OT - Why I love our legal system... [Archive]

JWB

08-09-2004, 01:56 PM

"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here. Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!)

I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem to
have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV.

Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't see how
they could question the jury.

JWB

08-09-2004, 01:56 PM

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 02:21 PM

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here. Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More
games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!) I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem to have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV.

You can't assume ANYONE is guilty anymore, because, nowadays, nobody IS, for
the most part. There are always "extenuating circumstances", don't ya
see..? besides which, God help you if you collected the evidence "the
wrong way", and forgot to "dot your i's, and cross your t's"! (Go talk to
some policemen).

The whole system is a joke. Well, actually, it's a GAME for the lawyers.
Pays well, though. (That's all that really counts anyway. Remember,
this is a "free enterprise system", with the emphasis on "enterprise" - aka,
money. Justice is a byproduct, IF you're lucky. Ever sat on a jury?
It's really all a SHOW. Good ratings for some, perhaps. (They should
try Hollywood, and make even more bucks for their performances).
Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't see
how they could question the jury.

I do. I certainly can. And by the way, do YOU always place a lot of
faith in the jurors? I don't.

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 02:21 PM

JWB

08-09-2004, 03:07 PM

"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2VRRc.14514$cK.9569@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is
to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when
they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever),
you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here.
Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!) I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem
to have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV. You can't assume ANYONE is guilty anymore, because, nowadays, nobody IS,
for the most part. There are always "extenuating circumstances", don't ya see..? besides which, God help you if you collected the evidence "the wrong way", and forgot to "dot your i's, and cross your t's"! (Go talk
to some policemen).

Those evidence collection rules are there for our protection.

I know a few policemen fairly well - some are decent, and some are scumbags
that use the word "******" regularly (just one example) - yea, guys like
that are real impartial and I trust them to collect evidence. Uh huh.

The whole system is a joke. Well, actually, it's a GAME for the lawyers. Pays well, though. (That's all that really counts anyway. Remember, this is a "free enterprise system", with the emphasis on "enterprise" -
aka, money.

I like our free enterprise system. You get paid on talent and merit, and
what you are worth to others. If you have laws, you need lawyers. It's been
going on since the dawn of civilization.

Justice is a byproduct, IF you're lucky. Ever sat on a jury? It's really all a SHOW. Good ratings for some, perhaps. (They should try Hollywood, and make even more bucks for their performances). Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't see how they could question the jury. I do. I certainly can. And by the way, do YOU always place a lot of faith in the jurors? I don't.

I don't place a lot of faith in my fellow man for *anything*, be it
collecting evidence or judging guilt.

I think a better question to ask you is - why does this all bother you? It
matters very little to me if lawyers get rich, or people sue Mcdonald's or
whatnot. I think it's an insignificant part of life - for all your railing
against lawyers and lawsuits, I don't know anyone - (who even knows
anyone) - who got any kind of big settlement off of a frivolous lawsuit. I
know and am friends with several lawyers, and they don't know anyone either.
It's so uncommon, it's almost not worth mentioning. A headline does not mean
it's commonplace.

JWB

08-09-2004, 03:07 PM

_calinda_

08-09-2004, 03:21 PM

JWB wrote: A headline does not mean it's commonplace.

It wouldn't be a headline if it were commonplace.

Cal~

_calinda_

08-09-2004, 03:21 PM

JWB wrote: A headline does not mean it's commonplace.

It wouldn't be a headline if it were commonplace.

Cal~

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 03:26 PM

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2VRRc.14514$cK.9569@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> I really love this one:>> "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is
to> help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when
they> find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever),
you're> home free!>> See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here.> Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all.
More> games.......>> (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it> already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your> life!!!) I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem
to have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV. You can't assume ANYONE is guilty anymore, because, nowadays, nobody IS, for the most part. There are always "extenuating circumstances",
don't ya see..? besides which, God help you if you collected the evidence "the wrong way", and forgot to "dot your i's, and cross your t's"! (Go talk
to some policemen). Those evidence collection rules are there for our protection.

Uh huh. Big brother is out there to get you! (You've been taken in,
hook, line, and sinker). We still NEED firearms too, right, just like
we did 200 years ago? (LOL)
I know a few policemen fairly well - some are decent, and some are
scumbags that use the word "******" regularly (just one example) - yea, guys like that are real impartial and I trust them to collect evidence. Uh huh. The whole system is a joke. Well, actually, it's a GAME for the
lawyers. Pays well, though. (That's all that really counts anyway. Remember, this is a "free enterprise system", with the emphasis on "enterprise" -
aka, money. I like our free enterprise system. You get paid on talent and merit, and..

"Merit"? Merit? You mean, like, Mike Tyson's biting off someone's ear,
and getting paid big bucks for it? Is that what you mean by "merit"?

And ... value to society? - benefiting society? - improving society? Is
that what you mean by "merit"? (Ooops, that was a relapse on my part;
that's what I mean by merit - benefiting society - my mistake here. I
still have my "values" mixed up).

"Talent"? Oh, you mean like ... acting ability? Putting on a good
show?
what you are worth to others. If you have laws, you need lawyers. It's
been going on since the dawn of civilization. Justice is a byproduct, IF you're lucky. Ever sat on a jury? It's really all a SHOW. Good ratings for some, perhaps. (They
should try Hollywood, and make even more bucks for their performances). Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't see
how they could question the jury. I do. I certainly can. And by the way, do YOU always place a lot of faith in the jurors? I don't.

Have you ever served on a jury? I have. My opinion of the legal system
stands, based on that, and several other "adventures" with our illustrious
legal establishment.
I don't place a lot of faith in my fellow man for *anything*, be it collecting evidence or judging guilt. I think a better question to ask you is - why does this all bother you? It matters very little to me if lawyers get rich, or people sue Mcdonald's or whatnot. I think it's an insignificant part of life - for all your railing

You, like so, many, have apparently been duped, it would seem. (But
that's ok, many don't see the forest for the trees here). Let me clue you
in on a little known secret:

Do you have ANY idea of why medical insurance and medical costs are so high
now? (Ever heard of malpractice insurance)? And out of reach for so
many? And why some product costs are so high now? (please seriously
reflect on that).

It's getting so the only ones who can afford health coverage over here are
the lawyers, but, come to think of it, maybe that was their plan in the
first place - ya think?

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 03:26 PM

JWB

08-09-2004, 03:36 PM

"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BSSRc.14567$cK.7738@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2VRRc.14514$cK.9569@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... JWB wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...>> I really love this one:>>>> "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here
is to>> help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they>> find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're>> home free!>>>> See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here.>> Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More>> games.......>>>> (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard
it>> already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of
your>> life!!!)>> I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem to> have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV. You can't assume ANYONE is guilty anymore, because, nowadays, nobody
IS, for the most part. There are always "extenuating circumstances", don't ya see..? besides which, God help you if you collected the evidence
"the wrong way", and forgot to "dot your i's, and cross your t's"! (Go
talk to some policemen). Those evidence collection rules are there for our protection. Uh huh. Big brother is out there to get you! (You've been taken in, hook, line, and sinker). We still NEED firearms too, right, just like we did 200 years ago? (LOL) I know a few policemen fairly well - some are decent, and some are scumbags that use the word "******" regularly (just one example) - yea, guys like
that are real impartial and I trust them to collect evidence. Uh huh. The whole system is a joke. Well, actually, it's a GAME for the lawyers. Pays well, though. (That's all that really counts anyway.
Remember, this is a "free enterprise system", with the emphasis on "enterprise" - aka, money. I like our free enterprise system. You get paid on talent and merit,
and.. "Merit"? Merit? You mean, like, Mike Tyson's biting off someone's
ear, and getting paid big bucks for it? Is that what you mean by "merit"?

