Chiefs fan since the ’90s. Raconteur, troublemaker and general loudmouth who makes adhering to Rule 9 a way of life. AG’s resident Fool on the Hill.
My mind can be changed, but only by proper application of facts and reason. (Hint: If you are internet-arguing, it won’t happen.)
I can be reached by adding (at)Yahoo.com to the end of my screen name. That includes if you want me to edit your fanpost, and I’ll treat it just like any other piece from the regular writers that “crosses my desk”.
That said, my bottom-line word of the night is that I keep doing this because I care about and believe in this community, however flawed. That means you, too, whoever you are.
Since I’m the last man standing (ladies, feel free to tell me I’m wrong), I get to fire the parting shot. This is no media talking head, but a law professor, of some significance. Suffice it to say that he’s better-informed on the laws involved than we are. On a more personal note, I like this view, just as I like Kagan’s view WRT the 4th A. That may be one of the crucial things we keep overlooking, that the Justices do not conform to one of two predictable ideologies.
Brushing him off is brushing off an expert, compared to you. Me, too, but you know what? I’ve disagreed with a number of positions he has taken – but I always took him seriously. He also has equivalents on the Left, who I treat with the same respect. KC Johnson springs to mind, but that’s one of many.
The 1st A protects the expression from gov’t intervention, which is its intended function. Content-based censorship invites people to impose their will on the citizens, simply because they have power. Case in point, do you disagree with the verdict forcing the gov’t to give an Asian band named The Slants their trademark. It had been denied initially because “slants” was considered a slur. Wanna overturn that by addressing your concern?
I never worried about it with my kids? Why? Because I knew they’d encounter obscenity early and often, regardless of what we tried to do. Instead, we taught them politeness, and I emphasized the value of restraint. In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t fucking sear much, asshole. 😉
In that case, I’ll retire to my secondary point: Steve didn’t consider my counter-example at all, he merely repeated himself, so I tried another tack. I don’t mean this to sound nasty, but he doesn’t seem to understand the legal repercussions of forcing the expression to be removed.
LOL. You cant blame all bad behavior on trump. Even if the whole sign say FJB. Didnt ol Bob DeNiro stand on stage on national TV shouting ” Fuck Trump!” He did, is the answer. Just saying, there is always somebody gonna act a fool
The Trump effect pretty much sounds like blaming trump or anyone that supported him. I am just saying we are all assholes on both sides. Now this shitty economic down turn…… all Joe and you liberals fault 😀
That depends, considering the open-ended nature of the question, but in principle, it shouldn’t matter. Appealing to old-school morality is also pretty conservative, as well.
This is as true with the 1st A as the 2nd. The similarity, such as is left, is that the exceptions to the 1st A are extremely limited, and well-defined by the courts. The 2nd’s fuzzier due to the current dominant vibe here having eroded those lines and protections. Good lord, Lucas was right; so liberty dies, to thunderous applause.
See below, but consider this concept, that I’m defending your rights from yourself.
As to your additional comment, then you expect your city to ignore the Constitution. Sorry, you can’t do that to the nation, no matter how offended you are.
now, see … this is how it’s REALLY fucked up: for Steve to be not offended, he has to move from where he’s lived for years … but what if he can’t AFFORD to move? you’re saying that others have a constitutional right to offend him …
I call BS on that: his rights begin where someone else’s rights end (example: I hate, loathe and detest fools who play amped up music, esp thumping bass, so loudly that their car vibrates and my house vibrates … by your so-called high standards, I HAVE to put up with it … I disgree, and if he can “legally” annoy the fuck outta me, then I should be able to “legally” shoot the shit outta his car stereo)
His level of annoyance is a poor standard regarding a right. As I said earlier, sticking up for rights means that bad things will come of it. What few seem to understand is that if nobody does so, more and worse things will happen.
History has many examples of this happening, but now it can’t happen. As someone who studies history, I call BS on that. I don’t want to watch it happen again.
Steve … the world is fucked … fucked right up and not just here in America (although we ARE setting a pretty fucking bad example for the REST of the world)
Presuming natural causes, my guess is that the most ruthless, conniving, and power-hungry of his inner circle would take over. That is to say, we’d get pretty much the same guy, but perhaps smarter.
I used to work with a guy who grew up in Russia, and came here in late middle age. One thing he told me is that they had a saying under the Soviets, there is no news in Truth, and there is no truth in News.
I suspect that this regime wouldn’t allow such expressions as above, but what do I know?
A smarter person would see the war is a disaster for their country and would ruthlessly connive their way into pulling out and rebuilding their military and economy.
