quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

One thing that is notable about this discussion about the second amendment and the constitutionally protected right to form a militia in the backwoods somewhere, is that between 2009 and last year, many such discussions on here extended the debate about the second amendment into an insistence that it's essential in the event of a dictator seizing control of the 'States as it will facilitate overthrowing them if there's militias all over the place.
I wonder why some of the more right leaning anti gun control evangelists in here have shut up about their constitutionally protected right to stage a terroristparamilitary coup in order to depose an unwanted President since November?

Actually most talk about an armed right wing coup came from the left, but now that you want an armed left wing coup you don't want to ridicule it ay more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
The Left does not see Pol Pot and the Killing Fields as some sort of cautionary tale.
They see it as their dreams come true, their ultimate utopia, their Instruction Manual.

The Great Reckoning is coming, for us or them. I vote them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The rule of law works when it has the necessary power to enforce the laws, and/or when the majority of the people accept and abid by those contracts. When a large minority of the people have decided (consciously or not, knowingly or not) to reject the rule of law, then the end result will likely be violent and destructive before a new equilibrium is reached.

quote:

Unlike Leftist, if the facts show actual criminal wrong-doing, I can accept that, and accept the consequences.

This is the antithesis of lefties, who, when seeing wrong-doing on the part of their partisans either redefine what "wrong-doing" actually is, or simply excuse it for "the greater good" of their leftist ideology.

quote:

If you are a leftist who matches the criteria I've given above, then yes, the coming disorder will be your fault.

Still haven't put much thought into what "radicalization" is, yet, have ya?

quote:

Never said I was a diplomat. In fact, what I think I said was that I no longer had any interest in being diplomatic.

And I've not declared anyone my enemy. They declare themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:



In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State,

The Opinion in Miller was published in 1939.

Aymette v. State (2001)informs us:

And, “Militia,” just like “well-regulated Militia,” likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large. [SNIP] But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use.

The Court in Heller affirmed Miller and Miller was clarified by Aymette.

In the Heller Opinion the Court said that all Rights are not unlimited. No one has the right to carry whatever weapon at whatever time. A citizen has the right to self defense but not to dangerous and unusual weapons. That says to me that although land mines are military weapons no one is permitted to use them for defense around the perimeter of his home.

Heller interpreted Miller to mean that the weapons protected were those in common use by the militia. Aymette defines the militia as all able citizens of a certain age. The Militia is not separate and apart from the people. That's where in my opinion your point stumbles.

Btw, Miller was indicted and convicted in Federal District Court for interstate transport of the shot gun. Despite the Court's observation about the gun the decision of the lower court was overturned. Part of the National Firearms Act was found to be unconstitutional per the Second Amendment.

quote:

As for the militia being useless, modern military history is ripe with examples of under equipped, barely organized fighting forces defeating much better equipped military occupation.

Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's, the US Involvement in Iraq AND Afghanistan (there is no stretch of the term 'pacified' that comes close to the Modern military forces involved putting a stop to the guerilla and insurgent activities.)

In point of fact, a number of fire bases in Afghanistan were closed as being untenable.

As in Vietnam, US forces barely had total control of the cities, outside the urban areas it was Indian country.

Actually, the Mujaheddin were well equipped by the U.S. in the 1980s and the Vietnamese Army was well equipped by China or Russia, or both. The reasons why the U.S. Military failed in the Vietnam countryside was (1) the Vietminh were fighting a political war beyond the comprehension of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, so had the peasantry with them, and (2) the South's forces only pretended to fight.

The militia is an anachronism and useless. We are well protected by the National Guard against an insurrection and we are well protected against nation-state invasion by our advanced warning systems and by our regular military forces, although I grant you we would be much better protected if we were not wasting man power, equipment, and munitions in foolish endeavors overseas. Additionally, in the event of a real (stupid) act of aggression we have a nuclear arsenal standing bye. And speaking of nuclear, in the age of multi-headed missiles you can wave your AR-16 or your musket at the sky vigorously, but it will be useless.

You fail to note that Miller had disappeared before the case got to the Court. Only on side was argued thus undermining any validity of the ruling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I dunno ... I consider adherence to the rule of law a pretty strong part of the morality that has been trashed pretty strongly by leftists over the years, in particularly over the last 8 years.

Firm, happy to know you are well.

You will notice some changes here. The Mods seem to have fallen off a cliff and you will find the exchanges have grown less civil. Welcome to ad-hom.cum [:D]

Let's talk about the Rule of Law. Two points that I put to you:

1. Since the first English colonies in Virginia and the Carolinas the Laws were written and have been written to protect land owners and the wealthy to the detriment of the poor and powerless. There is a lot of history to support this from the early indentured servants - the poor and beggars gathered up from London's streets to African slaves to Black Codes to Jim Crow Laws to housing mortgage red lining to the disparity in prosecution between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine possession. The Laws have been and often are biased to favor the rich. Let me include college student draft exemption during the Vietnam era.

