Sandbox – 17jun15

June 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sandbox – 17jun15

17 June 2015

[Apologies for getting a little pissed in the 'Agnosticism vs Atheism' comment stream. Here's a new sandbox, the old one was getting more than full. gjr]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

390 responses to “Sandbox – 17jun15”

Ben Emery

19 June 2015

De javu on the newest trade deals isn’t it. Go listen to the arguments for NAFTA and listen to the sell out Obama talking points.
Yesterday the Corporatist Republican Party supported the Pro Business and Anti Environment/ Labor President Obama Trans Pacific Partnership deal.
Just like the 1990’s with NAFTA, WTO, Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000, Financial Services Modernization Act 1999, and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.
House passes trade authority bill, Senate outcome unclear
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/house-vote-trade-promotion-authority/

LikeLike
Ben Emery

19 June 2015

George take a gander at this and see what you think.
Endless debate rages over exactly what the Framers meant by the term “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd Amendment.
To simplify matters somewhat, let’s consider the two opposite positions of the debaters:
The more liberal (the word “liberal” being used here in the sense of generous or non-restrictive) side of the argument holds that “well regulated” should be taken in the sense that a clock that keeps good time is “well regulated”.
This same side also argues that “Militia” referred to all the able bodied men of military age, which at the time the 2nd amendment was written would have been about ages 16 or so through age maybe 45 or a little older, and so could have potentially served in the Militia. (At that time there were no hard and fast rules regarding acceptable enlistment ages in militia or armies.)
The more conservative (the word “conservative” being used here to mean as restrictive and narrow as possible) side of the argument holds that “well regulated” refers to codified laws, rules, and regulations as propagated by the government (which could be at either the state or federal level).
This same side also argues that “Militia” referred to only those individuals who were actually active in the Militia at any given time (rather than the entire mass of able bodied men who were eligible to do so).
Trying to understand the original meaning or true intent of the Framers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, is a form of Originalism, which takes on two basic forms:
· The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
· The original meaning theory ( which is closely related to textualism), which holds that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary, everyday meaning of the text to be. (Note: It is this latter view of the Constitution with which most Originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.)
Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:
1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),
2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,
3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!
If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn’t it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don’t mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).
So in order to better understand the historical and lexicological context the Framers found themselves in, as well as understand what they intended the term “well regulated” to mean, let’s take a brief look at the history of militias in the early United States, both pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary.
First, we want to make sure we clearly understand what a militia is.
mi·li·tia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
[From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
So broadly speaking, the word militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers (or, historically, members of the fighting nobility). Therefore, the word militia could be used in reference to:
· Defense activity or service to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
· The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
· A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
· An official reserve army composed of citizen soldiers. In the U.S. these are most often referred to as the Army Reserve and National Guard, but other state defense forces could meet this definition as well.
Of course, there was no official reserve army (e.g., a National Guard) in existence at the time of the country’s founding, so that reference is out the window.
(Note: I have seen some commentators refer to the National Guard as a “select militia”, but this is an incorrect usage of the term as a select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, most often politicized.)
Let’s consider, then, a brief history of militias in the United States, from both before and during the time of the American Revolution.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia)
“The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.” (emphasis added)