I understand the sentiment, but while a fast resolution’s in the world’s best interest, there is no reason to believe things would be resolved any faster. Opening a wider front slows things down, in fact. Napoleon and Hitler tried hitting a front that wide, and we know the result.
Getting Turkey on-board might be dicey, but might be do-able. The last thing they want is for Russia to nab that much of Black Sea Coast. Not sure how the UN would react, though. Still, doing it quickly would be a massive undertaking, not a cakewalk. Russia’s learning that with a much more favorable power ratio.
Okay guys. I think we are getting to the part where we end up just talking in circles. I hope I stated my feelings eloquently without demeaning the others with opposing views.
I am done talking gun control for the evening. Here is a song from the band I saw in concert last night.
that’s what happens, it’s like a bar convo, not a debate.
at least we get a deeper understanding of the other side, if listening.
no one argument changes minds, it’s cumulative.
There was a long-standing compromise, pursuant to the Sullivan Act, I believe. What you want is a new compromise, one that involves mass confiscation. Then again, you have also argued against the 1st A tonight, so I think your position’s clear, in that rights can be infringed, given enough outrage. Somewhat dismaying, but not a dealbreaker, as you’re otherwise good company.
There was nothing lame about the point I made, because that logic, applied to all the Amendments, would invalidate them. A cherry-picked factoid is lame, but it was celebrated all the same.
For me, defending the Amendments is a principal, which means I do it even when I don’t like some of the outcomes. What I see thrown at the 2nd is not principle, but ideology, a means to a desired end. I could link to a defense of private gun ownership in the US by a lawyer with some personal experience with Russia, but why? Opponents of the right in question won’t read it thoughtfully, they’ll scour it for flaws, in spite of it not having been written by a partisan hack.
Soldiers in the Continental Army were volunteers; they agreed to serve in the army and standard enlistment periods lasted from one to three years. Early in the war the enlistment periods were short, as the Continental Congress feared the possibility of the Continental Army evolving into a permanent army. The army never numbered more than 48,000 men overall and 13,000 troops in one area.
What was the size of the U.S. Army before ww2?
David Woolner wrote that in June 1939, which was three months before England declared war on Germany, “the roughly 180,000-man U.S. Army ranked 19th in the world–smaller than Portugal’s!”Jun 13, 2014
How big was the Japanese army in 1939?
The Japanese Imperial Army grew from 1.5 million men in 1939 to 5.5 million men by the end of the war.
How big was the German Army before ww2?
The total number of soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht during its existence from 1935 to 1945 is believed to have approached 18.2 million. The German military leadership originally aimed at a homogeneous military, possessing traditional Prussian military values.
to be fair and historically accurate, one of the first pointed or “bullet-shaped” bullets was designed by Captain John Norton of the British Army in 1823 (it wasn’t accepted by the British Board of Ordnance
The soft lead bullet that came to be known as the Minié ball, (or minnie ball) was first introduced in 1847 by Claude Étienne Minié (1814? – 1879), a captain in the French Army
nonetheless, the point made below is still valid (if one accepts a strict originalist approach to the constitution)
That’s merely a variation of the old argument that the 2nd A was never intended to protect the right to own anything more advanced than a flintlock. Clever, but without any real substance.
This is why the second amendment, the founders didnt just get back from a hunting trip, they just fough a war with their, until then, government for the freedom of this country
true, but they also did NOT want everyone to have a gun all the time … you HAD to serve to have a gun
there were also laws in some states limiting the amount of ammunition and gun-powder one could own
as for concealed carry, Ohio’s law stated: “whoever shall carry a weapon or weapons, concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.”
The 2nd Amendment is all well and good, but you can’t cherry-pick PART of it and leave out the REST … then too, if one goes the route of “originalism” then Blacks are not true citizens and not allowed to own guns, nor are women
The laws could be construed as unconstitutional though. The founding fathers knew the only way to keep the country free was to have a way for the citizens to defend themselves.
I am citizen of the United States of America. I have never committed a felony, I pay taxes, and I vote.
I would argue that makes me well regulated. Severly
I just see it as diversion, off topic and not to do with the subject. We can talk about the terrible things that were done to native americans, and most likely agree on all of that. Most of the atrocities that happened to them were after the bill of 1776
fair and true, as far as it goes … to return to what SC said: the founding fathers wanted to make sure that OUR OWN Continental Army wasn’t used against any one state … as of now we HAVE an army AND state national guards … so how is everyone owning a gun relevant to that?
worse is that the current SC is saying that states CAN limit certain things (like abortion) BUT can NOT limit gun rights … that’s hypocrisy at its finest
I have to say, when you keep using “SC” I kept reading that to mean Severely Concussed. So you were making no sense. I have figured out you meant SCOTUS instead
I can’t rewrite history. I also don’t understand why I need to feel guilt for something that every nation around the world has been built on.