Yes. He generated big bucks for that fight. A LOT of people made koney off
of his back. He deserved to get paid every cent.

Bill, are you tenured? Do you believe in tenure?

And ... value to society? - benefiting society? - improving society?

I said nothing about society - you should know me well enough by now - I
really don't care about society that much.

Is that what you mean by "merit"? (Ooops, that was a relapse on my part; that's what I mean by merit - benefiting society - my mistake here. I still have my "values" mixed up). "Talent"? Oh, you mean like ... acting ability? Putting on a good show?

That could be called talent, yes.

what you are worth to others. If you have laws, you need lawyers. It's been going on since the dawn of civilization. Justice is a byproduct, IF you're lucky. Ever sat on a jury? It's really all a SHOW. Good ratings for some, perhaps. (They should try Hollywood, and make even more bucks for their performances).> Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't
see how> they could question the jury. I do. I certainly can. And by the way, do YOU always place a lot
of faith in the jurors? I don't. Have you ever served on a jury? I have. My opinion of the legal
system stands, based on that, and several other "adventures" with our illustrious legal establishment.

I have not. I'd like to, though.

I don't place a lot of faith in my fellow man for *anything*, be it collecting evidence or judging guilt. I think a better question to ask you is - why does this all bother you?
It matters very little to me if lawyers get rich, or people sue Mcdonald's
or whatnot. I think it's an insignificant part of life - for all your
railing You, like so, many, have apparently been duped, it would seem. (But that's ok, many don't see the forest for the trees here). Let me clue
you in on a little known secret: Do you have ANY idea of why medical insurance and medical costs are so
high now? (Ever heard of malpractice insurance)? And out of reach for so many? And why some product costs are so high now? (please seriously reflect on that).

Partly due to malpractice, yes. Also due to record profits by HMO's and drug
compnaies.

JWB

08-09-2004, 03:36 PM

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 04:00 PM

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message I said nothing about society - you should know me well enough by now - I really don't care about society that much.

If you don't care about society, who will? And who should? The
Shadow? Daredevil?

I get it! Nobody should care, we'll just let it go as it goes. (Don't
worry - it is, and the results are quite telling)
Have you ever served on a jury? I have. My opinion of the legal
system stands, based on that, and several other "adventures" with our
illustrious legal establishment. I have not. I'd like to, though.

Hey - come on over! You can take my place, and enjoy the SHOW. The
theatrics can be just... marvelous! You might even get a kick out of it!
I think a better question to ask you is - why does this all bother you?
It matters very little to me if lawyers get rich, or people sue Mcdonald's
or whatnot. I think it's an insignificant part of life - for all your
railing You, like so, many, have apparently been duped, it would seem. (But that's ok, many don't see the forest for the trees here). Let me clue
you in on a little known secret: Do you have ANY idea of why medical insurance and medical costs are so
high now? (Ever heard of malpractice insurance)? And out of reach for so many? And why some product costs are so high now? (please seriously reflect on that). Partly due to malpractice, yes. Also due to record profits by HMO's and
drug compnaies.

I forgot one of my favorites: so many camps (for kids) going out of
business, because they can't afford "liability insurance" (we didn't have
this **** in the old days when I went to camp - the responsibilities were on
OUR shoulders, and our parents shoulder's, a TOTALLY foreign concept these
days)

Oh yeah, and some of the river rafting places, where you USED to be able to
rent a small raft and use it at your own discretion, and they would pick you
up. Use it at your own discretion - YOU are responsible for what happens
to you in the river. (Another foreign concept these days).

Maybe we can sue the raft manufacturers? After all, their orange color
offended me, and I "lost control" of my raft, due to the color imbalance!!
It's THEIR fault!

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 04:00 PM

JWB

08-09-2004, 04:18 PM

"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kmTRc.14597$cK.153@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message I said nothing about society - you should know me well enough by now - I really don't care about society that much. If you don't care about society, who will? And who should? The Shadow? Daredevil? I get it! Nobody should care, we'll just let it go as it goes. (Don't worry - it is, and the results are quite telling)

actually, Bill, I'm more jaded than you at times - I see what's happened to
our society, and I don't like it. I've decided I will make what I can, not
bother anyone, and stomp anyone who bothers me.

Have you ever served on a jury? I have. My opinion of the legal system stands, based on that, and several other "adventures" with our illustrious legal establishment. I have not. I'd like to, though. Hey - come on over! You can take my place, and enjoy the SHOW. The theatrics can be just... marvelous! You might even get a kick out of
it!

That's why I'd like to. It would be interesting.

> I think a better question to ask you is - why does this all bother
you? It> matters very little to me if lawyers get rich, or people sue
Mcdonald's or> whatnot. I think it's an insignificant part of life - for all your railing You, like so, many, have apparently been duped, it would seem. (But that's ok, many don't see the forest for the trees here). Let me
clue you in on a little known secret: Do you have ANY idea of why medical insurance and medical costs are so high now? (Ever heard of malpractice insurance)? And out of reach for
so many? And why some product costs are so high now? (please
seriously reflect on that). Partly due to malpractice, yes. Also due to record profits by HMO's and drug compnaies. I forgot one of my favorites: so many camps (for kids) going out of business, because they can't afford "liability insurance" (we didn't have this **** in the old days when I went to camp - the responsibilities were
on OUR shoulders, and our parents shoulder's, a TOTALLY foreign concept these days) Oh yeah, and some of the river rafting places, where you USED to be able
to rent a small raft and use it at your own discretion, and they would pick
you up. Use it at your own discretion - YOU are responsible for what
happens to you in the river. (Another foreign concept these days). Maybe we can sue the raft manufacturers? After all, their orange color offended me, and I "lost control" of my raft, due to the color imbalance!! It's THEIR fault!

Parents faults, mostly.

JWB

08-09-2004, 04:18 PM

JWB

08-09-2004, 04:27 PM

"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%OTRc.14616$cK.1765@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:kmTRc.14597$cK.153@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>> I said nothing about society - you should know me well enough by now -
I> really don't care about society that much. If you don't care about society, who will? And who should? The Shadow? Daredevil? I get it! Nobody should care, we'll just let it go as it goes. (Don't worry - it is, and the results are quite telling) actually, Bill, I'm more jaded than you at times - I see what's happened to our society, and I don't like it. I've decided I will make what I can,
not bother anyone, and stomp anyone who bothers me. Nah. You CAN'T be more jaded than me. You need to experience 5 generations of this (ever increasing) BULL****, to get THIS jaded! Maybe I should rename my nick...and put a "jaded" in there. (Hope u
don't mind, Caren).

Yea, but you've been in academia. That has to deduct from your jaded score.
Corporate America, land of downsizing and corruption, adds a few ;)

JWB

08-09-2004, 04:27 PM

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 04:31 PM

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:kmTRc.14597$cK.153@newsread2.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message I said nothing about society - you should know me well enough by now - I really don't care about society that much. If you don't care about society, who will? And who should? The Shadow? Daredevil? I get it! Nobody should care, we'll just let it go as it goes.
(Don't worry - it is, and the results are quite telling) actually, Bill, I'm more jaded than you at times - I see what's happened
to our society, and I don't like it. I've decided I will make what I can, not bother anyone, and stomp anyone who bothers me.

Nah. You CAN'T be more jaded than me. You need to experience 5
generations of this (ever increasing) BULL****, to get THIS jaded!

Maybe I should rename my nick...and put a "jaded" in there. (Hope u don't
mind, Caren).