So other than the fact that use of militias already had a long and well-established history in the colonies well before the Revolutionary War took place, it is interesting to note that the Second Continental Congress (i.e, the Founders) found it desirable to include “regulation of the militia” in the Articles of Confederation.
The question is, why would the Founders feel a need to codify (i.e., formally regulate) the militias?
Part of the answer might lie in the fact that even though the colonial militia had played an important role in the early fighting of the Revolutionary War, many of those leading the war effort, including George Washington, didn’t really think too highly of the colonial militia and/or its members, including the way they handled themselves in battle.
George Washington himself, upon assuming command of the Continental Army (which in 1775 was comprised entirely of militia), said, “All the General Officers agree that no Dependence can be put on the Militia for a Continuance in Camp, or Regularity and Discipline during the short time they may stay.” He would later say, “To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.”
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~jamie/html/effective_use_of_colonial_mili.html
If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter. – George Washington, September 1776
http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-in-the-Revolutionary-war.htm
Of course, in the later years of the War the militia proved to be of great effectiveness, but this occurred only after Washington et al finally figured out ways in which to utilize and to take advantage of its strengths (e.g., in guerilla warfare, as an ‘early warning system’ for the regular army, etc.) and avoid its weaknesses (e.g., avoid taking the British military on in ‘head-to-head’ battles).
But the history of the militia in the early U.S., as informative as it may be, does not supply us with an answer as to what the Framers thought a “well regulated Militia” would look like. For that we need to consult what they wrote at the time (i.e., historical documents).
In the endless debate regarding the 2nd amendment, much is made of the Framer’s words written in either support of or opposition to the proposed Constitution (e.g., the Federalist papers, etc.), which is, of course, entirely necessary and appropriate.
However, in this debate the Articles of Confederation are usually, well if not completely ignored given very short shrift. Yes of course the Articles are not the supreme law of the land, but even though they were superseded by the U.S. Constitution they were still quite important in the interpretation of that document, as the Articles formed the original charter under which the 13 separate colonies were able to band together to fight for their independence, and then remained in effect for some time after that independence was finally won.
In addition (and most importantly), while it is commonly thought that the Constitution was written from the ‘ground up’, so to speak, it is interesting to observe how much of the ‘ground’ upon which the Constitution stands was actually laid down by those Articles.
As such, in the attempt to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, perhaps it would be of some value to take a look at those Articles and see if they are not relevant to an Originalist-oriented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
First some background on the Articles of Confederation.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Articles of Confederationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
“The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution. The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.”
That section of the Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6 (of the Articles), which states that
“No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”(emphasis added)
Now take a look at the language used in the Constitution regarding militias.
First, consider the powers of Congress over the Militia:
Article One
Section 8
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Next, consider the powers of the President over the Militia:
Article Two
Section 2
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Therefore, taking everything in the preceding discussion into consideration, that is the role of militias in the early history of the United States, including both before the Revolutionary War as well as the experiences of George Washington et al with the colonial militia during the War, and then also the parallels between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution regarding the definition, role, and functioning of the militia, I think it safe to say that the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is from an Originalist perspective, stands on fairly firm ground:
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of “well regulated”.)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of “well regulated”.)
In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation viz a viz militias.
– See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/04/regarding-pesky-%E2%80%9Cwell-regulated-militia%E2%80%9D-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean#sthash.BTlNNc7m.dpuf