Mexico was also conquered by European countries, but they don’t get the same grief the US does.
… and a reminder that our founding fathers weren’t angelic saints by any measure
nobody is suggesting that anyone living now is “guilty” of what happened way back when, but everyone should acknowledge that this country was not and is not “perfect”
justice for all should mean just that, equality should be … equal (for everyone)
to be fair, the National Guard is “the militia” as stated in the 2nd Amendment … “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As it pertained to gun ownership, the right to bear arms was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.
Back then it was considered civic duty to be in a state militia … the Pennsylvania state constitution literally said: “The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct.” (IOW, all able-bodied white males were REQUIRED to serve in the state militia)
And yet, none other than James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, twice introduced state legislation in Virginia that would impose penalties on any individual who “bear[s] a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty.”
IOW, the states had the authority to penalize a gun-owner who was NOT acting as part of a well-trained militia
The people that think the 2nd amendment is currently wrong, also believe the government always acts in the best interests of their citizens.
The government is only interested in controlling its population, and every freedom they strip away makes me feel like we are closer to pre-Constitution America than the country I grew up in.
Hmmmm…….. dont care. That is not the way it is. I get to own, keep and bear my legally obtained firearms af all kinds and live with the peace of knowing a bunch of babies didnt get sucked into pieces
I also am just defending the 2nd ammendment freedom for everyone. I do not currently own any guns, because they make my wife nervous with kids in the house.
perhaps, but if “originalism” is what Alito, et al are relying on as a basis for their decisions (as they claim) then the question becomes: Should a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, cars, planes trains, electric lights, the internet, cellphones and indoor plumbing?
Not perhaps. Originalism looks at the documented principles, not the technology of the time. That’s a massive difference, and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest – especially to the one who does it.
As for Alito, to the extent I have read his jurisprudence, I’m not a fan. For that matter, I feel the same way about total abortion prohibition as I do for recreational drugs and guns. Yes, there will be downsides to allowing them, even in a controlled fashion, but banning them means you can’t regulate them at all. Same goes for sex work, for that matter. The only reason pimps exist is because those who choose that line of work have no rights. It still happens, you can’t stop it, so all you can do is cope with it. In the end, the answer is always the same, banning something that’s popular leads to worse outcomes that the chronic problem it was supposed to eliminate.
The Residential School system up here which has caused such harm to the indigenous communities was in part supported and maintained by Christ’s church. Having apologized to native leaders who visited him in Rome earlier this year, Pope Francis is scheduled to meet again on native lands here to speak his apology to the families of victims and their communities. This is a huge gesture…
Some people look for moral authority from wherever. I used to think Queen Elizabeth II was a source, I still wish the institution of the British Crown might be, reality and human failings (my own faith included) have left me disillusioned. But never without hope.
Unfortunately, nonbelievers look to it – and the hucksters that sell it – as the legitimate Word of God/way of life of Christians, and it turns them off to it.
Same with the evangelical assertion that Trump was “pretty much Jesus” in 2016.
That said, my bottom-line word of the night is that I keep doing this because I care about and believe in this community, however flawed. That means you, too, whoever you are.
Since I’m the last man standing (ladies, feel free to tell me I’m wrong), I get to fire the parting shot. This is no media talking head, but a law professor, of some significance. Suffice it to say that he’s better-informed on the laws involved than we are. On a more personal note, I like this view, just as I like Kagan’s view WRT the 4th A. That may be one of the crucial things we keep overlooking, that the Justices do not conform to one of two predictable ideologies.
Brushing him off is brushing off an expert, compared to you. Me, too, but you know what? I’ve disagreed with a number of positions he has taken – but I always took him seriously. He also has equivalents on the Left, who I treat with the same respect. KC Johnson springs to mind, but that’s one of many.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/27/bruens-originalist-analogical-reasoning-applies-a-presumption-of-liberty/
alright kids, I am outta here like rice under the bridge … and because I identify as a liberal libertarian, you know which way I’m a roll
Whereas I am living my Oath, taken when I was just 18. I have no other political loyalty, though I do have my history-informed views.
Also, I got a lot of milage from that, back in my Usenet days. ESL!
