Friday, November 29, 2013



Wise Old man said...

Benjamin Netanyahu gave Obama a piece of his mind regarding this ridiculous "deal" with Iran. Peace through surrender never works, and clearly Israel, a vital ally and beacon of democracy in the Middle East, is on its own. The United State will not come to Israel's aid as long as Obama or any democrat is president, and Netanyahu has been enduring Obama's betrayal with a smile for far too long. The gloves need to come off, and I side with Netanyahu over Obama any day.

Joe said...

WOm: And that relates to this video how?

Anonymous said...

Give the guy a break Joe, he wanted yo get some stuff off his chest, and release some steam.
Besides you can't argue wit what he said .

Craig said...

Joe, Beware anyone who advertises themselves as "rational" or "intelligent", like my local rabies radio station. They are usually neither. It's just argument by assertion.

All of our rights are regulated in some way. What part of "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand? Is "the right to be left alone" absolute? Careful with that one, Joe. What is the "rational" argument for the govt. wanting to take the M1 Abrams parked in my back yard with the canon pointed at my noisy neighbor?

Hope you had a swell Thanksgiving. 25 people at our house yesterday but I got to sleep in today and had pecan pie for breakfast. Thanks be to Baker's Square.

Joe said...

Craig: "What part of "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?"

She same as "...shall not be infringed."

"...the right to be left alone" absolute?"

Never saw that one in the Bill of Rights. Our inalienable rights include those given us by our Creator: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights recognizes rights that the federal government has no say in...that is, they cannot regulate them. Others might be able to, but the federal government must keep their hands off of them.

At least that was the way it was intended. You liberals redefine things and have tried to usurp the federal constitution.

Duckys here said...

In Joe's world the idea of conflict of interest doesn't exist.

But you're correct, Joe. Gun loons compromised on their right to bear miniguns. I can't think of anyway societal benefits from not having a bunch of gun loons walking around with that level of armament.

Craig said...

Never saw that one in the Bill of Rights.

I was quoting the Rational Mr. Reasonable from your video. His definition of a 'right', "We should say, a right to be left alone."

In my previous comment I meant to say, " What is the "rational" argument for the govt.not wanting to take the A1 Abrams...". Are you saying that's not a reasonable regulation?

How about regulations on speech, like slander, libel and threats?

Sorry about my error. I'm coming off a massive dose of Tryptophan and I'm doing it cold turkey.

Joe said...

Craig: "Are you saying that's not a reasonable regulation?"

Arms and armament are two different things, but yes. And I meant to say "The" instead of "She."

Craig said...

Arms and armament are two different things

Not in 15th, 16th, & 17th century English Common Law. Not in 18th century legal dictionaries. Not in Noah Webster's and Samuel Johnson's

"Bear arms" was primarily used in a military context. An example is John Trusler’s legal definition in 1794,

“by arms, we understand those instruments of offence generally made use of in war; such as firearms, swords, &c.”

Joe said...

Craig: Every citizen should have an AK-47; an M-1 Abrams; an A-10 Thunderbolt II; an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer and a couple of drones, if he wants them.

Although each of these is an assault weapon, we normally speak of arms as pistols and rifles. If you want to be broader about it you may.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Our inalienable rights include those given us by our Creator: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Where exactly, in what Holy Test, did the "Creator" grant you those rights?

There isn't anything in the Bible about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

The only place that appears is in a document written by men who claim those rights for themselves without and direct divine attribution that can be cited. They just kind of assume that God wants them to have those rights.

Historically, humans have not had any of the Rights laid forth in the U.S. Constitution. To this day, citizens in other countries do not have those Rights.

Therefor, they cannot be Rights granted by The One God or else everyone on the planet would have a Right to bear arms.

No the Rights that are laid forth in the Bill of Rights are the Rights GRANTED TO YOU BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. That's why they can only be found in official government documents.

The government giveth,and the government can take away.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, "arms" were muzzle-loaded, black powder, flintlock weapons.

I don't have any problem with any citizen owning as many of those as they see fit! Go for it. Go play Revolutionary Soldier. Have fun. Enjoy. I hope you bag a squirrel.

The bottom line is, the only Rights you have are the ones our Constitution gives you.

The Constitution can, has been, and should be amended on a regular basis to remain relevant.

Unlike, ya know, something like The Bible.

The Constitution is a man made, legal document subject to change. It is not carved in stone by the finger of God Almighty.

Craig said...

Joe, As a Constitutional originalist, I thought it was important to know the Framers intent. If you have "Respect for the Constitution", you should, at least, understand what it says.

we normally speak of arms as pistols and rifles

Interpreting the Constitution through a late 20th century understanding of terms is a no-no, Joe. Anyway, do you 'bear arms' to hunt squirrel?

Every citizen should have...

Antonin Scalia writing in Heller,

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

If your goal is to establish your position on the far right fringes of the far right fringe, well done sir.

Xavier Onassis said...

There are a couple different versions of the 2nd Amendment, but both suffer from the same flaw when it comes to the way it is interpreted by the Right Wing Strict Constructionists who allow no "interpretation" and maintain that "words mean what they mean".

Well, what about capitalization, punctuation and emphasis?

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The original focus was clearly on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." with "Militia" and "State" being proper nouns with very specific definitions.

The two key words were later watered down to make them more subject to a fuzzy interpretation.

The Right Wing Nut jobs tend to gloss over this whole section of the 2nd Amendment as being either open to interpretation or not really meaning what it clearly means.

But let's look at the rest of the Amendment.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."vs. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Again, in the original version, Arms is a proper noun which implies a very specific definition. But "arms" is much fuzzier and open to interpretation.

And yet, these gun nuts take the "well regulated militia" clause as being subject to interpretation, but the "shall not be infringed" section as being carved in stone by the Holy Finger of God.

You can't have two different and diametrically imposed interpretations to two parts of the same sentence!

America never had or funded a standing Army. They had a command structure that relied elusively on the ability to call upon citizens to bring their own arms, their own ammunition, their own uniforms (such as they were) and their own provisions in the defense of their country.

That was the "well ordered Militia" referred to.

Having every knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, ignorant, bigoted, inbred, backwoods yokel armed to the teeth with a cache of doomsday prepper automatic weaponry and IEDs to be used AGAINST the United States Government was not what the Founders had in mind as a "well regulated Militia."

I really wish you people could read and had some modicum of rational thought.

Joe said...

Craig: "...well done sir."


XO: "I really wish you people could read and had some modicum of rational thought."

I really wish you people could read and had some modicum of rational thought.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Wow. That's all you have? Seriously? Lame.

Joe said...

XO: Yeah. I'm lame, alright.