Bill in Co.

08-09-2004, 04:31 PM

Doug Laidlaw

08-09-2004, 11:53 PM

Bill in Co. wrote:
I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here. Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!)

Almost right, but not quite. If the first trial becomes a non-event, there
is no trial, so they can start again. If the judge discharges the jury,
they can start again. But if the Judge directs a verdict of "Not Guilty",
they can't. But these days, any action usually breaks several laws, so
they get you under another one. I sometimes feel very strongly that they
indulge in some hair-splitting when they do this.

In theory, the prosecution could ask for a new trial on the basis of fresh
evidence. To discourage sloppy case preparation, the evidence must be
something that they couldn't have found before. (Aside: The Chamberlain
case here, filmed as "Evil Angels" with Meryl Streep, has just been
reopened because someone claims to have buried the body. That would
qualify, although Lindy has a pardon, and is safe for that reason.) I am
not strong on criminal law, but I believe that in England, it is more a
convention than a law, that they don't. But if the application is refused,
they can't just start over. In Scotland, the jury can (or could) bring in
a verdict of "Not Proven", which left the way open for a new trial later.
Although Scotland was united with England, they had already developed a
separate legal system. Juries are an English invention.

As to the Big Brother argument, many Continental systems have a time limit
on bringing prosecutions. If you escape for 10 years (say), you are safe.
It is not part of the Common Law tradition. I read about a woman who was
on the top of the F.B.I.'s "most wanted" list The FBI published their list
25 or more years later, and someone recognized her as the respectable woman
down the street, married to a doctor. What do you do? Should she be
allowed to leave all that behind her and make a new life for herself?
There is no right answer. It is a policy decision.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
"Thwackum was for doing justice, and leaving mercy to Heaven."
Henry Fielding, _Tom Jones_.

Bill in Co.

08-10-2004, 12:36 AM

Doug Laidlaw wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here. Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!) Almost right, but not quite. If the first trial becomes a non-event,
there is no trial, so they can start again. If the judge discharges the jury, they can start again. But if the Judge directs a verdict of "Not Guilty", they can't. But these days, any action usually breaks several laws, so they get you under another one. I sometimes feel very strongly that they indulge in some hair-splitting when they do this. In theory, the prosecution could ask for a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence.

So let them.
To discourage sloppy case preparation, the evidence must be something that they couldn't have found before.

But that doesn't always work out in practice. It sounds nice on paper,
but let's face it people screw up, and will ALWAYS screw up, as we all know.

So, by someone - anyone - screwing up somewhere - anywhere - in the case
preparation (which could involve many, many people - some of whom are BOUND
to make mistakes), the perpetrator walks, scott free. And this is
JUSTICE? I don't think so.

Ignoramus29819

08-10-2004, 06:15 AM

I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example
Amendment V:

``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb''

i

Bill in Co.

08-10-2004, 09:37 AM

Ignoramus29819 wrote: I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example Amendment V: ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb''

Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work?
You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too?

Ignoramus29819

08-10-2004, 04:28 PM

In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co. wrote: Ignoramus29819 wrote: I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example Amendment V: ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb'' Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work? You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too?

Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I
consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is
no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and
bear arms is protected by the Constitution.

As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think
that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise
document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years
ago.

i

JWB

08-10-2004, 04:33 PM

"Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfblm5$mhu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in
Co. wrote: Ignoramus29819 wrote: I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example Amendment V: ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb'' Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect
work? You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too? Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years ago.

One of the major reasons we won the revolutionary war was outside the
cities, a great majority of the general population was armed. The founding
fathers realized this.

However, they weren't counting on automatic handguns, either

Doug Laidlaw

08-10-2004, 05:15 PM

JWB wrote:
"Bill in Co." <surly8curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o3RRc.14468$cK.2253@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... I really love this one: "You can't be tried twice for the same crime". So the trick here is to help botch the trial the first time, and then the second time, when they find additional proof that you murdered your spouse (or whomever), you're home free! See, you have to keep in mind what is really important here. Obviously some of us just don't see the "light" yet, that's all. More games....... (please spare me the [supposed] rationale for this rule - I've heard it already, aka, Big Brother is comin to monitor ya for the rest of your life!!!) I like the fact that we just can't "assume" anyone is guilty. You seem to have gotten your opinion of this stuff from TV. Unless one was there for every minute of a particular trial, I can't see how they could question the jury.

Here, and in England, we are not allowed to question the jury about what
happened in the jury room. I am sure that in many cases the jury convict
someone simply because they think that he did it. They get to see the
witnesses, and assess who is lying. An appeal court just sees the
transcript, not the way the witness was squirming when he said it. So long
as the verdict was open to the jury on the evidence, an appeal court will
not interfere just because they would have decided differently. They will
interfere only if there was no evidence, or the judge misdirected the jury.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
There is an element of truth in every idea that lasts long enough to be
called corny.
- Irving Berlin.

Ignoramus29819

08-10-2004, 06:04 PM

In article <eXcSc.117630$a92.110147@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message news:cfblm5$mhu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co. wrote: Ignoramus29819 wrote:> I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example> Amendment V:>> ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put> in jeopardy of life or limb'' Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work? You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too? Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years ago. One of the major reasons we won the revolutionary war was outside the cities, a great majority of the general population was armed. The founding fathers realized this. However, they weren't counting on automatic handguns, either

How do you know that they did not expect progress to be made in
developing more effective firearms?

Let's say, hypothetically, that you approached a founding father, an
intelligent person, and asked him, do you foresee that development of
technology would make it possible that guns would store more than one
bullet in them, and could fire them in quick succession?

I bet that the founding father would say, sure, yes.

i

Doug Anderson

08-10-2004, 06:40 PM

Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes:
In article <eXcSc.117630$a92.110147@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message news:cfblm5$mhu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co. wrote: > Ignoramus29819 wrote: >> I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example >> Amendment V: >> >> ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put >> in jeopardy of life or limb'' > > Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work? > You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too? Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years ago. One of the major reasons we won the revolutionary war was outside the cities, a great majority of the general population was armed. The founding fathers realized this. However, they weren't counting on automatic handguns, either How do you know that they did not expect progress to be made in developing more effective firearms? Let's say, hypothetically, that you approached a founding father, an intelligent person, and asked him, do you foresee that development of technology would make it possible that guns would store more than one bullet in them, and could fire them in quick succession? I bet that the founding father would say, sure, yes.

Of course that founding father would probably want you to understand
the full statement of the 2nd amendment rather than taking the phrase
"right to bear arms" out of context. (As did the Supreme Court.)

And I think you might find some disagreement between your point of
view and that of the founding father there.

The last time the Supreme Court considered this seriously (1939) the
decision it handed down can be interpreted _either_ as "yes,
individuals have the right to bear arms, but only those such as might
have been commonly used in militias" or "there are no _individual_
rights to bear arms."

Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a
nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?

Doug

JWB

08-10-2004, 06:44 PM

"Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfbraq$1pk$0@pita.alt.net... In article <eXcSc.117630$a92.110147@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message news:cfblm5$mhu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill
in Co. wrote: > Ignoramus29819 wrote: >> I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example >> Amendment V: >> >> ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put >> in jeopardy of life or limb'' > > Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work? > You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century
too? Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution. As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years ago. One of the major reasons we won the revolutionary war was outside the cities, a great majority of the general population was armed. The
founding fathers realized this. However, they weren't counting on automatic handguns, either How do you know that they did not expect progress to be made in developing more effective firearms?

well, obviously, i can't know, but I've never seen it mentioned in my fairly
extensive readings on the period.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you approached a founding father, an intelligent person, and asked him, do you foresee that development of technology would make it possible that guns would store more than one bullet in them, and could fire them in quick succession? I bet that the founding father would say, sure, yes.