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 June 2015

Ben Emery 7:53 AM
Regarding the angst the democrats have on the trade bills and their impact on jobs. I laugh my ass off because they have been the greatest destroyer of jobs in their own country! Mi,,ions of laws and regulations in every aspect of our lives. Ben Emery is worried about the loss of jobs here to overseas. Sorry Ben Emery, you and your ilk have already won your battles with your own people! The proverbial “horse is out of the barn”!\I must say the left’s scorched earth policies have done their dirty deed. Even the trillion dollar Iphone is made in Red China. So Ben Emery, you just won man! The great “equalization” of America’s wealth to the world is under way with a vengeance. Thanks for all those regulations Ben Emery. NOT!

LikeLike
Ben Emery

19 June 2015

Todd,
What are you talking about? Blah blah blah

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

Ben – there is no ‘debate’ as to what the Founders intended.
It’s well documented. Here’s a few examples:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
Please feel free to dig up quotes that contradict the ones I have provided.

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Great cut and paste job Ben.
The courts have ruled in favor of the 2ND and the people’s RIGHT.
What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” don’t you understand?
Progressives and Socialists just love to go with ” Ya,, that’s what they wrote,, but this is what they really meant.” Redefining the meaning of words is the newest game for the Left. HELL LIBS have redefined the meaning of “all”. Hillary claimed to have turned over “all” her emails. ( “all” she felt she needed to, to stay out of hot water.)
The gov. said they turned over “all” of Lois Learner’s emails, until it was found they they didn’t.
Back to the 2ND,, Gun rights are winning in the courts. The gun grabbers are spending big, and losing. Even here in Ca.
Ca’s waiting period has been shot down, because it infringes on one’s rights to acquire a gun, and done jack shit to stop crime.
Places where guns laws are lax, there is less crime with guns. That’s a fact. Places with the most gun restrictions, crime is through the roof. That’s also a fact.

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

19 June 2015

Walt, above. I was totally against guns until I moved to Nevada County. I now see that there are many good reasons for people to own guns (although I am not one of them). I absolutely support a person’s right to own a hand gun, shot gun or rifle, BUT no one needs assualt weapons. (Do you seriously think you could stockpile enough weaponry to take on the govt?)
Unfortunately, people being people, horrible incidents are going to happen from time to time. There is little that can be done to change the hearts and minds of people. Banning all guns wouldn’t even stop these random mass shootings. We can’t legislate away every evil (if only).
Everything needs balance and getting background checks before hand is not unreasonable. You have to pass a test to drive a car and some disabilities rule out your right to drive, although not nearly enough. I was at the DMV a few months ago and there was a man so old that he couldn’t sit up by himself. He shook so bad that he couldn’t sign his name and he got a license!!!
My only beef with the NRA is that they are so rigid that they won’t accept even common sense regulations. I understand that banning guns would serve no purpose as no ban has ever stopped an activity with a regulation and I understand the”slippery slope” argument. Sometimes we have to make compromises for the common good.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

19 June 2015

Walt,
The courts also ruled the people were property at one point as well. So that doesn’t fly with me. Each era of citizens has the ability to debate and change the laws to reflect the current day.

LikeLike
Ben Emery

19 June 2015

Patricia,
I get in hot water with my friends on the left with the gun issue since I have always fought against the banning of weapons. Until we have a debate and amend the 2nd amendment I will always be against bans. I do on the other hand believe that registration of guns/ ammo, proficiency courses and updating, and liability insurance for owned guns are some basic common sense laws that need to be put in place.
The other issue is immigration since I am for having strong restrictions and enforcement of illegal hiring practices of companies. Therefore taking the incentive of immigrants of making the journey to the US. NO jobs No migration.

LikeLike
Jon

19 June 2015

Leave it to Walt to bring Lois Lerner into a serious discussion of gun regulations…
Walt, as Patricia indicates in her very logical, common sense approach, its not a political thing- its way above that. There are plenty of Walt’s so-called LIBS that are gun owners, and many mainstream Repubs who abhore the NRA and its stranglehold on common sense.

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 June 2015

re PatriciaS’s 953am – Do such understandings of ‘common good’ also include the common good served by accepting a certain death rate from the misuse of firearms, just as accepting the death rate from, say, driving motor vehicles, or from the collateral effects of overwhelmingly beneficial drugs, vaccinations, swimming pools, public beaches, mining, lumber, construction, … ?
In the (distribution) tails of every beneficial function there lurks death and tragedy. Humanity has progressed by having he courage to accept the Tragedy of the Tails. Caudaphobia is the name for an inordinate fear of the tails of a distribution, usually contracted through ignorance. I will post some of my previous writings on this. Thank you for the nudge Patricia. [Later – have posted as promised.]
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/06/caudaphobia-the-tragedy-of-the-tails.html

LikeLike
Ben Emery

19 June 2015

Scott,
I have read plenty of the last handful of years about the 2nd amendment and standing armies. There was a huge debate about the 2nd amendment and to try and say it was a full agreement of the founders is ridiculous. Like everything that took place during the first 60 years of our nation, compromising to the South and slave owners took huge tolls on our young democratic republic.
A paper I found out about a couple years ago.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Abstract:
Professor Bogus argues that there is strong reason to believe that, in significant part, James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia, and the South generally, that Congress could not use its newly-acquired powers to indirectly undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, on which the South relied for slave control. His argument is based on a multiplicity of the historical evidence, including debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788; the record from the First Congress; and the antecedent of the American right to bear arms provision in the English Declaration of Rights of 1688.

