tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post731400603283229441..comments2023-11-03T05:50:18.057-04:00Comments on Libertas and Latte: The CDC and GunsConstitutional Insurgenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-34928312547392527872015-01-28T17:54:39.091-05:002015-01-28T17:54:39.091-05:00You know that not to be the case, wd.
It is the c...<i>You know that not to be the case, wd.</i><br /><br />It is the case. I did absolutely zero "spamming" that lead you to ban me from your blog. It is untruthful for you to suggest I did.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-89031069012907323402015-01-24T20:10:12.347-05:002015-01-24T20:10:12.347-05:00"CDC is full capable of conducting and open, ..."CDC is full capable of conducting and open, objective, and honest study of the data, information, and statistics."<br /><br />And. of course, the pro-fascist , destroy our basic rights folks like Ema Nymton will run the other way if this study refutes their "government control yes, popular control no" ideology.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-21025311373670614462015-01-24T05:58:29.347-05:002015-01-24T05:58:29.347-05:00Will: Isn't it thousands by now?Will: Isn't it thousands by now?dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-80728959960250979752015-01-22T20:10:04.712-05:002015-01-22T20:10:04.712-05:00Correct, Will. The problem is not too little gover...Correct, Will. The problem is not too little government. It's too much government.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-47790425852379234622015-01-22T19:44:32.464-05:002015-01-22T19:44:32.464-05:00According to the University of Hawaii's, R.J. ...According to the University of Hawaii's, R.J. Rummel (a political science professor and researcher), a grand total of 262 MILLION citizens have been slaughtered at the hands of their own governments over the past 113 years (more than 6 times the number that have been killed in wars). He refers to this phenomenon as democide and I would hazard a guess here that this is a number that the "evil" NRA could only dream about.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-52976632729464614192015-01-22T06:06:49.589-05:002015-01-22T06:06:49.589-05:00Yawn. I appreciate the work you spent quoting the ...Yawn. I appreciate the work you spent quoting the articles, but all you've done is reiterate what we already agree on...that the courts throughout our history, have ruled in differing ways on the RKBA. You keep trying to tie your premise back to original intent, but have not once proffered any evidence in the writings of the framers, contrary to the 2nd Amendment being an individual right, and not restricted to that of the militia.<br /><br />There reams of documents from both the founding era and that of the previous common law that was referenced by the Founders....that give complete weight to the 2nd being exactly what it is, an individual right. Just as is the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th.....you get the idea.<br /><br />Had your premise been true, the Amendment would have omitted any reference to the People. I would also recommend a bit more study on the uses of justification clauses in the colonial State Constitutions, and how they also provide the guarantee of an individual right not restricted to the collective. Eugene Volokh has written some impressive educational pieces on this subject.<br /><br />I'm not terribly interested in your specious conspiracy theories on the NRA; I'm not a member and they are so transparent as to not really warrant serious consideration. It's a well-woven meme that your camp will not let out of it's clutches....so the rest of us will simply continue to chuckle and shake our heads.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-8485513491931280192015-01-22T05:49:11.320-05:002015-01-22T05:49:11.320-05:00Thanks Jersey! This was just the sort of laugh I w...Thanks Jersey! This was just the sort of laugh I was looking for....because it's cute when you lie, yet you're not even cognizant that you're lying.<br /><br />So, you are opining that I believe I [or the general public] should face no penal repercussions if using a firearm in the commission of a crime? That I should be immune from civil litigation if found negligent in the use of a firearm? How, pray tell.....did you come to divine this when I've offered no written statement in support of your accusation?<br /><br />Tell me, what are my thoughts on NICS, FFL, evidence of training for CCW requirements, etc.<br /><br />I'll wait....if you dare.<br /><br />And of course, civil libertarians wear pejoratives from statists as badges of honor....so I'm rather unimpressed by your stale use of the childish insult.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-8295214958759781572015-01-22T00:12:22.481-05:002015-01-22T00:12:22.481-05:00Dervish, that was brilliant. I hope CI is paying ...Dervish, that was brilliant. I hope CI is paying attention.