Generally speaking, I tend to look for improvement in things. Possibly a sign of idiocy on my part, but I do(I also expect politicians to tell me the truth, though I’ve gotten a LOT less likely to expect that nowadays). I also expect people to listen to an argument involving facts, and make judgements based on those facts.
Used to, anyway. Expect that a lot less than I used to. I’m thinking of a friend dealing with two subjects: global warmering and guns. I posted on the warming part before: I made the mistake of noting that lots facts point to man-caused global warming to be, at best, a small(very small) part of any warming. I specifically mentioned the amounts of sulphur dioxide emitted by Pinatubo- anywhere from 200 to more than 500 tons per day before the actual bigtime eruption- as demonstrating just how small we are in the scale of things.
In the days to follow, I found that I might as well have walked into her church and peed on the altar. “All REAL scientists agree, the ones who disagree are paid by the oil companies, “, pretty much every moonbat enviroweenie line you can think of. Finally managed to end it: she was convinced I was unwilling to read the ‘real’ truth, I knew she bought into the whole Man-Caused Globular Warmening line and flat refused to even consider it might not be correct.
A couple of years before this, she’d asked me to teach her to shoot. Her ex had left a revolver behind, and due to some trouble in the neighborhood she wanted to learn to use it. So I cleaned and lubed it, showed her how it worked, and then to the range we went. Several times, and she finally got the hang of it. Biggest problem was she psyched herself out: she’d fire, and then flinch dramatically AFTER the shot. Which usually hit right about where she’d aimed. But she got over it.
Then came(for me) a revelation: she bought into the whole ‘you don’t need a semi-auto/high-capacity magazine/machinegun/whatever for self-defense or hunting’ line. And limits on how many guns you could buy, and so on. “You don’t need a semi-auto, because a revolver will take care of it.” What if I want a semi? “You don’t need one, if people aren’t allowed to own one we’ll be safer.” Even if you are allowed a semi-auto, ‘high-capacity’ mags are out. Pointed out that most are not ‘high cap’, they’re the standard capacity for those pistols, well, that’s too many rounds, low capacity is all you ‘need’. And so on.
What really bothers me about this? She’s a teacher. 2nd grade, so at least not in as much of a position to affect the kids’ views(I hope), but still. The flat refusal to even consider something other than the ‘conventional wisdom’ she’d been fed by somebody does not give me hope. Somebody who’d asked to be taught, who saw the need for a means of self-defense that equalizes differences in age, size, health, sex, and still she kept that ‘only what means are acceptable to the socially-accepted experts’ attitude.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
On 'elite' education
Stopped by ShrinkWrapped(you should check it out), and ran across this post on the changes happening in universities as many of the 60's nutcase radicals who became professors are retiring. It had a link to this article on the disadvantages of an 'elite' education. You really need to read it. Besides touching on something Kim has written about- colleges becoming virtual technical schools- the attitudes the author notes are just amazing. First paragraph really sums it up quite nicely:
It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.
That is just, for lack of a better phrase, downright amazing. Apparently the idea of saying "How's the day been?", or something like that didn't even occur: he was too busy seeing a savage from the Outer Reaches to do that. At least he realizes that there IS a problem, though; too many of his class don't even see that.
And he does see it:
But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all.
He even notes what Kim wrote about:
When elite universities boast that they teach their students how to think, they mean that they teach them the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in law or medicine or science or business. But a humanistic education is supposed to mean something more than that, as universities still dimly feel. So when students get to college, they hear a couple of speeches telling them to ask the big questions, and when they graduate, they hear a couple more speeches telling them to ask the big questions. And in between, they spend four years taking courses that train them to ask the little questions—specialized courses, taught by specialized professors, aimed at specialized students. Although the notion of breadth is implicit in the very idea of a liberal arts education, the admissions process increasingly selects for kids who have already begun to think of themselves in specialized terms—the junior journalist, the budding astronomer, the language prodigy. We are slouching, even at elite schools, toward a glorified form of vocational training.
