(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 07:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 07:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services.  Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination. 

Well, some call it the militia clause, others more accurately as a justification clause.  All other rights with a justification clause are not read as the justification clause limiting the implementation clause.  There are allowed more than one possible justification, and no requirement to list them all.  I have told you this many times before.  You choose to remain willfully ignorant.   Political opinion over rides rule of law?

Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it?  How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent?  So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past.  I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

(02-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it?  How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent?  So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past.  I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites. ...

I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons.  I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution.  By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case.  Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already.  Are you OK with that option?

I have no problem with your calling the supposed strict constructionist hypocrites…

I could go with licensing owners and registering weapons assuming all jurisdictions do not attempt to use the process to systematically deny a right.  Some blue areas attempting a gun prohibition have officially defined licensing and registering processes, but individual bureaucrats or law enforcement people can deny systematically the license or registration on essentially a whim.  You shouldn’t be able to deny a constitutional right on whim.  You would need to follow due process, to prove a weapon illegal, an individual a felon or insane, etc… If you attempt to deny constitutional rights without due process, that would turn into a felony.

Bob Wrote:The Founding Father’s did provide for a solution.  The US Congress could regulate the militia.  The militia was defined as all males of military age (with tweaks),  The definition is changeable with standard legislation, without an amendment.  The states appointed militia officers.  Thus, congress could redefine the militia to include everybody, and define standard practices to secure militia weapons, to include registration and licenses, to show minimum competency to handle what you owned, but it would be up to the states to implement the federal doctrine.

Bob Wrote:But using Rule of Law was against the interests of special interests back before the right was defined as individual.  No one wanted to admit that the militia existed, thus the right applied to all, or that the state could give orders to most everybody given that an emergency had been declared, or that the federal government had an enumerated power to regulate gun owners.

Trying to work around Rule of Law as written in the constitution and federal code is problematic.  I am sometime amused by the thought of trying to use the original intent of the founders.  The militia is supposed to be well regulated.  Owning weapons is supposed to be a duty as well as a privilege.  Going back to something like the original intent seems quite possible.

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

(02-08-2020, 03:37 PM)David Horn Wrote: I forgot to mention this before, but let's be honest enough to agree that there is a reasonable upper limit to gun ownership.  I know an individual who owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 guns.  That's an arsenal.  Owning more than, say, 10 should trigger a mandate to purchase and maintain insurance at a catastrophic coverage level, similar to high level umbrella policy.  I might be equally sensible to mandate an inventory on a regular basis, so none of the many just disappear and no one knows.

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

(02-08-2020, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

You could stick a picture of yourself in the mirror. I guess it would apply then.

We liberals will continue to advocate for this agenda, and we think it will make much progress in this next decade now starting.

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

(02-08-2020, 03:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: FWIW, we have on in Virginia.  It consists of the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute.  I doubt that expanding that to the general populous is possible, but maybe.  Let's admit it, the militia concept is outmoded in a modern world with modern weaponry.  It takes a lot of warm bodies to defend with muzzle loaders.  It only takes two to operate and support a belt-fed machine gun...

Guns are simply archaic in most places in the US with a population density above a certain level.  In the country, guns tend to be OK, but an irresponsible gunowner living in a 6-floor walkup is a danger to the entire building and all its residents.  Since the concept of "rights" requires universality, and the right to keep and bear arms is a clear and present danger in urban areas, some alternative modality is needed.  I'm fine with people having guns where it makes sense if it can restricted elsewhere, but that seems to go against the NRA and its minions.  That may change.  I think it already is.

(02-08-2020, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

People are not evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant for holding different values. Believing in something demonstrably wrong is evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant.  

Exceptions about values can include evil, especially if one holds that murder, rape, theft, child abuse, treachery, drug trafficking, dangerous driving, abandoning the helpless, making fraudulent oaths, perjury, or persecuting people for their religious beliefs is acceptable. It is possible that Adolf Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was a great boon for Humanity, or that slaveholders before the American Civil war thought that slavery was pure beneficence toward slaves. Such views were delusional evil.  



(Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987)

Stage 1 is fear of consequences, which is good enough for convincing me to not jump into a zoo enclosure with bears or big cats, break into a dog-infested house, steal copper wiring from vacant houses, or pull a gun on a cop. Imprisonment and execution, or even speeding tickets are good excuses for not breaking laws that have regulatory or penal consequences. Such people as mobsters break the laws on the assumption that they will not be detected for the crime and that those involved will not "squeal".  Under a gangster regime one might treat helpless minorities (extreme example: Jews in Nazi Germany) on the assumption that one will not face retribution for such; after all (until the Battle of Stalingrad) most Germans believed that Nazi Germany would win the war.  People grow out of this level or they face severe consequences. Examples Henry Hill, gangster. Ted Bundy, serial killer. Pablo Escobar, drug kingpin. Josef Stalin, dictator. 

Stage 2 suggests that sensation is itself justification for doing certain things such as getting intoxicated, feeling relief from frustration by attacking a person, animal, or object. Of course most of the strongest delights offer intense, if ephemeral delight; if one overindulges in these one eventually shortens one's life, drains one's assets, harms one's reputation as a person, fails to develop as a person, puts oneself in jeopardy of imprisonment, or even risks sudden and pointless death. Painting "F--- THE POPE" on a Catholic Church might satisfy someone angry at the Catholic Church, but it is a bad idea. Examples: Aleister Crowley, esoteric mystic of the extreme self. Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal. Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison -- rock musicians who died of drug overdoses. Evel Knievel and other daredevils. 



Many people were delighted to break the windows, steal the merchandise, and wreck the shop in Nazi Germany on Kristallnacht. This was the event that first demonstrated the viciousness of Nazi racism. 

Stage 3 suggests that personal image is to be protected from the observation that one is an evil rogue or someone out of control. It is higher than stages 1 or 2, but it falls short.  Be conventional and avoid trouble. This is not a good position for the promotion of liberty. So what if the convention is itself questionable, as in a place of religious persecution?  If it is conventional to loathe homosexuality and others think that it is acceptable to beat gays, then what is wrong with following the crowd? Conventionality is not morality in itself. Ideally society operates at a level in which conventional behavior is good for Humanity as a whole. 



If you were a compliant German between 1933 and 1945, you would have seen nothing wrong with this. Examples at worst:Irma Grese, a brutal Nazi guard , a type encountered  as enforcers in concentration camps. Werner von Braun, who could do evil for an evil cause and advance science for a good cause. Many people operate this way and get away with it because society keeps them in line. You know people like that. Donald Trump demonstrates why people at this level of moral development should not lead anything.


Stage 4 recognizes statutory authority as the arbiter of right and wrong. So long as the social order is itself just, such is adequate. Law and order is the most basic of civil rights, without which enumerated rights (including property rights vital to a prosperous society) are meaningless. having been threatened with gay-bashing, I have made the argument that gay-bashing is a lawless act suitable for sanctions by law. But what if the statutory law is itself corrupt, cruel, or otherwise unjust?

  

Some laws and practices that such laws permit are themselves unjust. We all have the obligation to obey just laws, but we also have the responsibility to judge laws for their justice and injustice and advocate against discrimination, police brutality, and judicial sadism. So if I am in a protest against police brutality I would take a photo of someone smashing a storefront window to grab merchandise and make that photo available to law enforcement. By doing so I recognize the legitimacy of basic decencies that the law must enforce while judging official misconduct. Examples: Bull Connor, Francisco Franco. Wojciech Jaruzelski. 

Stage 5 is the highest reasonable level for most people -- a social contract: I do good, you do good, and things go well. At this level one's personal dealings have the expectation of good for good. Prosperity and good feelings are the norm. Cultural differences are the spice of life. People respect the feelings of others and are delighted to see that others are happy (if not at personal expense). Brutality is rare and scandalous. People accept that integrity in ordinary dealings is the norm, and corruption hardly exists. Democracy is possible; lower levels of ethical behavior are compatible with 'alternatives' such as lawlessness, rigid conformity, oppression, and despotism.   Abraham Lincoln expressed this position when he said "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master". One looks not to the surroundings to see if the cops are around so that one can speed; one sees  the speedometer at 47 in a 35 zone and cuts one's speed to 35 with no other prompting. Where the political leadership operates on this level or on level 6 (see below) people can get away with living at levels #4 and #3.  Example: I would like to be there. Sir Winston Churchill. Barack Obama. 