Perhaps, but I'm not so sure about that. In their lifetimes until the point
of the constitution, the founding fathers saw very little in the way of
technological advances.

Ignoramus29819

08-10-2004, 08:39 PM

In article <LOeSc.282917$Oq2.248439@attbi_s52>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: In article <eXcSc.117630$a92.110147@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message news:cfblm5$mhu$1@pita.alt.net...> In article <RQ6Sc.16868$cK.9144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co. wrote:> > Ignoramus29819 wrote:> >> I am curious, have you heard about the US constitution, for example> >> Amendment V:> >>> >> ``nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put> >> in jeopardy of life or limb''> >> > Are you suggesting that the Constitution is infallible? A perfect work?> > You want to debate the "the right to bear arms" in the 21st century too?>> Well, obviously I do not want to debate the right to bear arms, as I> consider it to be a right protected by the Constitution and there is> no need to debate the obvious, that is, that the right to keep and> bear arms is protected by the Constitution.>> As to whether I think that the Constitution is infallible, I think> that it is as close to infallible as it could get, an extremely wise> document that is as applicable to our life now as it was 100 years> ago. One of the major reasons we won the revolutionary war was outside the cities, a great majority of the general population was armed. The founding fathers realized this. However, they weren't counting on automatic handguns, either How do you know that they did not expect progress to be made in developing more effective firearms? Let's say, hypothetically, that you approached a founding father, an intelligent person, and asked him, do you foresee that development of technology would make it possible that guns would store more than one bullet in them, and could fire them in quick succession? I bet that the founding father would say, sure, yes. Of course that founding father would probably want you to understand the full statement of the 2nd amendment rather than taking the phrase "right to bear arms" out of context. (As did the Supreme Court.)

http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

``A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson
Papers 344.

SAMUEL ADAMS

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of
the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms . . ."

RICHARD HENRY LEE

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms..."

PATRICK HENRY

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may
have a gun."

And I think you might find some disagreement between your point of view and that of the founding father there.

I think that my point of view is in perfect agreement with the
founding fathers.
The last time the Supreme Court considered this seriously (1939) the decision it handed down can be interpreted _either_ as "yes, individuals have the right to bear arms, but only those such as might have been commonly used in militias" or "there are no _individual_ rights to bear arms."

Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should
be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military
style rifles etc.
Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?

nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-)

"Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers.

i

JWB

08-10-2004, 08:52 PM

"Ignoramus29819" <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> wrote in message
news:cfc4eb$l39$2@pita.alt.net...
Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc.

I agree with this, but this is as far as i go in the gun argument.

I like the right to bear arms. I own a gun (.44 rifle), and I can use it.
However, I see little use for high-powered automatic weapons or small,
concealable 15-shot pistols in the hands of the general populace. That's the
part that bothers me - the fact that you have to think about armed gang
members at the mall on a Friday night (and within 60 miles of me, it is a
definite concern)

Doug Anderson

08-10-2004, 09:35 PM

Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes:

(snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to
illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and
untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms)
Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc.

So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns?
Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not? nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-) "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers.

What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about?

JWB

08-10-2004, 09:37 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02... Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms) Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns?

I'm pro-gun, and I'd be (very) happy with that.

Doug Anderson

08-10-2004, 09:48 PM

"JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02... Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms) Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns? I'm pro-gun, and I'd be (very) happy with that.

Oh good. I wish there were more of you. At least in that respect!

Ignoramus29819

08-10-2004, 09:53 PM

In article <umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms) Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns?

Well, I do not particularly like handguns and find them boring.

I would prefer to have fun with a rifle, any day.

That said, if I am asked if the constitution protects handguns, tha
answer is yes, quite obviously. They were available when the
constitution was written, and their technological improvement was
foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely.
Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not? nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-) "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers. What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about?

not available to foot soldiers...

i

Doug Anderson

08-10-2004, 10:05 PM

Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes:
In article <umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms) Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns? Well, I do not particularly like handguns and find them boring. I would prefer to have fun with a rifle, any day. That said, if I am asked if the constitution protects handguns, tha answer is yes, quite obviously.

Well, I disagree with the "obviously." The constitution protects the
right to bear arms in a well-ordered militia. We aren't talking about
"in a well-ordered militia" so I wouldn't say it was "obvious" that
the constitution protects _any_ gun ownership for individuals.
They were available when the constitution was written, and their technological improvement was foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely.

Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day
military situation?
> Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not? nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-) "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers. What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about? not available to foot soldiers...

Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot
soldiers then it should be available to all?

Joy

08-11-2004, 05:16 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gOhSc.238789$%_6.186497@attbi_s01... Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: In article <umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms)> Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should> be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military> style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns? Well, I do not particularly like handguns and find them boring. I would prefer to have fun with a rifle, any day. That said, if I am asked if the constitution protects handguns, tha answer is yes, quite obviously. Well, I disagree with the "obviously." The constitution protects the right to bear arms in a well-ordered militia. We aren't talking about "in a well-ordered militia" so I wouldn't say it was "obvious" that the constitution protects _any_ gun ownership for individuals. They were available when the constitution was written, and their technological improvement was foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day military situation?> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about
a> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?>> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-)>> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot
soldiers. What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about? not available to foot soldiers... Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot soldiers then it should be available to all?

Nukes have the potential to cause ecological damage in a way that guns
don't. Radioactive materials are regulated, access is restricted, and it
should continue to be so. I really, really don't want my idiot neighbor
dismantling his suitcase nukes in an unshielded shed near my house.

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 06:09 AM

In article <gOhSc.238789$%_6.186497@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: In article <umhSc.241643$IQ4.190605@attbi_s02>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus29819 <ignoramus29819@NOSPAM.29819.invalid> writes: (snip various historical quotes designed with only limited success to illustrate that the founding fathers endorsed universal and untrammelled "rights" to bear any firearms)> Well, I would be fine with the interpretation that individuals should> be able to possess guns that are useful to militias, such as military> style rifles etc. So you would be OK with restrictions on handguns? Well, I do not particularly like handguns and find them boring. I would prefer to have fun with a rifle, any day. That said, if I am asked if the constitution protects handguns, tha answer is yes, quite obviously. Well, I disagree with the "obviously." The constitution protects the right to bear arms in a well-ordered militia. We aren't talking about "in a well-ordered militia" so I wouldn't say it was "obvious" that the constitution protects _any_ gun ownership for individuals.

Re-read the second amendment again.

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

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time,
the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It
was not an exclusive organization of any sort.
They were available when the constitution was written, and their technological improvement was foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day military situation?

http://www.americangunsmith.com/handguns.html

``The design and internal function of Beretta and it's clone the
Taurus PT-92 are clearly demonstrated with a cutaway pistol. Recently
adopted as the standard issue side arm for the US Army, the Beretta
uses a cam lock breech system that differs substantially from the old
war-horse 1911 .45 Auto. Complete disassembly and reassembly is
covered along with how to correct problems that are common to this
pistol. Instructed by Master Gunsmith Robert Dunlap.''
> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?>> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-)>> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers. What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about? not available to foot soldiers... Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot soldiers then it should be available to all?

That would be a reasonable interpretation, as always, open to some
tweaking.

Would an RPG be protected, for example? That's debatable. But that a
normal rifle is protected by the constitution, that is pretty obvious.

