http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/27/the-humpday-open-line Comments On: The humpday open line by Lindsey Millar en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
I can tell by your last statement that you still cling to the long debunked study done by Kellerman. Point of fact, though, TM is that my firearms HAVE already kept me safe, and in all instances, without firing a shot. My experience has already proven your assumption disastrously wrong.

I do like Stephans' dissent. It shows how low a SC judge go to twist such a simple term as 'the People'. Also, Stephans' worry about the courts deciding and re-deciding decisions fails on one point. The Constitution is the Foundation, and all decisions from the court build upon that decision. Sometimes you get really bad decisions, like Dred Scott, that need remodeling to better build on that foundation.

Now I wonder at what stage you figured I, with my little bit of firearms, that I wished to incur fear? Yet another failed assumption. I wish to be left alone. As I am doing no harm to anyone, nor am I a demonstrable danger, I do resent being treated as if I am dangerous or deluded. Those that slavishly cling to Kellerman's failed thesis cannot sell that to the millions of people who have proven the reverse. Kleck has collected, distributed and already defended his thesis that blows Kellerman completely out of orbit.

Stephans also forgets that part of the intent, as related by many of the Founders, was to keep the people armed not just for protections as militias against outside influences but to also to defend against inside influences.

But please, TM, continue to use your love of words to lie, assume and being ignorant. As John Kerry recently said, you have a right to be ignorant. Not that I can find it in the Constitution, but I am sure you will. You have a way with words that would make Machiavelli proud.
Posted by Steven E]]> Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:08:32 -0600 Arkansas Times
It was pretty much dismantled after the war. There was widespread agreement that standing armies were a threat to liberty, and should not be kept up in times of peace.

This is from the North Carolina Bill of Rights, and numerous states had similar or identical provisions:
"[T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776)."

Here's a collection of sources (btw from a source sympathetic to your views): http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/s…

And the point is elaborated more fully in Stevens' dissent in Heller. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us…. You cannot deny that Stevens' interpretation pays close attention to original intent whereas the majority opinion couldn't care less. As somebody who loves language, I am particularly insulted by the way the majority opinion butchered the English language in order to reach its preconceived ideologically motivated outcome. The term "bear arms" is not, and has never been, the same as "carry a weapon". It has always referred to people that are collectively, not individually armed (taking up arms, under arms), whether as regular soldiers, militia members, or organized insurgents. A hunter carrying a rifle is not, and has never in the history of the English language been referred to as, "bearing arms". I know you right-wing extremists don't care about the meaning of words. Your Orwellian willingness to recreate language in the service of ideology is what makes your movement so dangerous.

Your guns, in contrast, are mostly dangerous to yourself - which is why your delusional ramblings about "people to be armed as well as the State" are so hilarious. Look at *how* this state is armed. And you think your rifle scares any would-be tyrants. Beyond belief.
Posted by TM]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:41:25 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Steven E]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:56:14 -0600 Arkansas Times
Please be careful and don't accidentally shoot yourself, or anyone else, tonight while playing with your 'tools'.

This is for you:

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/spelling…
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:20:52 -0600 Arkansas Times
The idiot looks at that phrase and thinks restrictions. The well read person, who has picked up on the debates at the time about the Second knows it means trained. I absolutely endorse that all who have firearms be at LEAST as competent with them as any of our soldiers or police officers.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:56:31 -0600 Arkansas Times
Why is it that when you talk of firearms, there is always some mental midget who stands up shouting "Drones. Tanks. Bombers. Plutonium bombs". It takes a special kind of stupid to elevate a rifle to a nuclear device. Did you ever do any research, TM on what the Founders had to say about 'original intent'? You apparently have not.

You are also forgetting the fact that the Continental Army was just that, a standing army in time of need, used by the state to fight for independance. Yes, they were always leary of a permanent standing army, which is precisely why we, as American citizens should do out duty and have at LEAST, one rifle(preferably and AR with ten high capacity magazines), one handgun and one shotgun.

Until the turn of the century, we had done pretty well with an extremely limited army. Problem is two world wars showed a particular flaw, and we adapted. Not very well, but the consequences of trying to go back were pertty severe.

What has not changed is the preeminent need for individuals to remain armed, as most Americans are armed. Until human nature does something it hasn't done in six thousand years, which is evolve, there will always be that need. Something central in the world psyche will have to change, be less human, and more enlightened.

Till then all your lies, and deceits and petulant insults won't change the fact that the Second defends the individual, and the individual has that right to have whatever he can carry as a personal firearm. If the technology grants the state the ability to carry particle beam rifles, then the individual citizen is entitled, by right to his personal weapon. And, to answer ahead of the shrill, craven little idiots that go to extremes, I am NOT talking about getting a tank, or missile or aircraft carrier or lazer mounted space stations.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:52:47 -0600 Arkansas Times
ARs????
Drones. Tanks. Bombers. Plutonium bombs. All covered by "original intent".