LikeLike
Michael R. Kesti

19 June 2015

Ben Emery 19Jun15 08:03 AM
I have come to believe that the “well regulated Militia” phrase is irrelevant to the validity of the 2nd amendment. With credit to Bill Whittle and his “Firewall” series, consider this precisely grammatically identical sentence.
A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Does that mean that a well-schooled electorate — high school graduates, say — are the only ones with the right to keep and read books? Of course it does not, just as the “well regulated Militia” phrase does not mean that that only uniformed soldiers have the right to keep and bear arms.

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 10:18 AM
The minute one of you guys brings up “common sense” as it relates to gun ownership you can bet that the last thing in the world that will be on display will be common sense.

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

19 June 2015

Ben, 10:15 I hear you. Many of my liberal leaning friendswho have a zero tolerance policy towards guns get upset with my position. If I thought a ban would save even one life, I’d be for it, but history has proven that bans do not work. I also agree with you about immigration. If employer’s were fined for hiring illegals, they wouldn’t keep coming here and no border fence would be necessary (especially since they don’t stop anyone from crossing).
George, 10:19 I agree with you. It’s an undisputed fact that life is full of perils that could take any one of us at any time. You wake up, you take risks. Trying to reduce those risks is a reasonable undertaking as long as some common sense is applied (usually in short supply). However, we do need some rules and regulations. Do we want 8 year olds driving a car or have unsupervised access to a gun?

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 19 June 2015 at 10:47 AM
Do we want 8 year olds driving a car or have unsupervised access to a gun?
Actually Patricia for many years this was the case.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 June 2015

Kesti 10:43 AM
Excellent points.
Regarding driving a car at eight or any age. The country decided that it is a “privileged” not an entitlement so it is regulated. I actually wonder about the laws regarding travel in our country. Forcing taxes and fees on people to use the travel ways. But I digress.

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

I use LIBS,,because it’s LIBS on the mass scale that attack gun ownership. Granted. “some” LIBS do like their guns as much as I.
Sorry you don’t care for the AR style weapon Patrica. Why? because it looks “scary”?
Yes, the citizen SHOULD have “like weaponry” as the “G” man. It’s been that way since the days of King George. ( well,, almost. Someone who didn’t want automatic weapons in the hands of minorities, and gangsters put a stop to that.)
And yes,, in MANY states, those with the proper “G” man papers can still own them.
Ownership of the AR and the like are just keeping up with the times. Care to go back to the rotary phone?
I can come up with plenty of “You don’t need that”.
If you don’t care to own a gun, that’s your right as well. ( except in a few places where it’s actually mandatory.. Yes,, they DO exist)
The 2ND Amendment isn’t there to protect hunting. It’s there to give you a chance form being the hunted.
Gov. got a refresher course in the meaning of the 2ND when they tried to strong arm Mr. Bundy. Now how do you think that would have turned out if the civilians had sub par weapons, or just unarmed?
On the subject of law breakers, there are laws on the books about growing weed and guns.
FED offence Patricia,, But that law hasn’t stopped the growers from possessing guns.
So don’t come back and play the “but” game.
Lefties here demand MORE anti gun laws, but “some” don’t even follow the laws already on the books. ( Yes,, you know who you are)

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Seems some people who wear a badge have no business carrying a gun.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/19/good-samaritan-has-yellow-labrador-retriever-shot-by-mississippi-cop/
And a lying somebitch at that.