________~._____ !\
---------_:~ ____===_:-----W====!==____
}W ____-----\: /"| | ~~~~~ ~~~~~~
-~~ ||~~ \ \
~ \_\

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 07:57 AM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
Re-read the second amendment again. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It was not an exclusive organization of any sort.

This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So
I maintain that very little about the implications of the second
amendment is "obvious."
They were available when the constitution was written, and their technological improvement was foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day military situation?

(snip non-answer)

Do you know the answer to this question? I do not.
>> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a >> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not? >> >> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-) >> >> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers. > > What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about? not available to foot soldiers... Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot soldiers then it should be available to all? That would be a reasonable interpretation, as always, open to some tweaking. Would an RPG be protected, for example? That's debatable. But that a normal rifle is protected by the constitution, that is pretty obvious.

Well, I find no desire to keep people from owning rifles. Though I'd
like to see them registered. Handguns and automatics I'd like to see
more heavily regulated.

Suitcase nukes I'd like to be right out, regardless of whether foot
soldiers ever carry them.

JWB

08-11-2004, 08:17 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54... Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: Re-read the second amendment again. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious."

I do think they meant "everyone". They realized an armed populace helped win
the war. However, unlike Igor, I truly think they did not forsee automatic
weapons and such. The weapons available at the time were inaccurate
(especially sidearms), and very difficult to use. Further, they had been
that way their entire lives, so the founding fathers saw no great advances
in weaponry (thus having no reason to think there would be). Having a pistol
in your home meant you could help fight off an invader or shoot a bear, not
go kill six people in a rampage because you got fired.

> They were available when the> constitution was written, and their technological improvement was> foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day military situation? (snip non-answer) Do you know the answer to this question? I do not.> >> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry
about a> >> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?> >>> >> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-)> >>> >> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot
soldiers.> >> > What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about?>> not available to foot soldiers... Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot soldiers then it should be available to all? That would be a reasonable interpretation, as always, open to some tweaking. Would an RPG be protected, for example? That's debatable. But that a normal rifle is protected by the constitution, that is pretty obvious. Well, I find no desire to keep people from owning rifles. Though I'd like to see them registered. Handguns and automatics I'd like to see more heavily regulated.

Handguns scare me. Concealable, portable, and holding many shots. The fact
that the general population, whom I don't trust to make a decent cup of
coffee, has access to them is unnerving.

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 08:23 AM

In article <RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: Re-read the second amendment again. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious."

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not infringed" that is not obvious, please tell me.
> They were available when the> constitution was written, and their technological improvement was> foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day military situation? (snip non-answer) Do you know the answer to this question? I do not.

I just gave you the answer, you ignored it.

``Recently adopted as the standard issue side arm for the US Army, the
Beretta uses a cam lock breech system''

So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.
> >> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a> >> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not?> >>> >> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-)> >>> >> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers.> >> > What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about?>> not available to foot soldiers... Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot soldiers then it should be available to all? That would be a reasonable interpretation, as always, open to some tweaking. Would an RPG be protected, for example? That's debatable. But that a normal rifle is protected by the constitution, that is pretty obvious. Well, I find no desire to keep people from owning rifles.

that includes automatic rifles.
Though I'd like to see them registered. Handguns and automatics I'd like to see more heavily regulated. Suitcase nukes I'd like to be right out, regardless of whether foot soldiers ever carry them.

We seem to agree on the nukes, that's a good sign.

i

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 08:33 AM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
In article <RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: Re-read the second amendment again. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious." What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed" that is not obvious, please tell me.

First of all, you are taking the phrase again rather than quoting the
entire sentence.

It gives a justification for not "infringing" this right, the
justification being the necessity of a well-ordered militia. What
that means is and continues to be subject to debate.

Secondly it isn't at all clear that, say, requiring licenses for guns
infringes any right. Etc. for other restrictions that some might like
to place.
>> They were available when the >> constitution was written, and their technological improvement was >> foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. > > Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day > military situation? (snip non-answer) Do you know the answer to this question? I do not. I just gave you the answer, you ignored it.

No you didn't. You gave me an _advertisement_. An answer would be
some statement about who in the army uses handguns and for what
purposes. (And not from someone trying to _sell_ them!)
``Recently adopted as the standard issue side arm for the US Army, the Beretta uses a cam lock breech system'' So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.

Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it
would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?
>> >> > Igor: does the right to bear arms extend to my right to carry about a >> >> > nuclear weapon if I can purchase one? If not, why not? >> >> >> >> nuclear weapons are too heavy to "bear". :-) >> >> >> >> "Arms" in this context means arms that are available to foot soldiers. >> > >> > What about these "suitcase nukes" we keep hearing about? >> >> not available to foot soldiers... > > Is that what you are using as a criterion? If it is available to foot > soldiers then it should be available to all? > That would be a reasonable interpretation, as always, open to some tweaking. Would an RPG be protected, for example? That's debatable. But that a normal rifle is protected by the constitution, that is pretty obvious. Well, I find no desire to keep people from owning rifles. that includes automatic rifles.

Perhaps. Surely that isn't up to you or me.
Though I'd like to see them registered. Handguns and automatics I'd like to see more heavily regulated. Suitcase nukes I'd like to be right out, regardless of whether foot soldiers ever carry them. We seem to agree on the nukes, that's a good sign.

OK, so we are agreed on the principle that the government may be able
to regulate weapons, even if those weapons are available to foot
soldiers.

Which makes it no longer a matter of principle or "intent" of the
framers, but what is reasonable.

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 08:59 AM

In article <u%qSc.240321$%_6.193003@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: In article <RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:> Re-read the second amendment again.>> ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be> infringed.''>> It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time,> the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It> was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious." What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed" that is not obvious, please tell me. First of all, you are taking the phrase again rather than quoting the entire sentence.
It gives a justification for not "infringing" this right, the justification being the necessity of a well-ordered militia. What that means is and continues to be subject to debate.

Do you personally see any ambiguity as far as the individual right to
bear arms guarantee in the constitution is concerned.
Secondly it isn't at all clear that, say, requiring licenses for guns infringes any right. Etc. for other restrictions that some might like to place.

If something is a constitutional right, then the government cannot
deny its exercise based on some license system.

For example, would it be constitutional to require people to apply for
a "license" to criticise Iraq war? And only grant that license based
on good behavior?

> >> They were available when the> >> constitution was written, and their technological improvement was> >> foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely.> >> > Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day> > military situation? (snip non-answer) Do you know the answer to this question? I do not. I just gave you the answer, you ignored it. No you didn't. You gave me an _advertisement_. An answer would be some statement about who in the army uses handguns and for what purposes. (And not from someone trying to _sell_ them!) ``Recently adopted as the standard issue side arm for the US Army, the Beretta uses a cam lock breech system'' So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces. Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?

Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.
OK, so we are agreed on the principle that the government may be able to regulate weapons, even if those weapons are available to foot soldiers. Which makes it no longer a matter of principle or "intent" of the framers, but what is reasonable.

Nukes are so far away from the realm of what an armed militia member
could possess, that bringing them into the discussion is not
productive.

i

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 09:00 AM

"JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54... Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: Re-read the second amendment again. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'' It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious." I do think they meant "everyone". They realized an armed populace helped win the war.

I'm not sure. My understanding is that they framed the Constitution
to limit the powers of the federal government. I think they meant
_either_ that everyone should have weapons to make it harder for the
federal government to be authoritarian _or_ they meant that individual
states should be able to have militias so that the federal government
cannot trammel the rights of individual states.

Which of these (if either) is right is the sort of thing people argue
about. Hence my claim that this isn't "obvious."