I must admit, the previously-contentious discussions have morphed into something quite nice. Interesting ideas are popping out. Ain’t it great?
shhh….enjoy it while it lasts….
😎
I am surprised in the 2nd largest municipality in Jackson County Missouri
that Lee’s Summit MO allows FUCK to be posted on the front of a house
sad but true
I wonder why?
wtf???
I called the non 911 number
it is legal so the dispatcher told me, she could send a car over but for what?
wow, just wow
The 1st A protects the expression from gov’t intervention, which is its intended function. Content-based censorship invites people to impose their will on the citizens, simply because they have power. Case in point, do you disagree with the verdict forcing the gov’t to give an Asian band named The Slants their trademark. It had been denied initially because “slants” was considered a slur. Wanna overturn that by addressing your concern?
FUCK on a sign in the neighborhood
like 4 foot by 5 foot
so we have to produce children to live in this? Why do you think american women of means not have children?
I never worried about it with my kids? Why? Because I knew they’d encounter obscenity early and often, regardless of what we tried to do. Instead, we taught them politeness, and I emphasized the value of restraint. In case you haven’t noticed, I don’t fucking sear much, asshole. 😉
hey, watch your fucking language … this is a FAMILY bar and we have HIGH STANDARDS
In that case, I’ll retire to my secondary point: Steve didn’t consider my counter-example at all, he merely repeated himself, so I tried another tack. I don’t mean this to sound nasty, but he doesn’t seem to understand the legal repercussions of forcing the expression to be removed.
Is that a high enough standard?
I did not say he could not express his opinion
FUCK should not be allowed as part of it
this is the Trump effect
desenticizing humans to what is acceptable behavior in public
used to be that language like that was meant and used for “shock effect” … now it’s all too common and the shock value is pretty much almost nil
for public aka children consumption should be a line
I see it all the time on dumbass Mofo’s bumper stickers
we wonder why America has gone to hell
you have adult children. The one’s with young ones now might not give a fuck,
I have grandchildren
5 and 8 So I should just say whatever when the say Fuck this shit?
not unless you are ok with it, which you are not.
rules of the house no F&#*
it’s legal most places, has been for quite a while.
had no idea that society had sunk to the level of trump
not ALL of society … fortunately
he’s not the cause, just the manifestation of the last 3 + decades coming to a head just n time for social media to be a thing.
LOL. You cant blame all bad behavior on trump. Even if the whole sign say FJB. Didnt ol Bob DeNiro stand on stage on national TV shouting ” Fuck Trump!” He did, is the answer. Just saying, there is always somebody gonna act a fool
he didn’t “blame” trump … he was using trump as an example of the worst societal standards possible
The Trump effect pretty much sounds like blaming trump or anyone that supported him. I am just saying we are all assholes on both sides. Now this shitty economic down turn…… all Joe and you liberals fault 😀
asshole 👍
The SCOTUS ruled there is a right to use it, and that was decades ago. This is reality, and ofttimes, it sucks.
FUCK?
Yup. Would you like it if I deleted all your comments that used the word? Would that benefit those who check this column out in the morning?
please do
since whatever i said means nada anyway
what i say here is not on the front of my house
BRaG, don’t even DREAM about it
Me? Let’s not be silly, that was purely rhetorical. Also ineffective, unfortunately.
so just asking
I can put up nazi signage in my front yard and the city can’t do anything?
I believe so, assholes do.
That depends, considering the open-ended nature of the question, but in principle, it shouldn’t matter. Appealing to old-school morality is also pretty conservative, as well.
and you wonder why assholes make you job so difficult?
fine
you can live in filth or you can choose not too
I expect my city to not allow this
seems like you expect too much
I shall wonder over to city hall tomorrow
at the least you should have the right to paint over it … “rights” are almost never absolute
This is as true with the 1st A as the 2nd. The similarity, such as is left, is that the exceptions to the 1st A are extremely limited, and well-defined by the courts. The 2nd’s fuzzier due to the current dominant vibe here having eroded those lines and protections. Good lord, Lucas was right; so liberty dies, to thunderous applause.
with freedom comes responsibility
With a population of 300MM+, there will be the irresponsible.
At least one thing is holding true. The mask is fully off, and it’s now a matter of mass confiscation, by any means necessary.
Banning new sales is not confiscation, Obama did it, mass events dropped, it expired, they rose.
maybe cause and effect, maybe not (it was)
Not all studies indicate that, likely because correlation is not causation. Did the push for police reform cause a spike in crime, too?
it’s fuzzy because it’s poorly worded. Some Essays and papers by the framers explicitly said limitations/restrictions were intended/implied.