But even after writing this, the view he has of other than 'elite' schools is right out there in front:
In short, the way students are treated in college trains them for the social position they will occupy once they get out. At schools like Cleveland State, they’re being trained for positions somewhere in the middle of the class system, in the depths of one bureaucracy or another. They’re being conditioned for lives with few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines. At places like Yale, of course, it’s the reverse. The elite like to think of themselves as belonging to a meritocracy, but that’s true only up to a point. Getting through the gate is very difficult, but once you’re in, there’s almost nothing you can do to get kicked out.
It just doesn't seem to occur that going to someplace like Cleveland State, or OU or OSU, can mean getting a damn good education for a lot less money, oh no: you're being trained for your proper 'social position'. Doesn't seem to bounce of his head that if the graduates from there have trouble getting into higher reaches of some fields, it might at times be because the 'elites' from the Ivy-covered-brain League who are already in the higher offices often want someone 'like themselves' under them, not somebody who went to a state college. You hear the voice of Fraser Crane repeatedly dropping "I went to Harvard" and teaching his son disgust with people who are home-schooled, or didn't go to the 'proper' private schools, or went to a (horror!) state college.
The students(and parents of) he writes of are generally also the ones who have disgust at the idea of actually working with their hands(except in a proper social project, of course), and disgust for the people who get their hands dirty. Whether plumber, carpenter, machinist, mechanic, soldier... that's for the lower classes, you know, who can't do better. They're the ones like someone I used to know who bitched at regular intervals how they had a degree and this and that in their background, and yet they're not being paid what they're worth. And they're pissed that the people with dirty hands often get more respect and make better money than they do.
Read it.
Read it. In wonder, at the attitude so many of our future 'leaders' have, and how they're getting them.
It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work. Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League dees, and there I was, stiff and stupid, struck dumb by my own dumbness. “Ivy retardation,” a friend of mine calls this. I could carry on conversations with people from other countries, in other languages, but I couldn’t talk to the man who was standing in my own house.
That is just, for lack of a better phrase, downright amazing. Apparently the idea of saying "How's the day been?", or something like that didn't even occur: he was too busy seeing a savage from the Outer Reaches to do that. At least he realizes that there IS a problem, though; too many of his class don't even see that.
And he does see it:
But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all.
He even notes what Kim wrote about:
When elite universities boast that they teach their students how to think, they mean that they teach them the analytic and rhetorical skills necessary for success in law or medicine or science or business. But a humanistic education is supposed to mean something more than that, as universities still dimly feel. So when students get to college, they hear a couple of speeches telling them to ask the big questions, and when they graduate, they hear a couple more speeches telling them to ask the big questions. And in between, they spend four years taking courses that train them to ask the little questions—specialized courses, taught by specialized professors, aimed at specialized students. Although the notion of breadth is implicit in the very idea of a liberal arts education, the admissions process increasingly selects for kids who have already begun to think of themselves in specialized terms—the junior journalist, the budding astronomer, the language prodigy. We are slouching, even at elite schools, toward a glorified form of vocational training.
But even after writing this, the view he has of other than 'elite' schools is right out there in front:
In short, the way students are treated in college trains them for the social position they will occupy once they get out. At schools like Cleveland State, they’re being trained for positions somewhere in the middle of the class system, in the depths of one bureaucracy or another. They’re being conditioned for lives with few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines. At places like Yale, of course, it’s the reverse. The elite like to think of themselves as belonging to a meritocracy, but that’s true only up to a point. Getting through the gate is very difficult, but once you’re in, there’s almost nothing you can do to get kicked out.