And whatever we think a "militia" means, it is still fair game to
discuss what sort of weapons _are_ necessary for a well regulated
militia.
However, unlike Igor, I truly think they did not forsee automatic weapons and such. The weapons available at the time were inaccurate (especially sidearms), and very difficult to use. Further, they had been that way their entire lives, so the founding fathers saw no great advances in weaponry (thus having no reason to think there would be). Having a pistol in your home meant you could help fight off an invader or shoot a bear, not go kill six people in a rampage because you got fired.

Yeah. Which is why I brought up suitcase nukes. Either of the
interpretations I suggested could be read to allow suitcase nukes.
So, if as you, Igor and I agree, suitcase nukes out to be out however
we variously interpret the 2nd amendment, then some limits are
appropriate.

(snip)
Handguns scare me. Concealable, portable, and holding many shots. The fact that the general population, whom I don't trust to make a decent cup of coffee, has access to them is unnerving.

The name is Bunn. James Bunn. Licensed to drip.

Tracey

08-11-2004, 09:14 AM

Ignoramus5937 wrote: Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely.

Not true.

Tracey

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 09:15 AM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
In article <u%qSc.240321$%_6.193003@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: In article <RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54>, Doug Anderson wrote: > Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: > >> Re-read the second amendment again. >> >> ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free >> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be >> infringed.'' >> >> It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, >> the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It >> was not an exclusive organization of any sort. > > This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So > I maintain that very little about the implications of the second > amendment is "obvious." What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed" that is not obvious, please tell me. First of all, you are taking the phrase again rather than quoting the entire sentence. It gives a justification for not "infringing" this right, the justification being the necessity of a well-ordered militia. What that means is and continues to be subject to debate. Do you personally see any ambiguity as far as the individual right to bear arms guarantee in the constitution is concerned.

Yes.
Secondly it isn't at all clear that, say, requiring licenses for guns infringes any right. Etc. for other restrictions that some might like to place. If something is a constitutional right, then the government cannot deny its exercise based on some license system.

I don't believe this is true. For example, in some states convicted
felons are not allowed to vote. This isn't a license, per se, but it
sets up criteria under which a constiutional right may or may not be
exercised.
For example, would it be constitutional to require people to apply for a "license" to criticise Iraq war? And only grant that license based on good behavior?

That would not make sense, But to bring out the classic example, it
isn't an infringement on the right to free speech to outlaw yelling
"Fire!" in a crowded moviehouse.

Fetishizing the constitution by bringing particular amendments to
their logical extremes makes nonsense out of it.
>> >> They were available when the >> >> constitution was written, and their technological improvement was >> >> foreseeable. Foot soldiers and officers carry handguns routinely. >> > >> > Is that really true? In dress situations, or in actual modern-day >> > military situation? > > (snip non-answer) > > Do you know the answer to this question? I do not. I just gave you the answer, you ignored it. No you didn't. You gave me an _advertisement_. An answer would be some statement about who in the army uses handguns and for what purposes. (And not from someone trying to _sell_ them!) ``Recently adopted as the standard issue side arm for the US Army, the Beretta uses a cam lock breech system'' So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces. Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it would be fun to have a pistol in their posession? Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.

It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean
every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it
mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I
don't know. Do you?
OK, so we are agreed on the principle that the government may be able to regulate weapons, even if those weapons are available to foot soldiers. Which makes it no longer a matter of principle or "intent" of the framers, but what is reasonable. Nukes are so far away from the realm of what an armed militia member could possess,

Why?
that bringing them into the discussion is not productive.

Look, the "any gun any place" people go to ridiculous extremes. Why
can't those in favor of some restrictions use an extreme to make a
point?

Tracey

08-11-2004, 09:33 AM

>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think itwould be fun to have a pistol in their posession?Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear. It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I don't know. Do you?

Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even
the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'
them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out
daily.

Tracey

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 09:46 AM

In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear. It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I don't know. Do you? Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued' them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out daily.

Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their
bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is
specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty
similarly, in this respect, am I correct?

i

Tracey

08-11-2004, 09:48 AM

Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it meanevery soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does itmean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? Idon't know. Do you?Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, eventhe ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them outdaily. Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty similarly, in this respect, am I correct?

Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are the
security people of the different services.

'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standard
issue just means that if a job requires X, then the service will
provide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are
'standard issue'.

Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :P

Tracey

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 09:54 AM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear. It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I don't know. Do you? Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued' them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out daily. Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty similarly, in this respect, am I correct?

Think about it Igor. I don't know how the military works in detail,
but what makes sense? Soldiers who don't need to be wearing firearms
aren't. Soldiers who are out in a battle don't need handguns, they
need something more serious.

This isn't to say no one has a handgun ever, but they don't seem like
an important part of the armamentarium for ordinary soldiers.

And again, if this is your criterion for what weapons the 2nd
amendment mandates everyone should have unrestricted access to, let me
point out that some ordinary soldiers have access to hand-held SAMs
also. Does this mean everyone should have access to these, according
to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

Doug

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 09:55 AM

In article <411A4DF3.8090405@aol.com>, Tracey wrote: Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>don't know. Do you?Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, eventhe ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them outdaily. Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty similarly, in this respect, am I correct? Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are the security people of the different services. 'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standard issue just means that if a job requires X, then the service will provide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are 'standard issue'. Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :P Tracey

Thank you.

i

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 09:58 AM

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>don't know. Do you?Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, eventhe ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them outdaily. Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty similarly, in this respect, am I correct? Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are the security people of the different services. 'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standard issue just means that if a job requires X, then the service will provide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are 'standard issue'.

Thank you Tracey. I think that clarifies!

Tracey

08-11-2004, 10:03 AM

Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4DF3.8090405@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:Ignoramus5937 wrote:In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>>don't know. Do you?>>Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even>the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'>them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out>daily.Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on theirbases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that isspecific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated prettysimilarly, in this respect, am I correct?Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are thesecurity people of the different services.'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standardissue just means that if a job requires X, then the service willprovide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are'standard issue'.Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :PTracey Thank you.

Kinda confused on what you're thanking me for. It pretty much
disproves what you've been saying.

Tracey

Tony Miller

08-11-2004, 10:10 AM

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:00:53 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54... Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: > Re-read the second amendment again. > > ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be > infringed.'' > > It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, > the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It > was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious." I do think they meant "everyone". They realized an armed populace helped win the war. I'm not sure. My understanding is that they framed the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government. I think they meant _either_ that everyone should have weapons to make it harder for the federal government to be authoritarian _or_ they meant that individual states should be able to have militias so that the federal government cannot trammel the rights of individual states.

So the states can possess every weapon that the Federal government has?

Where are NY's missile silos?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 10:13 AM

In article <411A515A.7050202@aol.com>, Tracey wrote: Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4DF3.8090405@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:Ignoramus5937 wrote:>In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>>>>>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>>>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>>>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>>>don't know. Do you?>>>>Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even>>the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'>>them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out>>daily.>>>Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their>bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is>specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty>similarly, in this respect, am I correct?Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are thesecurity people of the different services.'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standardissue just means that if a job requires X, then the service willprovide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are'standard issue'.Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :PTracey Thank you. Kinda confused on what you're thanking me for. It pretty much disproves what you've been saying. Tracey

No, what you proved is that handguns and rifles are reated similarly,
they are issued as needed.

i

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 10:19 AM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
In article <411A515A.7050202@aol.com>, Tracey wrote: Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article <411A4DF3.8090405@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>Ignoramus5937 wrote:>>>In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>>>>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>>>>>>>>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>>>>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>>>>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>>>>don't know. Do you?>>>>>>Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even>>>the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'>>>them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out>>>daily.>>>>>>Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their>>bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is>>specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty>>similarly, in this respect, am I correct?>>Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are the>security people of the different services.>>'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standard>issue just means that if a job requires X, then the service will>provide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are>'standard issue'.>>Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :P>>Tracey> Thank you. Kinda confused on what you're thanking me for. It pretty much disproves what you've been saying. Tracey No, what you proved is that handguns and rifles are reated similarly, they are issued as needed.