Stage 6 is the level of jurisprudence -- deciding what the principles are, the study of high principles beyond the law. People at this level know why the laws are what they are. Among these are the great jurists, statesmen, theologians, and outright saints. Martin Luther King. Vaclav Havel. Nelson Mandela. Abraham Lincoln. Sophie Scholl. Oliver Wendell Holmes. Francis of Assisi. (Ask Protestants who their favorite Catholic saint is, and it will often be Francis of Assisi).   

Moral choice is not a matter of being able to get away with personal goodness because one has all the advantages. There are very good people in ghettos and barrios -- far better than the infamous "snakes in suits", let alone such a creep such as Jeffrey Epstein. There can be saints and criminals in the same family.

People failing to reach their ideals? That is commonplace hypocrisy. Welcome to the club unless you are a super-rare saint or an all-too-common type proud of one's own wickedness.

So far I have discussed morality, but not sanity, intelligence, rationality, or consciousness. Morality is good enough for one post.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

(02-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

Not really.  The militia may be federalized to suppress insurrections, to defend against invasion, and enforce the laws.  If one looks at that carefully, the militia cannot be sent abroad, which the National Guard was in Bush 43’s Iraq war.

The National Guard is paid and paid for by the federals, which makes them organized as a part of the standing army.  The militia is not paid.  The militia my not be sent abroad.  The National Guard came into existence under Teddy Roosevelt, who wanted a reserve force who could be sent abroad.  Thus, he used the standing army laws.

The militia was defined early on as all military aged males (with tweaks) and was left alone by TR and everybody else.

This is evolution in action I suppose if you do not look too closely at the constitution, but the militia has been legally defined (if not well regulated) all along and is quite separate from the National Guard.

(02-08-2020, 11:42 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 12:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- didn't the state militias evolve in2 the National Guard?

Not really.  The militia may be federalized to suppress insurrections, to defend against invasion, and enforce the laws.  If one looks at that carefully, the militia cannot be sent abroad, which the National Guard was in Bush 43’s Iraq war.

The National Guard is paid and paid for by the federals, which makes them organized as a part of the standing army.  The militia is not paid.  The militia my not be sent abroad.  The National Guard came into existence under Teddy Roosevelt, who wanted a reserve force who could be sent abroad.  Thus, he used the standing army laws.

The militia was defined early on as all military aged males (with tweaks) and was left alone by TR and everybody else.

This is evolution in action I suppose if you do not look too closely at the constitution, but the militia has been legally defined (if not well regulated) all along and is quite separate from the National Guard.

I view it as branch of the US Military that works part time and serves a dual role as state governed militia most of the time and active US military during times of war and national crisis. I assume the armed militia if ever needed and called upon to serve and support law enforcement would either be placed under their command or the command of county sheriff deputy or local law enforcement.

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

(02-10-2020, 11:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I'd be wary of making Constitutional changes through a Constitutional convention while the hard Right still has great power. The Hard Right would love to commit us to a Christian and Corporate state that represents economic and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else, and uses a fundamentalist interpretation of Christian ethics as a mechanism of enforcing a plutocratic order.

(02-10-2020, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US.  We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution.  It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power.  That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know.  It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess.  Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage.  We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold.  I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

(02-10-2020, 03:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 08:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But if you do not use the current structure for a well regulated militia, you will have to wait until you can pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention.  Neither is likely.  If you consider modern guns and urban environments a problem, you are stuck with using the existing constitution and laws.

In a nutshell, that's a symptom of what's driving modern politics in the US.  We're well past the use-by date for this Constitution.  It needs a major overhaul to remain viable in the 21st century, but the minority that benefits from keeping things as they are still holds total veto power.  That was and is a major fault in the original document, though one the Founders couldn't know.  It will be resolved at some point, but how is anyone's guess.  Let's hope that sanity reigns, and violence is avoided, or keep to a minimum at the very least.

Texas is already underfunding their census effort to delay redistricting that's not to the GOP's advantage.  We'll see much more of this before the resolution takes hold.  I'm afraid that this 4T won't be long enough to get there, so this gets passed to the future.

Another perspective is that the progressives agreed to a certain constitution, which happened to become rule of law, and the progressives are attempting to overturn that agreement without the supermajority originally agreed to to change it.  The progressives are so sure their culture is superior that they are attempting to force it on the rest of the country.

Now, problems which aren’t solved will get worse.  Eventually, you might get the supermajority.  In the meantime, you might take a hard look at the original arrangement and find a way of living within it.