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Walt | 19 June 2015 at 12:18 PM
Yeah….saw that…..a cop in fear of a year old Yellow Lab is simply too chickenshit to serve as a police officer or sheriffs deputy. I imagine if he confronted a 275 lb. ex con he’d probably just shit himself.
Hillary Clinton Blames Charleston Shooting on Free Speech
Particularly a speech by a political adversary, conveniently enough
This is why I love her! America deserves Hillary!

LikeLike
Jon

19 June 2015

fish, please link the direct quote attributed to Hillary where she directly mentions free speech. Thanks.
Obviously, she was placing some of the blame for the murders/act of terror partially on HATE speeches, hate groups, hate literature… which of course is very likely true. Same as it would be for 21 yr. old radical Islamic terrorists who derive inspiration from such things.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

19 June 2015

“Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone less than stable.” “I think we need to speak out against it, like for example a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.” HRC 6/18/15

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 June 2015

Based on the info we have so far it appears this young man was a racist shit. But what is more interesting in the “free speech” area is the “hate” I see from people other than white people towards white people! Nothing mush to see there, move along please. As a white man, I never owned another person as my ancestors never did either. My lineage has always treated people who are not white with the respect they deserve. But the race baiters, now including Hillary Clinton, never talk about the need for the people other than whites to stop their race hatreds.
A black from Africa can move here and be eligible for affirmative action help smply because of his color. How is that right? A “white” guy from Norway who has never even met a person other than white moves here and is immediately the recipient of hate speech from people not white. For me it is time to stop the racial yapping and get on board the American dream. All this in-fighting is destroying the country. No more HYPHENS on names or groups. If we are not all Americans in a American culture then we will be destroyed.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

Ben – I had asked for quotes from the Founders that contradicted the ones I had provided. Instead, I got a lot of nonsense from a dude from Davis and his certain knowledge that strict gun control reduces crime.
Like Chicago and Wash DC and New York. Hilarious.
The actual arguments from the founders that were in the article had to do with control or possible lack of control of the militias.
You provided nothing on the right of an individual to possess a fire arm. Nothing.
You lefties just might consider that if you think it’s not important for individuals to own and possess firearms, ask yourself then: why was it so necessary to try to keep them out of the hands of the American Indians and the blacks?

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 01:03 PM

She also said she’d support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, which brought huge cheers from the crowd. So she is campaigning on actually trying to make it illegal for citizens to fund documentaries to criticize her. But as is typical on the left, she played it off as though Citizens United is about “corporations buying elections,” which nobody has ever proven is happening.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/hillary-clinton-blames-charleston-shooti#comment
and follow on links
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/13/hillary-clinton-announces-plan-to-essent
http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/15/hillary-clintons-supreme-court-litmus-te

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

from Shrillery: “…a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”
It would be helpful if she were to identify who she’s talking about and provide a quote.
I might say it’s not acceptable if I were to know just what the heck was actually said, in context. But really it’s just cheap points for the gruberized morons.

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Obviously, she was placing some of the blame for the murders/act of terror partially on HATE speeches, hate groups, hate literature… which of course is very likely true. Same as it would be for 21 yr. old radical Islamic terrorists who derive inspiration from such things.
Well so far…and I’m sure it offends your sensibilities greatly….the courts have been restrained in their restriction of speech….hate or otherwise. Hill is just whipping up the base by telling them that she’ll press for restrictions of their liberties…..being not the brightest bunch they’ll bark and applaud like trained seals!
Hillary 2016: America deserves Hillary!

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Bloody great!!! Now the South Co. is going up.
Wolf and Still Rd.,,, now another near Globe. Evacuations in progress.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

For Patricia – please let us know where it’s legal in this country for an 8 year old to drive or have access to a gun.
Anti-freedom wing nuts can never seem to advance intelligent arguments.

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 19 June 2015 at 01:59 PM
I’d guess at this point that it’s nowhere. It used to be. Farm kids had access to firearms because in general most weren’t locked up. They knew where the house rifle was or where their old man kept his pistol if the need arose.
They also had access to farm vehicles (tractors, pickups, etc.) as they, unlike todays “snowflakes”, were expected to help on the farm. If I’m not mistaken the left squelched that practice recently as well…..for the children.

