nukes/missiles/tanks mentioned) at the time of the adoption of the BOR? Sure. Are they the 'arms' mentioned in the amendment? They're included, yes. Are they suitable for use by a militia? Sure, just like artillery is today. Note that the entire Army isn't artillery and they *gasp* also carry those personal arms discussed above." If that doesn't mean 'agree with cannons' this discussion is pointless (which it probably is anyway) because you and I are not speaking the same language. Superficially the words look and are spelled the same, but apparently they mean completely different things. Except it isn't an argument, it is just a question. You are the one making it an argument. Sure, it's an abstract question, but it's not that complicated. I'm not into hidden "tricks" with the questions I pose. I stated several times the question applies to everybody who is currently covered under the 2nd; that is, everybody who is not a court-certified nutter or a felon. There are no hidden assumptions about "approval by the state". It would be difficult to conceal a Stinger. You're looking for a trap where there is none. In which case it's a red herring, as I have never suggested more restrictions. I have only asked if people believe the existing restrictions on present day 'cannon' equivalents is reasonable or constitutional. That such a question is seen as proposing further restrictions only reflects paranoia on the part of some. If you think the question too dangerous to even discuss, you don't have to discuss it. Though I have to wonder what it really is in the question that people are afraid of? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yeah, I'm getting the idea that the answer is: "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you". Thanks for playing, y'all that did try to play. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And before that: "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think." Typical Mike. Always with the snide insults, but never a clearly stated answer to a question. You only "hint" enough to lead to logical inferences, and when people make those inferences you attack them. I do hope the real-world Mike is different than the on-line Mike, otherwise it would be impossible to hold even a simple conversation you. From your long "analogy" about the cake, I am led to infer that you believe that "cannon" and their modern analogues should be permitted under the 2nd. If I am wrong, I would be curious to hear what you think should be permitted, and what should not. It really is a simple question. I am not angling for some sort of anti-gun "hook", I recognize and have no argument with the principle that the 2nd protects the right of citizens to keep and bear firearms. I'm a bit surprised at the defensive nature of the knee-jerk response of some people to the question. It's as if they're afraid that by looking too closely people will discover some great flaw in the pro-gun argument. What I've been asking is how much cake do you think you should be allowed? If you're happy with the slice that has guns on top, fine, say so. If you want the slice with Stinger missiles too, then just say so. I'll admit that there comes a point where the tension between what may be seen as a right to "keep and bear" on the one hand, and "public safety" on the other hand, becomes extreme. The idea that anybody (who is not a court-identified nutter or a felon) could keep and bear a weapon that could shoot down a passenger jet will be alarming to many. We see that not all guns are used responsibly, yet we judge that the right to bear guns outweighs the risk to the public that they will be misused. Can we make a similar calculation for other arms? Is there any point at which the risk of misuse becomes too much? Not, perhaps, a simple question, but refusing to even consider it head on (as opposed to winks, nods, and cakes) doesn't do service to the question. If people never think about where the limits should be, how will they respond when those limits are cut closer and closer to the bone? And yes, Coreece, it's just a matter of curiosity about what people believe. It's unfortunate that curiosity doesn't seen to be in your makeup, but I suppose you have lots of company in that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)