See below, but consider this concept, that I’m defending your rights from yourself.
As to your additional comment, then you expect your city to ignore the Constitution. Sorry, you can’t do that to the nation, no matter how offended you are.
now, see … this is how it’s REALLY fucked up: for Steve to be not offended, he has to move from where he’s lived for years … but what if he can’t AFFORD to move? you’re saying that others have a constitutional right to offend him …
I call BS on that: his rights begin where someone else’s rights end (example: I hate, loathe and detest fools who play amped up music, esp thumping bass, so loudly that their car vibrates and my house vibrates … by your so-called high standards, I HAVE to put up with it … I disgree, and if he can “legally” annoy the fuck outta me, then I should be able to “legally” shoot the shit outta his car stereo)
many places have noise ordinances (if ever enforced)
if I say that the guy scared me and I was in fear of my life, can I use Heller v DC as a legal defense?
Read it very, very carefully. Then you’ll likely be convicted anyway, should that comment ever come to light.
His level of annoyance is a poor standard regarding a right. As I said earlier, sticking up for rights means that bad things will come of it. What few seem to understand is that if nobody does so, more and worse things will happen.
History has many examples of this happening, but now it can’t happen. As someone who studies history, I call BS on that. I don’t want to watch it happen again.
again, as I mentioned somewhere, compromise … a lost art
well I called the cops
had no idea that the world is this fuckeed
Steve … the world is fucked … fucked right up and not just here in America (although we ARE setting a pretty fucking bad example for the REST of the world)
is it bad of me that I want Putin to something-almost-anything that would “legally” allow US and NATO to bomb the holy shit outta Russia?
drop a pencil in a NATO country … that would technically be enough, right
if he dropped dead
I wonder what his country would do?
Presuming natural causes, my guess is that the most ruthless, conniving, and power-hungry of his inner circle would take over. That is to say, we’d get pretty much the same guy, but perhaps smarter.
maybe a smarter guy would unroll all the crap Putin created
Then he wouldn’t be ruthless and conniving.
maybe it WASN’T natural causes
(Fake in Russian) Pravda?
I used to work with a guy who grew up in Russia, and came here in late middle age. One thing he told me is that they had a saying under the Soviets, there is no news in Truth, and there is no truth in News.
I suspect that this regime wouldn’t allow such expressions as above, but what do I know?
If it was determined to be a planned killing during the autopsy, things would almost certainly turn out much worse.
he might live?
A smarter person would see the war is a disaster for their country and would ruthlessly connive their way into pulling out and rebuilding their military and economy.
I understand the sentiment, but while a fast resolution’s in the world’s best interest, there is no reason to believe things would be resolved any faster. Opening a wider front slows things down, in fact. Napoleon and Hitler tried hitting a front that wide, and we know the result.
a land war in Asia….
maybe … but I’d like to think that we’d just Top Gun ’em overnight
with 2-3 naval fleets in the black sea we would cream them
Trying to do that’s politically unfeasible. The logistics of the very concept are prohibitive.
sadly true … unless someone drops that pencil in NATO territory
KC Chief turned bombadier (Mecole Hardman) is ready to drop some bombs on Russia.
ISWYDT
It was pretty blatant.
Getting Turkey on-board might be dicey, but might be do-able. The last thing they want is for Russia to nab that much of Black Sea Coast. Not sure how the UN would react, though. Still, doing it quickly would be a massive undertaking, not a cakewalk. Russia’s learning that with a much more favorable power ratio.
Nuke the bastards!!!!
Nuke’em ’til they glow, shoot’em in the dark, then cut off their heads and use them as landing lights.
My baby sister was right
Zepplin rules
Have to check out but realize that KISS rules!!!!
Then collect all the guns and lock them up and make our schools safe again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpdGoPRxJak
that’s what I’m sayin’! 😉
zepplin, Floyd, or the who?
yes, please
I was my skinniest when this came out
working and school and some beer and speed
I was also pretty fucked up, a few months in basic training in San Antonio fixed me all up 🙂
you survived … proud of ya, son
you never know till ya make it through that you were a mess
I had no idea how bad my oldest was till he told me, I stood with him and fought with him but he knew he had someone to rely on 🙂 whatever it was
you’re a good man, Steve … a terrible speller, but a good man indeed
blind typing
I blame myself, Mrs Brewer did the best she could
it;s been awhile but I can still remember the way you taste
love you Denise
what a beautiful day today 🙂
what happened to Floyd?
seems the crazies
it is 🙂
we should just enjoy life and the upcoming Chiefs dominance of the NFL!