Ditto SAMs, and nuclear equipped submarines.

Emma Anne

08-11-2004, 10:36 AM

Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote:
Here, and in England, we are not allowed to question the jury about what happened in the jury room.

That is incorrect. I have been on a jury twice and both times the
prosecutor talked to me afterward about the deliberations. Each one
wanted to know what worked and didn't work so they could do a better job
next time.

JWB

08-11-2004, 10:51 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u%qSc.240321$%_6.193003@attbi_s01...
It gives a justification for not "infringing" this right, the justification being the necessity of a well-ordered militia. What that means is and continues to be subject to debate.

at that time, the militia meant prettymuch every able-bodied man.

Ignoramus5937

08-11-2004, 11:01 AM

In article <xysSc.237098$a24.115315@attbi_s03>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: In article <411A515A.7050202@aol.com>, Tracey wrote: Ignoramus5937 wrote:> In article <411A4DF3.8090405@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>>Ignoramus5937 wrote:>>>>>In article <411A4A90.40705@aol.com>, Tracey wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, a Beretta handgun is a standard issue sidearm for US forces.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, for dress purposes? For combat? For officers who think it>>>>>>>would be fun to have a pistol in their posession?>>>>>>>>>>>>Standard issue means standard issue, there is nothing unclear.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's unclear to me, but I've never been in the army. Does it mean>>>>>every soldier gets one? Does it mean every officer gets one? Does it>>>>>mean every soldier who needs a handgun gets this particular one? I>>>>>don't know. Do you?>>>>>>>>Every soldier/sailor/airman DOES NOT get a firearm. In fact, even>>>>the ones I know of who wear them daily (MP's, SPs) are not 'issued'>>>>them. They are stored at their duty station and they draw them out>>>>daily.>>>>>>>>>Same as with rifles, right? The soldiers do not normally walk on their>>>bases with rifles, every day, unless they need training that is>>>specific to the weapon. So, handguns and rifles are treated pretty>>>similarly, in this respect, am I correct?>>>>Correct. The only people who regularly carry firearms are the>>security people of the different services.>>>>'Standard issue' does not mean every person gets one. Standard>>issue just means that if a job requires X, then the service will>>provide 'this particular X' for you to do the job. Humvees are>>'standard issue'.>>>>Kinda wish we all had gotten a Humvee myself. :P>>>>Tracey>>>>> Thank you. Kinda confused on what you're thanking me for. It pretty much disproves what you've been saying. Tracey No, what you proved is that handguns and rifles are reated similarly, they are issued as needed. Ditto SAMs, and nuclear equipped submarines.

correct!

So, saying that rifles are militia weapons because they are issued to
soldiers, and handguns are not because they are not issued to
soldiers, was wrong on your part.

i

JWB

08-11-2004, 11:03 AM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UorSc.243342$IQ4.237541@attbi_s02... "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite
dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54... Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: > Re-read the second amendment again. > > ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a
free > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be > infringed.'' > > It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that
time, > the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men. It > was not an exclusive organization of any sort. This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating. So I maintain that very little about the implications of the second amendment is "obvious." I do think they meant "everyone". They realized an armed populace helped
win the war. I'm not sure. My understanding is that they framed the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government. I think they meant _either_ that everyone should have weapons to make it harder for the federal government to be authoritarian _or_ they meant that individual states should be able to have militias so that the federal government cannot trammel the rights of individual states. Which of these (if either) is right is the sort of thing people argue about. Hence my claim that this isn't "obvious."

you are correct that it is not "obvious". I think that was on purpose.

And whatever we think a "militia" means, it is still fair game to discuss what sort of weapons _are_ necessary for a well regulated militia.

Rifles / shotguns would seem reasonable.

However, unlike Igor, I truly think they did not forsee automatic weapons and such. The weapons available at the time were inaccurate (especially sidearms), and very difficult to use. Further, they had been that way their entire lives, so the founding fathers saw no great
advances in weaponry (thus having no reason to think there would be). Having a
pistol in your home meant you could help fight off an invader or shoot a bear,
not go kill six people in a rampage because you got fired. Yeah. Which is why I brought up suitcase nukes. Either of the interpretations I suggested could be read to allow suitcase nukes. So, if as you, Igor and I agree, suitcase nukes out to be out however we variously interpret the 2nd amendment, then some limits are appropriate.

agreed

(snip) Handguns scare me. Concealable, portable, and holding many shots. The
fact that the general population, whom I don't trust to make a decent cup of coffee, has access to them is unnerving. The name is Bunn. James Bunn. Licensed to drip.

heh heh.... I've turned into a coffee snob as of late. I turn my nose up at
anything that hasn't been fresh-roasted (like in the last two days).
Luckily, i have a coffee roaster nearby.

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 02:06 PM

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote: Here, and in England, we are not allowed to question the jury about what happened in the jury room. That is incorrect. I have been on a jury twice and both times the prosecutor talked to me afterward about the deliberations. Each one wanted to know what worked and didn't work so they could do a better job next time.

Doug L.'s "here" is in Australia.

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 04:07 PM

Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes:
So, saying that rifles are militia weapons because they are issued to soldiers, and handguns are not because they are not issued to soldiers, was wrong on your part.

Except that I never said such a thing.

The incorrect assertion was _yours_ in that you asserted soldiers
routinely carry handguns, and cited as evidence that a certain weapon
is "standard-issue."

But the fact that your assertion was incorrect really isn't important.

Is it also your assertion that the right of any civilian to have
hand-held SAMs is protected by the constitution? Your criterion
appears to be "any weapon that might be issued to a soldier for some
use."

Doug Anderson

08-11-2004, 04:09 PM

"JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes:
heh heh.... I've turned into a coffee snob as of late. I turn my nose up at anything that hasn't been fresh-roasted (like in the last two days). Luckily, i have a coffee roaster nearby.

My wife went this way when she lived in New Haven CT. There is a
place there which roasts fresh continually. You can smell it all over
town. For a long time after she left, we used to drive through New
Haven any time we were anywhere close to pick up coffee beans!

Joy

08-11-2004, 05:37 PM

"JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite
dot com> wrote in message
news:HbtSc.52074$oW6.11749422@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:UorSc.243342$IQ4.237541@attbi_s02... "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at
excite dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:RtqSc.268856$JR4.91236@attbi_s54... > Ignoramus5937 <ignoramus5937@NOSPAM.5937.invalid> writes: > > > Re-read the second amendment again. > > > > ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be > > infringed.'' > > > > It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". At that time, > > the militia was considered to be comprised of all armed free men.
It > > was not an exclusive organization of any sort. > > This is exactly the sort of thing that people epend time debating.
So > I maintain that very little about the implications of the second > amendment is "obvious." I do think they meant "everyone". They realized an armed populace
helped win the war. I'm not sure. My understanding is that they framed the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government. I think they meant _either_ that everyone should have weapons to make it harder for the federal government to be authoritarian _or_ they meant that individual states should be able to have militias so that the federal government cannot trammel the rights of individual states. Which of these (if either) is right is the sort of thing people argue about. Hence my claim that this isn't "obvious." you are correct that it is not "obvious". I think that was on purpose. And whatever we think a "militia" means, it is still fair game to discuss what sort of weapons _are_ necessary for a well regulated militia. Rifles / shotguns would seem reasonable.