<br /><br />JMJJersey McJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426560061830038806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-86552580444291422712015-01-22T00:06:22.707-05:002015-01-22T00:06:22.707-05:00You know that not to be the case, wd. BB Idaho, Je...You know that not to be the case, wd. BB Idaho, Jerry, Truth and even Les disagree with me on a host of things and there has never been a problem (and by a problem I mean them spamming me with HUNDREDS of comments which are never read and which are deleted summarily/dispassionately).Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-482493045565351012015-01-21T22:41:10.909-05:002015-01-21T22:41:10.909-05:00The NRA (the propagandists of the gun manufacturer...The NRA (the propagandists of the gun manufacturers) uses fear of "gun bans" that have ZERO chance of ever becoming law to fool people who vote against their own interests into buying much more of the gun manufacturer's product then they need. They've bought off (and bullied) our lawmakers into voting against (or weakening) reasonable gun legislation, including <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/access-of-evil-how-the-nra-protects-children-from-being-safe/" rel="nofollow">safe storage laws</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/01/how_the_nra_keeps_guns_in_the_hands_of_terrorism_domestic_violence_and_drug.html" rel="nofollow">laws designed to block sales to anyone on the terrorist watch list</a>, laws regarding <a href="http://www.thirdway.org/op-ed/product/product/the-nras-harmful-gun-trafficking-bill" rel="nofollow">gun-trafficking</a> and <a href="http://billmoyers.com/2013/04/04/nra-demands-softer-penalties-for-straw-purchasers/" rel="nofollow">straw purchases</a>, laws expanding background checks to ALL gun sales, etc.<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks/" rel="nofollow">CNN article</a> explains why the NRA opposes BG checks... "Cutting off sales to the mentally ill and criminals will reduce crime and thereby reduce the public's demand for guns for self-protection. The gun manufacturers saw gun sales plummet during the dark days of the Clinton administration when crime dropped sharply every year. The 42% drop in the murder rate from 1993 to 2000 was a nightmare for gun sellers. Nothing scares the NRA as much as a sense of calm and safety in the public".<br /><br /><a href="a%20href=" rel="nofollow">The NRA works HARD to get guns into the hands of criminals</a>. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is. The NRA terrorist organization is one of the most evil organizations in the world.<br /><br />As for your request that I proffer some evidence... I already did. It's called <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent" rel="nofollow">precedent</a>. The courts (for more than a hundred years according to the previously linked to article) established what the Founders meant. According to political scientist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29" rel="nofollow">Robert J. Spitzer</a> "from the time U.S. law review articles first began to be indexed in 1887 until 1960, all law review articles dealing with the Second Amendment endorsed the collective right model".<br /><br />Law professor <a href="http://law.rwu.edu/carl-t-bogus" rel="nofollow">Carl T. Bogus</a> referred to the collective right interpertation of the 2nd amendment as "settled constitutional law" saying "the United States Supreme Court addressed the Amendment three times in 1876, 1886, and 1939 and on each occasion held that it granted the people a right to bear arms only within the militia" (<a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/21/the-second-amendments-history/" rel="nofollow">source</a>).<br /><br />And an <a href="http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-individual-or-collective-rights/" rel="nofollow">article</a> on the Brown Political Review website notes that "until the Roberts Court reexamined the issue of collective vs. individual gun rights in 2008, the most recent ruling on the matter was the 1939 case, United States v. Miller. Over seventy years ago, the Court unanimously ruled that if a particular type of weapon... does not clearly have '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'".<br /><br />Of course now precedent supports the individual rights model (I'll give you that). But this occurred AFTER the 100 years of the courts affirming the collective rights model... the original interpretation.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-65772068359722523312015-01-21T20:02:15.193-05:002015-01-21T20:02:15.193-05:00CI, you don't want any responsibility for, nor...CI, you don't want any responsibility for, nor regulation or limitation of, arms among the public whatsoever. You're a loon on this. When people say "gun nut" they're talking about you. <br /><br />JMJJersey McJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426560061830038806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-5123962346499350502015-01-21T17:11:06.810-05:002015-01-21T17:11:06.810-05:00Indeed, some courts have ruled differently over th...Indeed, some courts have ruled differently over the years. But by all means, please proffer some evidence...any evidence, that the authors of the Bill of Rights meant for the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right...stuck in the middle of other individual rights. Toby is welcome to his opinion, but he's wrong.