FIFY
we should just enjoy life and the
upcomingcontinued Chiefs dominance of the NFLlove Travis Tritt
Steve, I absolutely agree with you 😀
Okay guys. I think we are getting to the part where we end up just talking in circles. I hope I stated my feelings eloquently without demeaning the others with opposing views.
I am done talking gun control for the evening. Here is a song from the band I saw in concert last night.
which begs the question: just how good WAS Ezra?
and yes, you were both eloquent AND polite
that’s what happens, it’s like a bar convo, not a debate.
at least we get a deeper understanding of the other side, if listening.
no one argument changes minds, it’s cumulative.
yup
me, I’m all for limiting abortions but I’m also in favor of gun restrictions (compromise, a lost art it seems)
There was a long-standing compromise, pursuant to the Sullivan Act, I believe. What you want is a new compromise, one that involves mass confiscation. Then again, you have also argued against the 1st A tonight, so I think your position’s clear, in that rights can be infringed, given enough outrage. Somewhat dismaying, but not a dealbreaker, as you’re otherwise good company.
Interesting thread
50 ways to leave your diver?
skipped the intro, YW
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/best-cities-around-the-world-to-take-a-working-vacation.html
what if you want a vacation WITHOUT working?
Run for Congress
run for president
you can steal without legal issues it seems
Wow, wow wow….. its its its…… an an an…… echo echo echo …….chamber chamber…. in in in…. here here. Same lame anti 2nd amendment arguments
You rang?
Followed by the same lame 2nd defenses
Your point?
There was nothing lame about the point I made, because that logic, applied to all the Amendments, would invalidate them. A cherry-picked factoid is lame, but it was celebrated all the same.
For me, defending the Amendments is a principal, which means I do it even when I don’t like some of the outcomes. What I see thrown at the 2nd is not principle, but ideology, a means to a desired end. I could link to a defense of private gun ownership in the US by a lawyer with some personal experience with Russia, but why? Opponents of the right in question won’t read it thoughtfully, they’ll scour it for flaws, in spite of it not having been written by a partisan hack.
to me, the 2nd Amendment WITHOUT the “well regulated militia” part IS a cherry-picked factoid … IMO
what was the american army at that time?
Soldiers in the Continental Army were volunteers; they agreed to serve in the army and standard enlistment periods lasted from one to three years. Early in the war the enlistment periods were short, as the Continental Congress feared the possibility of the Continental Army evolving into a permanent army. The army never numbered more than 48,000 men overall and 13,000 troops in one area.
What was the size of the U.S. Army before ww2?
David Woolner wrote that in June 1939, which was three months before England declared war on Germany, “the roughly 180,000-man U.S. Army ranked 19th in the world–smaller than Portugal’s!”Jun 13, 2014
and what happened was that the Continental Army was the precursor for the US Army, and the State Militias were the beginnings of the National Guard
yep as planned by the constitution
A large permanent standing national army was not a thing until post WWI.
for many reasons, it’s all terribly complicated
life is complicated
How big was the Japanese army in 1939?
The Japanese Imperial Army grew from 1.5 million men in 1939 to 5.5 million men by the end of the war.
How big was the German Army before ww2?
The total number of soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht during its existence from 1935 to 1945 is believed to have approached 18.2 million. The German military leadership originally aimed at a homogeneous military, possessing traditional Prussian military values.
Mott the Hoople (original version) was better … IMO
Great suns of Saturn. I thought I was the only one around here who had ever heard of Mott the Hoople…
Seems I’m not the only one into not-so-well-known classic rock.
All The Way To Memphis!
Bowie tune
I didn’t know that … it was indeed: written for Mott the Hoople after they turned down Suffragette City
pffffffffft … I’m old too, yanno
to be fair and historically accurate, one of the first pointed or “bullet-shaped” bullets was designed by Captain John Norton of the British Army in 1823 (it wasn’t accepted by the British Board of Ordnance
The soft lead bullet that came to be known as the Minié ball, (or minnie ball) was first introduced in 1847 by Claude Étienne Minié (1814? – 1879), a captain in the French Army
nonetheless, the point made below is still valid (if one accepts a strict originalist approach to the constitution)
That’s merely a variation of the old argument that the 2nd A was never intended to protect the right to own anything more advanced than a flintlock. Clever, but without any real substance.
Also, a militia should be able to have weapons equal to the military they want to be able to defend themselves from.