It just doesn't seem to occur that going to someplace like Cleveland State, or OU or OSU, can mean getting a damn good education for a lot less money, oh no: you're being trained for your proper 'social position'. Doesn't seem to bounce of his head that if the graduates from there have trouble getting into higher reaches of some fields, it might at times be because the 'elites' from the Ivy
The students(and parents of) he writes of are generally also the ones who have disgust at the idea of actually working with their hands(except in a proper social project, of course), and disgust for the people who get their hands dirty. Whether plumber, carpenter, machinist, mechanic, soldier... that's for the lower classes, you know, who can't do better. They're the ones like someone I used to know who bitched at regular intervals how they had a degree and this and that in their background, and yet they're not being paid what they're worth. And they're pissed that the people with dirty hands often get more respect and make better money than they do.
Read it.
Read it. In wonder, at the attitude so many of our future 'leaders' have, and how they're getting them.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
And Murtha proves once again
what a disgusting jerk he is.
Murtha: I think they have 17 or so guidelines and they've solved 4 or 5 of them.
(Actually they've completed 15 of the 18 benchmarks.)
Murtha: I think the short term it (the Bush Surge) has reduced incidents. I'm not sure if it's because the Iraqis are just worn out but certainly the way they are doing it today it makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors. We went in and we killed people inadvertantly. Now they're much more careful about it.
I'm sure this counts as 'nuance' among the Democrats who hate this country and want us to lose; I count it as one more example of 'Sucks; Murtha; Demonstration of'.
Murtha: I think they have 17 or so guidelines and they've solved 4 or 5 of them.
(Actually they've completed 15 of the 18 benchmarks.)
Murtha: I think the short term it (the Bush Surge) has reduced incidents. I'm not sure if it's because the Iraqis are just worn out but certainly the way they are doing it today it makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors. We went in and we killed people inadvertantly. Now they're much more careful about it.
I'm sure this counts as 'nuance' among the Democrats who hate this country and want us to lose; I count it as one more example of 'Sucks; Murtha; Demonstration of'.
But.. but biofuels are gonna
SAVE us, I was told!
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
Of course, it's in large part the fault of Bush:
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
But a little further down, they note:
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
and
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
So a study not from a globular warmering denier says the biofuels bullcrap has indeed pushed food prices through the roof(as if it was a dark secret you have to learn about here). Wonder if the enviroweenies will keep pushing for them anyway? After all, a disgusting number of them want lots of humans to go away.
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
Of course, it's in large part the fault of Bush:
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
But a little further down, they note:
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
and
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
So a study not from a globular warmering denier says the biofuels bullcrap has indeed pushed food prices through the roof(as if it was a dark secret you have to learn about here). Wonder if the enviroweenies will keep pushing for them anyway? After all, a disgusting number of them want lots of humans to go away.
Friday, July 04, 2008
GFW Disorder at its best
The other day Kevin linked to a place, mentioning that the view of the gentleman from Belgium probably caused GEErnst to wet his pants. So, having a minute, I clicked over and looked.
Damn.
If you want a fair working definition of PSH, that place is it. I especially liked the absolute horror of the idea of anyone other than the government having arms, illustrated by ...The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence, and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It’s kind of amazing, really, the flat terror and rage he seems to feel for the very idea of anyone telling the gummint to piss off. How anyone can read the founding documents of this country and get that, I do not know(of course, he may not consider the Declaration something people should really be aware of). The Consitution largely consists of “This the government should do; this the government may do; anything else, the government should NOT do”. What makes me think he either has not read both the founding documents, or dismisses one completely is this quote:
Any hint of protection for a fundamental or procedural right to be privately armed outside of a military or militia context would validate not just a malignant, anarchic vision of social and political life but also an insurrectionist doctrine. The Constitution becomes perverted. It defines treason as the waging of war against the United States and then secures a civil right to commit the same. Several amici refer to the insurrectionist doctrine but do not emphasize the centrality of this in gun right ideologies, how widely it is adhered to, and its constitutional impermissibility. The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
Contrast that with
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed- for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank, it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
That's exactly right, but he's horrified by the idea. The Declaration specifically notes 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government', and the Constitution specifically notes the right to arms(which all nine justices agreed is an individual right); and yet he thinks that both are to be dismissed.
Enough to make you need a drink.
Damn.