<br /><br />NRA is evil? OK. Dervish Sanders is evil. There. That was easy. Immature, irrelevant and lacking any intellectual maturity whatsoever....but really easy....I see why you engage in it.<br /><br />Petulant and empty pejoratives deserve to be mocked.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-37744524468992252212015-01-21T17:03:40.330-05:002015-01-21T17:03:40.330-05:00My "world" being that I have differing o...My "world" being that I have differing opinions that Will Hart is afraid of (so afraid that he can't even look at them on his blog). Anyway, CI wrote quite a bit but I don't agree with any of it. The 2nd amendment pertains to militias (as written).<br /><br />Jeffrey Toobin (Lawyer/Legal analyst): Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? ... For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear... The courts had found that the first part, the "militia clause", trumped the second part, the "bear arms" clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms - but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment" rel="nofollow">link</a>).<br /><br />Oh, and the NRA is evil. Or "eeevil" (seems that conservatives think stretching out a word - as they do with "raaacist" - is a excellent method by which to mock).Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-41327657474750131512015-01-21T16:31:02.609-05:002015-01-21T16:31:02.609-05:00I have little trust in the AG, but the federal dep...I have little trust in the AG, but the federal department is far more qualified and appropriate than the CDC. Which begs the question...why would the gun control lobby fear having a DOJ funded study on gun violence?Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-75534047184947794072015-01-21T16:19:46.441-05:002015-01-21T16:19:46.441-05:00I'm not too sure that I would trust the Holder...I'm not too sure that I would trust the Holder Justice Department, either, CI.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-86792866805094819522015-01-21T16:17:54.628-05:002015-01-21T16:17:54.628-05:00Welcome to the world of wd, CI.Welcome to the world of wd, CI.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-2186969462270774372015-01-21T16:04:41.254-05:002015-01-21T16:04:41.254-05:00Of course, where it regards my civil liberties.......Of course, where it regards my civil liberties....I couldn't care less what may "bother someone". But why so cryptic? Please define how I'm "way out there"? <br /><br />I'm up for a chuckle.....Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-74332496337393794442015-01-21T15:52:31.517-05:002015-01-21T15:52:31.517-05:00"I'm not really sure how I'm 'way..."I'm not really sure how I'm 'way out there' on supporting my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms"<br /><br />It's not the keeping and bearing that bothers people.<br /><br />JMJJersey McJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426560061830038806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-36115084203729838402015-01-21T15:35:51.125-05:002015-01-21T15:35:51.125-05:00Really, though....what would you expect? This is f...Really, though....what would you expect? This is from the camp that thinks nothing of the federal government exceeding it's enumerated powers in appeals to emotion.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-69675413852113088022015-01-21T15:34:54.699-05:002015-01-21T15:34:54.699-05:00Further, while you lazily blame SCOTUS, the 2nd Am...Further, while you lazily blame SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment [along with the other protections of rights] has always been considered to be that of the individual, not the collective. Tench Coxe in his 1789 Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution:<br /><br />"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."<br /><br />Later Supreme Court Justice James Wilson writes in 1790 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:<br /><br />".....it is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognised in the constitution of Pennsylvania. "The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned." This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. "They were bound," says Mr. Selden, "to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own persons."<br /><br />St Greorge Tucker, US District Court Justice appointed by Madison wrote in 1803:<br /><br />"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."