2. The Laws are often misapplied in practice. We have the highest rate of incarceration per population in the world. We are either the most lawless people in the world or we suffer the greatest amount of injustice.

Furthermore, the Innocence Project has freed 343 wrongly convicted people (according to DNA testing) 20 of whom were on death row.

So, if the Law is the application of our national morality, it tells me that that morality is weak and wanting.

Looking to your reply.

vincent,

I'm really kinda ... astonished.

I'd advise that you Google something like "the importance of the rule of law", but basically, without respect for the rule of law, the operative social order is "tooth and claw" or "tyranny of the strong".

Not to say that all laws are fair or equitable, but that is the goal, and the democratic process is designed to help the laws to be the best that fallible humans can come up with.

To the point of my earlier comments ... the left has seriously weakened the rule of law. To the point that serious law abiding members of society have a growing conviction that the rule of law will not protect us, and therefore we must take positive steps to protect ourselves from those who no longer honor the law.

That's a bad place for a society, and the proximate cause is the leftist destruction of the rule of law.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

One thing that is notable about this discussion about the second amendment and the constitutionally protected right to form a militia in the backwoods somewhere, is that between 2009 and last year, many such discussions on here extended the debate about the second amendment into an insistence that it's essential in the event of a dictator seizing control of the 'States as it will facilitate overthrowing them if there's militias all over the place.
I wonder why some of the more right leaning anti gun control evangelists in here have shut up about their constitutionally protected right to stage a terroristparamilitary coup in order to depose an unwanted President since November?

Actually most talk about an armed right wing coup came from the left, but now that you want an armed left wing coup you don't want to ridicule it ay more.

That's interesting. When did Ted Nugent become part of the left?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:



In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State,

The Opinion in Miller was published in 1939.

Aymette v. State (2001)informs us:

And, “Militia,” just like “well-regulated Militia,” likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large. [SNIP] But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use.

The Court in Heller affirmed Miller and Miller was clarified by Aymette.

In the Heller Opinion the Court said that all Rights are not unlimited. No one has the right to carry whatever weapon at whatever time. A citizen has the right to self defense but not to dangerous and unusual weapons. That says to me that although land mines are military weapons no one is permitted to use them for defense around the perimeter of his home.

Heller interpreted Miller to mean that the weapons protected were those in common use by the militia. Aymette defines the militia as all able citizens of a certain age. The Militia is not separate and apart from the people. That's where in my opinion your point stumbles.

Btw, Miller was indicted and convicted in Federal District Court for interstate transport of the shot gun. Despite the Court's observation about the gun the decision of the lower court was overturned. Part of the National Firearms Act was found to be unconstitutional per the Second Amendment.

quote:

As for the militia being useless, modern military history is ripe with examples of under equipped, barely organized fighting forces defeating much better equipped military occupation.

Vietnam, Afghanistan in the 80's, the US Involvement in Iraq AND Afghanistan (there is no stretch of the term 'pacified' that comes close to the Modern military forces involved putting a stop to the guerilla and insurgent activities.)

In point of fact, a number of fire bases in Afghanistan were closed as being untenable.

As in Vietnam, US forces barely had total control of the cities, outside the urban areas it was Indian country.

Actually, the Mujaheddin were well equipped by the U.S. in the 1980s and the Vietnamese Army was well equipped by China or Russia, or both. The reasons why the U.S. Military failed in the Vietnam countryside was (1) the Vietminh were fighting a political war beyond the comprehension of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, so had the peasantry with them, and (2) the South's forces only pretended to fight.

The militia is an anachronism and useless. We are well protected by the National Guard against an insurrection and we are well protected against nation-state invasion by our advanced warning systems and by our regular military forces, although I grant you we would be much better protected if we were not wasting man power, equipment, and munitions in foolish endeavors overseas. Additionally, in the event of a real (stupid) act of aggression we have a nuclear arsenal standing bye. And speaking of nuclear, in the age of multi-headed missiles you can wave your AR-16 or your musket at the sky vigorously, but it will be useless.

You fail to note that Miller had disappeared before the case got to the Court. Only on side was argued thus undermining any validity of the ruling.

Disappeared? Not really. He simply did not contest the state's appeal. Maybe he couldn't afford it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Firm . . .