If the national guard comes onto my property with an AR-15 in hand, I would like the ability to have equal firepower.
This is why the second amendment, the founders didnt just get back from a hunting trip, they just fough a war with their, until then, government for the freedom of this country
true, but they also did NOT want everyone to have a gun all the time … you HAD to serve to have a gun
there were also laws in some states limiting the amount of ammunition and gun-powder one could own
as for concealed carry, Ohio’s law stated: “whoever shall carry a weapon or weapons, concealed on or about his person, such as a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or any other dangerous weapon, shall be deemed guilty.”
The 2nd Amendment is all well and good, but you can’t cherry-pick PART of it and leave out the REST … then too, if one goes the route of “originalism” then Blacks are not true citizens and not allowed to own guns, nor are women
The laws could be construed as unconstitutional though. The founding fathers knew the only way to keep the country free was to have a way for the citizens to defend themselves.
yes … a well regulated militia
every Tom, Dick and Harry owning a gun is NOT a well regulated militia
from the native americans we were stealing the land from?
or the French, Spanish….
and lying to
When discussing different opinions, call everyone a racist that is on the differing opinion right?
not rascist
is was called imminent domain
still is
no one was called racist …
No one was talking about native americans either
so what was the discuaaion?
i get down in these threads and don’t realize that some have no idea what is history?
So You Admit It!!!
😃
Admit what?
*either*
just a grammer jab in jest, hence 😃i hate using it
I’ll allow it 🤣
If I ever write “for all intensive purposes” please ban me
LOL
I am citizen of the United States of America. I have never committed a felony, I pay taxes, and I vote.
I would argue that makes me well regulated. Severly
Native Americans owned the land
discussions take on a life of their own
I just see it as diversion, off topic and not to do with the subject. We can talk about the terrible things that were done to native americans, and most likely agree on all of that. Most of the atrocities that happened to them were after the bill of 1776
fair and true, as far as it goes … to return to what SC said: the founding fathers wanted to make sure that OUR OWN Continental Army wasn’t used against any one state … as of now we HAVE an army AND state national guards … so how is everyone owning a gun relevant to that?
Heller changed it all.
true, but it was a flawed decision (IMO)
worse is that the current SC is saying that states CAN limit certain things (like abortion) BUT can NOT limit gun rights … that’s hypocrisy at its finest
2A is in the const. Abortion and many other “rights” are implied by it are implied by it, little different.
yup
I have to say, when you keep using “SC” I kept reading that to mean Severely Concussed. So you were making no sense. I have figured out you meant SCOTUS instead
yes
Just pointing out my confusion, not yours 🤣
all good
which they were not a party to, they were a party to many broken treaties tho
That is a great example of why we need equal firepower. The Native Americans didn’t lose because they weren’t brave, smart, or outnumbered.
They brought knives to a gunfight.
they shouldn’t have had to be in that gunfight
Custer sadly found out what happens when you fight fairly
I can’t rewrite history. I also don’t understand why I need to feel guilt for something that every nation around the world has been built on.
Mexico was also conquered by European countries, but they don’t get the same grief the US does.
No intent to place blame for anything
just a reminder that happened
… and a reminder that our founding fathers weren’t angelic saints by any measure
nobody is suggesting that anyone living now is “guilty” of what happened way back when, but everyone should acknowledge that this country was not and is not “perfect”
justice for all should mean just that, equality should be … equal (for everyone)
we should strive to do better
not repeat the same damn shit our fathers and grandfathers did
also wreck’d
but it’s worked for soooo looong…
*need sarcasm font*
WELL IT DID NOT
look at where we are
saving unborns and allowing mass shootings of living humans
not from us, true. opinions in MX may vary.
it’s more a need to feel empathy for the victims, and you should feel bad it happened, not personal guilt.
this^^^
exactly
SC would be the 1st on the line defending his native village from blue coats troops
I would feel shame if our current military invaded a country unprovoked to increase our world footprint (like Russia is doing).
And honoring Native American culture today is something I fully support.
wreck’d
They actually had more repeating firearms than the army units many times.
to be fair, the National Guard is “the militia” as stated in the 2nd Amendment … “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As it pertained to gun ownership, the right to bear arms was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.
Back then it was considered civic duty to be in a state militia … the Pennsylvania state constitution literally said: “The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct.” (IOW, all able-bodied white males were REQUIRED to serve in the state militia)
And yet, none other than James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, twice introduced state legislation in Virginia that would impose penalties on any individual who “bear[s] a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty.”
