I would appreciate it if you could show me where Prof Piven calls for a full-blown, blood-n-guts revolution in this country.
That doesn't sound much like the lady.
miggs, what would you say about using the mass murder of thousands of your fellow citizens and the offices of the Vice-President and Secretary of Defense to institute secret prisons and torture and to illegally read and listen to the communications of your fellow citizens?
That's almost as bad as giving unethical political advice, isn't it?
pu-lease. nothing in our political system calls for great moral leadership. Clinton ran a competent administration. So did the first Bush.
it would be swell if she were a merely a mensch, but she's a woman of modest abilities. nothing wrong with that. Ozzy Osbourne does OK with what he has to offer.
@ miguel cervantes:
miggs, we may not agree with the jury's verdict, but how do we know that they didn't care to look at the facts or honestly consider thimgs?
were the jury mainly Islamists or commie liberals or what? were they bribed or imposters or not legally empaneled? did the judge give the jury an erroneous charge?
@ George Jochnowitz:
George, if you're ready for some more reading, try the Militia Act of 1792........
here's an excerpt.....
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
not only was every(male)body allowed to be armed,...they were required to arm themselves.
George, take ten minutes and read through Art I Sec 8.
Note what it says about "Army" and contrast that to what it says about the Militia.
Then note that the ten amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights were put there as guarantees against the federal government's possible usurpation of all power.
The concern was that Americans were not willing to be disarmed. They were determined to differ from the commoners in Europe, who were not allowed arms, and who could not defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
These people did not trust the US government with a standing army that they would be powerless to oppose by force of arms.
Now, as I said, things are not the same, and you and I would both prefer that the lunacy involved in allowing every 21 year old not yet convicted of felony to legally own a couple of Glocks, several shotguns, and a half-dozen rifles not be the law of the land, but 'tis, George, 'tis.
@ George Jochnowitz:
I'm saying, George, that the people who had lately thrown off the hand of the Crown were quite unwilling to allow any government ability to disarm the people of America.
Yes George, not only the authors, but most everybody in the country meant that Amendment to guarantee the right of people to be armed to the teeth, and possibly behind the ears as well. Things wuz different, conditions have mostly changed, but the words and their meaning have not.
@ George Jochnowitz:Much as i would like to agree with you, the rest of the Second Amendment......the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. still stands.
Were the right entirely dependent on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, the provision (Art I Sec Eight) that allows to the Congress the authority " To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..."
would allow it to deny arms to everyone.
Gun control is not going to happen any time soon for reasons political, legal and practical.
miguel cervantes wrote:
that's sort of the way you argue things.
I would appreciate it if you could show me where Prof Piven calls for a full-blown, blood-n-guts revolution in this country.
That doesn't sound much like the lady.
@ miguel cervantes:
miggs, what would you say about using the mass murder of thousands of your fellow citizens and the offices of the Vice-President and Secretary of Defense to institute secret prisons and torture and to illegally read and listen to the communications of your fellow citizens?
That's almost as bad as giving unethical political advice, isn't it?
@ CK MacLeod:
pu-lease. nothing in our political system calls for great moral leadership. Clinton ran a competent administration. So did the first Bush.
it would be swell if she were a merely a mensch, but she's a woman of modest abilities. nothing wrong with that. Ozzy Osbourne does OK with what he has to offer.
@ miguel cervantes:
help me out, miggs.
tell me what the OJ jurors said.
@ miguel cervantes:
Sharpton was sued and the jury find him liable.
miguel cervantes wrote:
what did they say?
@ miguel cervantes:
miggs, we may not agree with the jury's verdict, but how do we know that they didn't care to look at the facts or honestly consider thimgs?
were the jury mainly Islamists or commie liberals or what? were they bribed or imposters or not legally empaneled? did the judge give the jury an erroneous charge?
Turns out that there was a reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt on the minds of a dozen people.
The rules here are different.
@ miguel cervantes:
miggs, the law is so bad that Arizona had to amend it after one whole week.
that's a crock, miggs and you're being foolish in trying to call it a provocation.
@ miguel cervantes:
“attempt on you could bring the Republic down.”
Beck be as crazy as a fanny pack on a python.
{the Dick Act (1903)}
You wanted to talk about the Second Amendment. Sorry you didn't like hearing about it.
George Jochnowitz wrote:
try guessing when that law passed off the books.
@ George Jochnowitz:
George, if you're ready for some more reading, try the Militia Act of 1792........
here's an excerpt.....
not only was every(male)body allowed to be armed,...they were required to arm themselves.
George, take ten minutes and read through Art I Sec 8.
Note what it says about "Army" and contrast that to what it says about the Militia.
Then note that the ten amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights were put there as guarantees against the federal government's possible usurpation of all power.
The concern was that Americans were not willing to be disarmed. They were determined to differ from the commoners in Europe, who were not allowed arms, and who could not defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
These people did not trust the US government with a standing army that they would be powerless to oppose by force of arms.
Now, as I said, things are not the same, and you and I would both prefer that the lunacy involved in allowing every 21 year old not yet convicted of felony to legally own a couple of Glocks, several shotguns, and a half-dozen rifles not be the law of the land, but 'tis, George, 'tis.
@ George Jochnowitz:
I'm saying, George, that the people who had lately thrown off the hand of the Crown were quite unwilling to allow any government ability to disarm the people of America.
Yes George, not only the authors, but most everybody in the country meant that Amendment to guarantee the right of people to be armed to the teeth, and possibly behind the ears as well. Things wuz different, conditions have mostly changed, but the words and their meaning have not.
@ George Jochnowitz:
assuming it doth not make it so.
@ George Jochnowitz:Much as i would like to agree with you, the rest of the Second Amendment......the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. still stands.
Were the right entirely dependent on the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, the provision (Art I Sec Eight) that allows to the Congress the authority " To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..."
would allow it to deny arms to everyone.
Gun control is not going to happen any time soon for reasons political, legal and practical.