<br /><br />The bearing of arms was never intended to be confined only an active member of an organized Militia. Justice William Rawle writes in 1829:<br /><br />"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-85947104339712885492015-01-21T15:34:06.963-05:002015-01-21T15:34:06.963-05:00Except that your mistaken. The Second Amendment is...Except that your mistaken. The Second Amendment is the only entry in the federal Constitution that uses both a justification clause as well as an operative clause. But this use is echoed in several State Constitutions. Using these as a further guide [and I can cite examples if you like], there is no apparent determination that the justification clause is a condition of the operative clause. The manner in which the Amendment is worded does not give allowance for Congress to deprive people of the right to keep and bear arms, even if that right doesn’t specifically further the purpose of the justification clause. The justification clause aids in the construct of the operative clause, but does not trump it. The Second Amendment is not worded [I believe] as carefully as many State Constitutions of the day, but they are clearly complimentary in nature. In the Senate ratification of the Bill of Rights, they omitted the verbiage from the draft that stated “for the common defense”; at least implying strongly, that the right to keep and bear arms was not dependent on use solely for the defense of the nation.<br /><br />The militia clause does not set a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, it was an explanatory phrase to state the single most important reason the right must be protected, the common defense. It is an amplifying clause...not a qualifying clause. Further, the amplifying clause is not limiting the right, nor is the right dependent on said amplifying clause. The Militia [in this case, the Unorganized Militia] has been consistently held and codified to mean the people.<br /><br />The Founders drew from Blackstone's use of 'Absolute Rights' of personal security, personal liberty, and private property; and the 'Auxiliary Rights' in support.Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-38420180830306697762015-01-21T14:42:22.483-05:002015-01-21T14:42:22.483-05:00I don't want the 2nd amendment to be repealed,...I don't want the 2nd amendment to be repealed, although I'd be OK with going back to interpreting it as written. The 2nd amendment discusses the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon WITHIN the context of a well regulated militia. The SCOTUS kings changed the meaning of the amendment when they legislated from the bench and decided the 2nd should refer to individual rights - as opposed to collective rights (which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership). The so-called "originalists" rejected the original intent of the Founders. There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-32754289389443728862015-01-21T13:20:54.238-05:002015-01-21T13:20:54.238-05:00If the CDC REALLY wanted to save lives, they would...If the CDC REALLY wanted to save lives, they would have studied the FDA and not damned guns, in that it is the former agency which has been responsible (extrapolating from their own numbers) for literally hundreds of thousands of deaths in this country (type 2 errors) due to bureaucratic inertia and a paranoiac adherence to the precautionary principle.......Sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to put forth a little perspective in response to Jersey's tunnel-vision.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-78006634108085311642015-01-21T08:36:39.555-05:002015-01-21T08:36:39.555-05:00.
In a response above, LAL wrote, "So you....<br /><br />In a response above, LAL wrote, "So you're deficient in reading comprehension as well?"<br /><br />LAL is projecting into Ema Nymton's writing LAL's bias, ignorance, and prejudice. Making a statistical study of gun use/violence and criminal activities is not an attempt to repeal the 'Bill of Rights.'<br /><br />Ema Nymton's replying to the writings of LAL blog is just that, a response to erratic writing based on weak reasoning and failed logic.<br /><br />"What is with the weird third person usage?"<br /><br />Try it some time. One cannot be accused of personal attacks and innuendo. And one is forced to stick to the subject of the original post.<br /><br />CDC is full capable of conducting and open, objective, and honest study of the data, information, and statistics.<br /> <br />Ema Nymton<br />~@:o?<br />.Ema Nymtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01291372077565212886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8860387354345137184.post-29577666963404549352015-01-21T07:58:40.498-05:002015-01-21T07:58:40.498-05:00It's cute that you think a CDC study will vali...It's cute that you think a CDC study will validate your position; I refer you again to the findings of the most recent CDC report. It's also cute that you would proffer yourself as an honest broker on this subject. Once again, the only decision making available to you, is to attempt a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. <br /><br />What is with the weird third person usage? Constitutional Insurgenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03251746798758539951noreply@blogger.com