IOW, the states had the authority to penalize a gun-owner who was NOT acting as part of a well-trained militia
The people that think the 2nd amendment is currently wrong, also believe the government always acts in the best interests of their citizens.
The government is only interested in controlling its population, and every freedom they strip away makes me feel like we are closer to pre-Constitution America than the country I grew up in.
LOL … if the gummint always acted in the best interests of “the people” CU wouldn’t have passed
so, you’re “ok” with 100% whatever gun ownership with no restrictions … are you also “ok” with abortions?
I am okay with gun ownership for all law abiding citizens.
I believe abortions are an individual choice.
And to save time.
I am fine with gay marriage, interracial couples, and sexual contraception.
I don’t pick and choose personal freedoms.
fair ’nuff sir
I am coming around to the actual process
if it is an amandement or originally included ok that works
if not
those wanting it need to make it happen in the voting booth
Hmmmm…….. dont care. That is not the way it is. I get to own, keep and bear my legally obtained firearms af all kinds and live with the peace of knowing a bunch of babies didnt get sucked into pieces
Which militia are you part of?
Your moms
thank you for your significant contribution to the current discussion at hand, your wisdom shall be long remembered
My pleasure, ask stupid questions get stupid answers
Isn’t it past your bedtime? Need to be tucked in?
I am citizen of the United States of America. I have never committed a felony, I pay taxes, and I vote.
I would argue that makes me well regulated.
I’ll almost buy that
But he would have a firefight with the state Military Guard?
for what purpose?
no earthly clue … why would they go after him?
that said, my money’s on National Guard vs Concussed
I hope he meets a good militia and not the guys at Kent State
well, if he goes up against the guys at Uvalde he has a chance
Good lord Ups.
I do wish I had a chance to meet those chickenshits though.
I hear ya … that was a shitshow that should NEVER have gone down like that
an Alien hunter invasion
do you have nuclear weopans too?
Wrong movie. And no nukes.
I also am just defending the 2nd ammendment freedom for everyone. I do not currently own any guns, because they make my wife nervous with kids in the house.
But that is my choice, not the government’s.
damn
I dont’t have those restictions anymore
maybe I need to arm up since my neighbor is an asshat?
Maybe I can teach the dog to fire a claymore?
I’m assuming the choice and # of weapons is open ended?
I know of no reason why I should have limits placed on me.
w/o regulation?
Argue all you want. You still aren’t part of a Militia.
perhaps, but if “originalism” is what Alito, et al are relying on as a basis for their decisions (as they claim) then the question becomes: Should a 21st century society really interpret its Constitution by the standards of 1787 — an era before the introduction of semi-automatic weaponry, steam power, penicillin, automobiles, cars, planes trains, electric lights, the internet, cellphones and indoor plumbing?
Not perhaps. Originalism looks at the documented principles, not the technology of the time. That’s a massive difference, and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest – especially to the one who does it.
As for Alito, to the extent I have read his jurisprudence, I’m not a fan. For that matter, I feel the same way about total abortion prohibition as I do for recreational drugs and guns. Yes, there will be downsides to allowing them, even in a controlled fashion, but banning them means you can’t regulate them at all. Same goes for sex work, for that matter. The only reason pimps exist is because those who choose that line of work have no rights. It still happens, you can’t stop it, so all you can do is cope with it. In the end, the answer is always the same, banning something that’s popular leads to worse outcomes that the chronic problem it was supposed to eliminate.
would different technology not have informed different decisions.
Imaging writing the const if the industrial age had started…
imagine writing it NOW
So many amendments
IOW you can’t legislate morality … I agree
My favorite priest
thank you!
The Residential School system up here which has caused such harm to the indigenous communities was in part supported and maintained by Christ’s church. Having apologized to native leaders who visited him in Rome earlier this year, Pope Francis is scheduled to meet again on native lands here to speak his apology to the families of victims and their communities. This is a huge gesture…
Some people look for moral authority from wherever. I used to think Queen Elizabeth II was a source, I still wish the institution of the British Crown might be, reality and human failings (my own faith included) have left me disillusioned. But never without hope.
Now there’s a feel good, hope validated.
This is true. The American portrayal of Jesus isn’t the true Jesus.
Also, prosperity theology is complete poppycock, and unfortunately has duped many.
Snake oil.
Unfortunately, nonbelievers look to it – and the hucksters that sell it – as the legitimate Word of God/way of life of Christians, and it turns them off to it.
Same with the evangelical assertion that Trump was “pretty much Jesus” in 2016.