The Swiss have had an interesting approach to this:

http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/military_of_switzerland.html

Jennifer

08-11-2004, 07:08 PM

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1HxSc.132416$eM2.102482@attbi_s51... "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite
dot com> writes: heh heh.... I've turned into a coffee snob as of late. I turn my nose up
at anything that hasn't been fresh-roasted (like in the last two days). Luckily, i have a coffee roaster nearby. My wife went this way when she lived in New Haven CT. There is a place there which roasts fresh continually. You can smell it all over town. For a long time after she left, we used to drive through New Haven any time we were anywhere close to pick up coffee beans!

Okay, this is something I love about my husband. :-) We have enough money
for him to buy frozen coffee drinks if he likes, but he doesn't like the
thought of wasting money on what is, after all, fairly inexpensive
ingredients. At first, he'd buy the frappucino bottled drinks at Starbucks
and make his own smoothies, but now he even makes the frap. mix.

In advance, he makes up an enormous pot of coffee (from beans he's ground).
He saved all the glass bottles from Starbucks from when he was buying the
drinks. In each glass bottle, he puts some of the black coffee, some milk,
some chocolate syrup, then shakes it all up. He keeps those bottles around
for the week to make his drink.

Every morning using a smoothie machine, he crushes up ice, the coffee
mixture, and ice cream, which makes a frozen drink that in his opinion is
far superior to Starbucks. He and I actually worked out how cheap this was
(something like 35 cents a huge drink instead of $4-$5), but what I think is
adorable is that IMO it's a combination of proving that he can do something
better on his own and enjoying some coffee snobbery at the same time.

I don't like that the smoothie machine has to be hand washed, though.

Jennifer

JWB

08-11-2004, 07:14 PM

"Jennifer" <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yt-dnY_svpeATYfcRVn-iA@comcast.com... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1HxSc.132416$eM2.102482@attbi_s51... "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at
excite dot com> writes: heh heh.... I've turned into a coffee snob as of late. I turn my nose
up at anything that hasn't been fresh-roasted (like in the last two days). Luckily, i have a coffee roaster nearby. My wife went this way when she lived in New Haven CT. There is a place there which roasts fresh continually. You can smell it all over town. For a long time after she left, we used to drive through New Haven any time we were anywhere close to pick up coffee beans! Okay, this is something I love about my husband. :-) We have enough
money for him to buy frozen coffee drinks if he likes, but he doesn't like the thought of wasting money on what is, after all, fairly inexpensive ingredients. At first, he'd buy the frappucino bottled drinks at
Starbucks and make his own smoothies, but now he even makes the frap. mix. In advance, he makes up an enormous pot of coffee (from beans he's
ground). He saved all the glass bottles from Starbucks from when he was buying the drinks. In each glass bottle, he puts some of the black coffee, some
milk, some chocolate syrup, then shakes it all up. He keeps those bottles
around for the week to make his drink. Every morning using a smoothie machine, he crushes up ice, the coffee mixture, and ice cream, which makes a frozen drink that in his opinion is far superior to Starbucks. He and I actually worked out how cheap this
was (something like 35 cents a huge drink instead of $4-$5), but what I think
is adorable is that IMO it's a combination of proving that he can do
something better on his own and enjoying some coffee snobbery at the same time. I don't like that the smoothie machine has to be hand washed, though.

Good for your husband.

The "clean up" is one reason they are so expensive when you buy them out.
They are also a pain in the *** to make. I mean, for me, I have to go buy my
beans (and I go weekly), then grind them up when i brew them. I have bought
a coffeemaker that does the grinding internally before brewing, so that
helps. But it's harder to clean than just throwing out a filter.

But it beats drinking crap coffee :)

Jennifer

08-11-2004, 08:42 PM

"JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite
dot com> wrote in message
Good for your husband. The "clean up" is one reason they are so expensive when you buy them out. They are also a pain in the *** to make. I mean, for me, I have to go buy
my beans (and I go weekly), then grind them up when i brew them. I have
bought a coffeemaker that does the grinding internally before brewing, so that helps. But it's harder to clean than just throwing out a filter. But it beats drinking crap coffee :)

LOL...that's what I hear! I don't drink coffee, though. Tim is home &
offered to share his bounty with you...

In a Starbucks (or other) 9.5 ounce glass container:

Fill 1 inch with skim or 2% milk
Add 1/4-1/2 inch of Hershey's chocolate syrup
Fill to the top with coffee*

* When you brew your coffee, take an old spoon that you will never want to
use again as a spoon, and bend it so you can use it to tamp down the coffee
grounds after you put them into the filter. It will make the water go
through more slowly, so you'll get a stronger brew with fewer ground beans.
It'll be more of an espresso taste.

To make the frozen drink:

Using a smoothie machine (preferably a 600-watt), put in about 6 inches of
crushed ice.
Add roughly 1/2-3/4 pint of Healthy Choice Cappuccino Chocolate Chunk
or Healthy Choice Chocolate Mocha Silk ice cream
Add 2 of the 9.5 ounce containers of your homeblend coffee blend (you can
use the Starbucks Frappuccino; they cost $1.25 each around here)
Blend and stir, then serve. Apparently it's preferable to use a straw to
drink this, or it gets on your beard. ;-)

You can add a banana, if you like (or other fruit, I imagine!).

It makes approximately 54 ounces of frozen drink (what Tim calls "a good
morning portion"). ROFL!!

This was fun. :-D

Jennifer

JWB

08-11-2004, 09:17 PM

"Jennifer" <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rtqdnZxXQcu7e4fcRVn-iQ@comcast.com... "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> wrote in message Good for your husband. The "clean up" is one reason they are so expensive when you buy them
out. They are also a pain in the *** to make. I mean, for me, I have to go
buy my beans (and I go weekly), then grind them up when i brew them. I have bought a coffeemaker that does the grinding internally before brewing, so that helps. But it's harder to clean than just throwing out a filter. But it beats drinking crap coffee :) LOL...that's what I hear! I don't drink coffee, though. Tim is home & offered to share his bounty with you... In a Starbucks (or other) 9.5 ounce glass container: Fill 1 inch with skim or 2% milk Add 1/4-1/2 inch of Hershey's chocolate syrup Fill to the top with coffee* * When you brew your coffee, take an old spoon that you will never want to use again as a spoon, and bend it so you can use it to tamp down the
coffee grounds after you put them into the filter. It will make the water go through more slowly, so you'll get a stronger brew with fewer ground
beans. It'll be more of an espresso taste. To make the frozen drink: Using a smoothie machine (preferably a 600-watt), put in about 6 inches of crushed ice. Add roughly 1/2-3/4 pint of Healthy Choice Cappuccino Chocolate Chunk or Healthy Choice Chocolate Mocha Silk ice cream Add 2 of the 9.5 ounce containers of your homeblend coffee blend (you can use the Starbucks Frappuccino; they cost $1.25 each around here) Blend and stir, then serve. Apparently it's preferable to use a straw to drink this, or it gets on your beard. ;-) You can add a banana, if you like (or other fruit, I imagine!). It makes approximately 54 ounces of frozen drink (what Tim calls "a good morning portion"). ROFL!! This was fun. :-D Jennifer

I'm not the hugest frozen coffee drink fan (they're ok once in a while,
though), but my wife likes them - I printed this and will try it.

Thanks!! (thank your husband, too)