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Leave it to a Lefty to try and raise an idiotic argument. ( 8 year olds… good Lord…)
But if her clan has it’s way in legalizing dope, 8 year olds will have greater exposure to
a drug. There is enough weed in grade schools as it is. ( and try and say it’s not there. It was when I was in grade school.)

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

19 June 2015

Scott, above You’re kidding right? Did I say it was legal for an 8-yr olf to drive or have access to a gun? No, I said we need regulations to prevent that from happening. The point is we have some regulations already such as age requirements. I also believe background checks are a good thing – unless you believe everyone should be abe to anything they want, whenever they want, without restrictions.
Fish 10:57 So do want to share the road with 8-yr old drivers? I don’t!
Walt 11:56 You think the citizenry should have access to the same weaponry as the gov’t? Really? Where does that end? Should citizens be able to have rocket grenade launchers or atom bombs? You will never have enough weapons to outgun the gov’t. And to your speculation as to what would have happended at Bundy Ranch if they had AR – there would have been a whole lot of dead citizens (and probably a few gov’t agents as well).

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Patricia Smith | 19 June 2015 at 02:30 PM
Fish 10:57 So do want to share the road with 8-yr old drivers? I don’t!
Given some of your statements here I’d be more interested in knowing if the 8 year olds would be concerned about having to share the road with you.

LikeLike
Jon

19 June 2015

Patricia, I’m not at all surprised by Walt’s response. His posting here indicates to me that he sincerely believes there could come a day where he could end up battling leftist govt. forces, literally on his front stoop or at the fence line. Yes, for some of these guys, they truly imagine ungunning the govt. at his doorstep. Incredible ha? But true. As you could see recently, he seems overly concerned about strange planes flying over his rancho, and he sounds like a true prepper would, knowledgable about the ammo and arms market and the full details of the Bundy Ranch incident as best-practices for the future.

LikeLike
George Rebane

19 June 2015

PatriciaS 230pm – Please review this piece on the concept of ‘Par Force’ and its function.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/04/par-force-an-un.html

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Jon | 19 June 2015 at 02:44 PM
jeffy…..err…”jon”……have a chance to checks those links? See what our girl is up to?

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Obviously you didn’t pay attention one damned bit Patricia. Your search engine broke?
Google the incident and look at the pictures! “what would have happended at Bundy Ranch if they had AR – there would have been a whole lot of dead citizens (and probably a few gov’t agents as well)” THEY DID!!!! YES!! Citizens with ARs!!! Earth to Patrica!! Every AR is NOT and automatic weapon!!!Good GOD woman!! get a clue. The days of muzzle loaders is long gone.
YES.. Even I have an evil AR ( Ca. legal no less)
Thanks for showing what smoking weed does to one’s mind. “A” bombs???,, Really????
If one can afford a tank, I say let’m ( some people CAN and DO own tanks,,, and they shoot them TOO!!)
Penn Valley would not be the least bit unsafer if I had one.
I really believe you and “jon” are smoking the same GMO dope.
What’s your next over the top statment??

LikeLike
Patricia Smith

19 June 2015

This is the Sandbox so I imagine it’s alright to switch topics because I have some breaking news! Brad Peciemer, the VP of Americans for Safe Access- NC (ASA) just had the remaining obstruction of justice/resisting arrest charges dropped. (Judge Linda Sloven had already dismissed his cultivation charges.) After careful consideration, the DA’s office decided “that they didn’t have a compelling enough case to convince a jury to find him guilty.” This after Cliff Newell (who doesn’t try cases) appealed to the court to not allow Brad a defense that included his role as an MMJ activist or that his arrest was timed just before the election to derail Measure S.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 June 2015

Jonnie, I never served in the military. Did you?
Also, are you familiar with the fall of the USSR?