You guys from the know-nothing party are simply no fun to debate. It's way too easy. Let me throw a bone of fact at you and see whether you can catch. What most founders agreed on at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted was that there would never be a standing army. They pretty universally opposed the idea. Talk of militia in the constitution only made sense in that context. So where are all the originalists, teabaggers in costumes and what not who are willing to defend that original intent and demand the US Army to be dismantled and replaced by state militias, as the founders had wanted? SE? Saline? Where are you?
Posted by TM]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:15:43 -0600 Arkansas Times
"waving that whole 'well regulated' part as if it means what you want it to mean"

Just what do you want it to mean?
Posted by Citizen1]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:04:26 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by PVNasby]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:49:24 -0600 Arkansas Times
As far as 'original intent' the intent was for people to be armed as well as the State, which in those days were muskets, and nowadays are ARs.

Considering your lack of knowledge, I have no problem believing your interested in learning. Now you just have to actually LEARN some history.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:49:22 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.a…
Posted by Gylippus]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:14:02 -0600 Arkansas Times
And Steven, your Gang of 4 Supremes believes in "original intent". Thank you for sharing with us the fact that 100 round magazines existed back in colonial times. I'm always interested in learning more about history.
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:35:33 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Mam]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:26:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
I am amused by how people will constantly believe, force themselves to believe that I am against any regulation. I am against onerous regulation that works to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. What part of shall not infringe gets over your heads? We need to expand the background checks that we currently have. We don't need waiting periods, we just need better coordination of relevent data.

I would support deregulation of the sawed off shotguns and some loosening of the full auto regs, but they are NOT illegal, so it doesn't really fuss me.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:20:07 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by HillcrestArky]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:55:07 -0600 Arkansas Times
You're more likely to experience a burglary as a result of funeral or wedding announcements being printed in the paper. A person would have to be mighty desperate to go to the effort of obtaining and combing through gun license lists, when all they have to do is go to a gun show to get a weapon without having to risk being caught in a burglary. There's no evidence in the whole country that such lists have been used for burglaries. The issue is even more bogus than the voter ID fraud claims.

Besides, the NRA is shooting itself in the foot by closing these records. The gun manufacturers and their lobbying arm, the NRA, use those lists as marketing tools to sell memberships, guns, branded paraphernalia, and to fire up people to scream for their legislation.
Posted by YossarianMinderbinder]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:39:35 -0600 Arkansas Times
Give me a break - damn it man! Geez!!!
Posted by larock72]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:33:59 -0600 Arkansas Times
In order to prove that posting the concealed carry list is inappropriate, the responsible gun owners at “Chat & Gun News” are disseminating the personal information of Arkansas Business editor Gwen Moritz. They have pictures of her house, discuss her husband & children, they write about calling her repeatedly & how her life will now change.
http://fnforum.net/forums/2nd-amendment-ge…


“The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.”
Tony Blair
Posted by Zatharus]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:23:47 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Whatever]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:16:41 -0600 Arkansas Times
But then we dig in our heels against genuine assaults on lawful gun owners, what the hell do you expect? Max, you are responcible for the privacy laws about CCW record availability. Take responcibility for it, Max. If it had been about a genuine need for investigations, then you wouldn't need to publish the whole list, like a list of pedophiles. But you had to push the envelope, merely because of your own demonstrable bias.

Since you have not been keeping tabs, Scalia is getting tired of the new crop of laws designed to attack the rights of citizens. New York has new laws against so-called 'assault' weapons and high capacity magazines. The penalties of having an 11rd magazine are as high as they are for sexual assault. Is that reasonable to you, Max, that a person whose 13rd magazine for his Sig P228 was legal before a certain date, be treated as a sexual predator after a certain date? How about the Missouri law trying to get debated, which would confiscate, without recompence, those so-called 'assault' weapons and high cap mags? Kalifornia is coming up with even stricter laws, going so far as to restrict ammo possession. Colorado is trying to create laws so onerous that several companies are threatening to leave the state if these idiotic laws pass.

Scalia had put sensible regulation into context when he mentioned rocket launchers. Your intentionally missing the point that while those 100rd mags with AP are not neccesities, they are part and parcel of the rights we do have. When these laws come to the SCOTUS, as Scalia hopes, they will be struck down. Like the nabortion bills, a lot of the anti-gun laws will be struck down much as Heller killed a bunch of idiot laws acraoss the country.
Posted by Steven E]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:11:42 -0600 Arkansas Times
And you will never know why. The best you can hope for is a penis joke and a fantasy in which someone's political opponents are murdered.
Posted by Gylippus]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:10:47 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by GrizLee Blackbear]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:53:08 -0600 Arkansas Times
But why did Beebe take the lead? I guess it's clear now why he gave Jason the Rapert the lead in the Ledge. Beebe's showing his true colors.
Posted by GrizLee Blackbear]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:51:47 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by rablib]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:19:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://gawker.com/5987293
Posted by radical centrist]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:22:34 -0600 Arkansas Times