I do not oppose the rule of law and I do not favor a Hobbsian dystopia. I agree with you that rule of law is essential to social order, but justice is even more important. By justice I mean substantive and procedural fairness. Evidence of unfairness: of 2000 prisoners exonerated since 1989 more than half were black while only 13% of the population was black. At least 20% of those innocent black men were convicted because of police misconduct.

So, here is where we disagree: you say the Left is responsible for the waning of respect for the rule of law; my point is that the unfairness of law and its application has tainted respect.

I have made the case for my pov with examples; I would welcome examples that support your view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
But thanks for a great example of religious/ideological zealotry that provides a very good example of what I'm talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Firm . . .

I do not oppose the rule of law and I do not favor a Hobbsian dystopia. I agree with you that rule of law is essential to social order, but justice is even more important. By justice I mean substantive and procedural fairness. Evidence of unfairness: of 2000 prisoners exonerated since 1989 more than half were black while only 13% of the population was black. At least 20% of those innocent black men were convicted because of police misconduct.

So, here is where we disagree: you say the Left is responsible for the waning of respect for the rule of law; my point is that the unfairness of law and its application has tainted respect.

I have made the case for my pov with examples; I would welcome examples that support your view.

vincent,

I think I initially said that I wasn't interested all that much in having a dialogue, but you have been patient, and mannerly, so I've no trouble at least spending a little bit of time with you.

I could list a whole string of things that the left has done in violation of the rule of law, starting with Obama's kill order and assassination of American citizens without due process protections, to the politicization of the IRS to target organizations that oppose the last administrations political agenda, to the street level black bloc attacks and attacks on Trump supporters (all the while claiming that it's their own fault, and that they are the ones causing the violence against them).

But I doubt that any of these, or any other examples will suffice to move you to consider my point.

You seem to claim that "the rule of law" isn't perfect, and therefore (?) shouldn't be honored, but I do not see the "better path" that you wish to replace it with.

All manmade systems are imperfect. We can only continually attempt to improve them, and I've no problem with that. But your words tend to lead me to believe (and I freely admit I could be wrong) that you do not find the rule of law as important, or anything that should be seen as anything special. And, in fact, that you have an alternative that you wish to propose.

If so, then - at best - you are an idealist who wishes to burn down the house because the color of the walls don't suit you, and dangerous to the Democratic Republic that our founding fathers envisioned.

So, what do we really have to discuss?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
But thanks for a great example of religious/ideological zealotry that provides a very good example of what I'm talking about.

Says the guy advocating mass murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Thanks for the courteous reply Firm. We need to be careful here lest we violate the fashion of vituperative posting now common in this forum. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I thought I made my position clear about the rule of law. I certainly advocate a structure of laws as the basis for a civilized society. However, the "rule of law" is a concept that is subject to interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I mean no comparison here, just a "for instance," Nazi Germany had a rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Fortunately, we live in a community where we can criticize our laws and their applications without being held to be enemies of the state.

Our federal legislators found it necessary to approve a constitutional amendment mandating substantive and procedural fairness as well as to pass laws guaranteeing civil rights. It has been necessary in our history to appeal to the courts many times to safeguard our rights under the Bill of Rights. Justice has been thin, yassee. So, yeah, we have to criticize and correct problems in a far from perfect system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

However, as of late we have witnessed, imo, a backlash against "liberty and justice for all" from the Right. That concerns me greatly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I am not here to change your mind, Firm, just to provide a reasoned counterpoint. I'm good with "nothing to discuss." [:)]

Again, welcome back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I see the right as doing that, and not reinterpret so much (well the second amendment, and torture) but simply ignoring it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Welcome back, Firm

I would add to that that the left, Vincent included, see "justice" as what we suffered under Obama. Leftist political hacks in charge seeing nothing wrong when it is another leftist committing flagrant violations of the laws, while working overtime to find and even manufacture violations whenever they believe they may have a white or a conservative anywhere near their cross hairs

And working with leftists in the media to further those same ends

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I see the right as doing that, and not reinterpret so much (well the second amendment, and torture) but simply ignoring it.

Right, I get that you believe that. And your point?

My point is that there is little, or no common ground with you and your ideological/religious follow travelers. You have a non-rational belief system, (that I think you could even classify as religious [:-] ) and I'm a heretic to that belief system, to be burned and tortured.

You have always been at war with Eastasia. [8|]

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Same as your point, there is your non-rational, non-factual belief system, and you have always been at war with facts.

The nutsuckers defend the rule of law as they torture and invade. Poverty is wealth, your corporate masters only want the best for you, everything is socialism. Yeah, seems like a religion with you guys.

Having long since burnt your church I am not invited to sit in the pew.