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Oopsy…..looks like yesterdays gun control trope was wrong…..no wonder “the internet is changing the way we communicate™”…..because the mainstream media can’t find their dicks even when they use both hands!
http://www.weaselzippers.us/226893-charleston-shooter-bought-gun-at-store-passed-background-check/

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

19 June 2015

Obama was sending guns, tanks and ordinance to arm 5,000 troopers in a number of countries in Eastern Europe. As he was signing those contracts he took time to hold a press conference about the scourge of guns. So if those guns are needed to keep the Rooskies at bay, why aren’t they good enough for granny in Chicago? You just can’t make this stuff up! Liberalism is a mental disorder. If the murdering scum 21 year old is a registered democrat, what happens to the narrative of the left?

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

LOL! “milk toast” decided to troll in. Just one of many Jr.,, Look how fast “the people” came to the aid of the Bundy Ranch. Uh,,, just who won that “battle”?
No big news Patricia,, Dope growers get off on technicalities all the time.
I also read that dope growers are not big on following the law all the time. ” MJ grower busted.. many weapons found” Yup,, just writing a law will fix the problem. ( That law is already on the books.)

LikeLike
Gregory

19 June 2015

Kesti, 10:43AM
I introduced George and RR to the translation of the 2nd’s 18th century grammar four years ago, copied below. It being near Thanksgiving I used a sentence about cooking a turkey to illustrate:

Here you go, George: “Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the Second Amendment “must be read as though the word “because’ was the opening word,”[4] as in “[because a] well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State … .”
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm (one of many google hits, take your pick)
In other words:
A judicious seasoning, being necessary for a tasty turkey, a cook should take care in wielding the salt
means
A cook should take care in wielding the salt because a judicious seasoning is necessary for a tasty turkey.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 23 November 2011 at 11:33 AM

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

From Patricia – ” No, I said we need regulations to prevent that from happening”
I think we already do, Patricia. Just what the heck are you talking about?
Regulations don’t always equal perfect outcomes. We have regulations against murder. But you might notice folks still manage to kill others in all sorts of ways.

LikeLike
fish

19 June 2015

Posted by: Gregory | 19 June 2015 at 03:43 PM
Dead link dude!

LikeLike
Walt

19 June 2015

Yummm.. But ribs are on the BBQ as I speak. and yes… A “judicious seasoning” was applied.
One half of the ribs seasoned for the German pallet, and the other a Hawaiian flair. Smothered in crushed pineapple after a heavy smoke. Another half hour and CHOW TIME…

LikeLike
Jon

19 June 2015

So now Walt wants a tank. Just another Friday in loony land.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

for the fishy – yep, kids used to do all sorts of things. If they got out of line, there was a good thrashing in store for them. I have an old gun case I use as a book case now. It belonged to my brother in law’s father. It has a 10 cent lock on it. And he never locked it. The boys knew if they so much as looked too long at the gun case, there was no end of trouble. And yes, kids operated farm machinery.
Apparently they are much too sophisticated these days to be trusted with weapons and machinery.

LikeLike
Jon

19 June 2015

Wow, why doesn’t it surprise me that Scott gets all sentimental about the good-old days when children behaved or got THRASHED…man, should I even ask the details on that? Explains quite a bit about the mentality and philosophy of life.

LikeLike
Scott Obermuller

19 June 2015

“So now Walt wants a tank. Just another Friday in loony land.”
So what if Walt does get a tank – how is that anybody’s business?
Lots of folks murder with their bare hands – should we start chopping off every ones’ hands?
The left has a very poor grasp of statistics and reality. Maybe jon can provide us with the facts about the last time a private citizen killed some one with a legally owned tank?
I operate on a basis of fact. I know what has the highest probability of killing me and I take steps to mitigate that as best as I can.
Being harmed or killed by a fire arm is so far down on the list it isn’t even worth my time to think about it. But for the gruberized, it seems to be just about all they can think of.

LikeLike