If you want a fair working definition of PSH, that place is it. I especially liked the absolute horror of the idea of anyone other than the government having arms, illustrated by ...The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence, and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It’s kind of amazing, really, the flat terror and rage he seems to feel for the very idea of anyone telling the gummint to piss off. How anyone can read the founding documents of this country and get that, I do not know(of course, he may not consider the Declaration something people should really be aware of). The Consitution largely consists of “This the government should do; this the government may do; anything else, the government should NOT do”. What makes me think he either has not read both the founding documents, or dismisses one completely is this quote:
Any hint of protection for a fundamental or procedural right to be privately armed outside of a military or militia context would validate not just a malignant, anarchic vision of social and political life but also an insurrectionist doctrine. The Constitution becomes perverted. It defines treason as the waging of war against the United States and then secures a civil right to commit the same. Several amici refer to the insurrectionist doctrine but do not emphasize the centrality of this in gun right ideologies, how widely it is adhered to, and its constitutional impermissibility. The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
Contrast that with
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed- for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank, it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
That's exactly right, but he's horrified by the idea. The Declaration specifically notes 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government', and the Constitution specifically notes the right to arms(which all nine justices agreed is an individual right); and yet he thinks that both are to be dismissed.
Enough to make you need a drink.
US Birthday goodness
Diversity, from Munchkin Wrangler. When my son graduated Basic, the names read out as the troops got their diploma could have been a list of 'Names of the World'.
More on diversity from Kevin:
"...a white guy driving his Chinese girlfriend in an Italian car to a Mexican restaurant, and getting pulled over by a black cop." - Anonymous
Also from Kevin, commie kidnappers faked out, partly by good guys using Che' shirts. Also an illustration on this from Sondra.
From the nuclear gent, the DC boneheads are just aching to get sued- again. They just can't stop, can they? Or the socialists in Frisco, either.
Oh, God... You could sell tickets for getting to pull the firing line on this(or touch in the linstock) and make a dent in the national debt!
More on diversity from Kevin:
"...a white guy driving his Chinese girlfriend in an Italian car to a Mexican restaurant, and getting pulled over by a black cop." - Anonymous
Also from Kevin, commie kidnappers faked out, partly by good guys using Che' shirts. Also an illustration on this from Sondra.
From the nuclear gent, the DC boneheads are just aching to get sued- again. They just can't stop, can they? Or the socialists in Frisco, either.
Oh, God... You could sell tickets for getting to pull the firing line on this(or touch in the linstock) and make a dent in the national debt!
And a word from John Adams,
thanks to PG&B:
The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. — John Adams, writing to Abigail Adams on July 3, 1776
What this day is all about
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
They put their lives on the line being at the meetings, and made sure of it when they signed their names.
We've still got people willing to put their lives on the line for this country. Unfortunately, far too many of the politicians who want to sit in DC think this document should be ignored, because it scares them: it says "If you become a tyrant, the people have the right and duty to toss you." And they really, really don't like that.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Having escaped from Soviet domination and communist government,
having put troops in the field with ours, for a number of reasons, as Theo says, I like the Poles. And here's another good reason:
Poland's parliament gave it the green light in April, but the signature of the country's president, Lech Kaczynski, is essential for the constitution to be enshrined in Polish law.
He was asked whether, following Irish voters' rejection of the treaty, he would ratify it. Mr Kaczynski said: 'This is now pointless.'
And in a sign that he would not be bullied into backing down, he added: 'It is difficult to say how this whole thing will end.
'The bloc functioned, functions and will go on functioning. It's not perfect but such a complicated structure cannot be perfect.'
In a newspaper interview, he also warned EU leaders desperately searching for a way out of the crisis by sidelining Ireland: 'If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time it will never exist again.'
His remarks, which came as France took over the EU's six-month rotating presidency, won praise from eurosceptics, who are convinced that Brussels is trying to bully Ireland into voting again.
The EUnuchs have tried to bully and threaten Ireland into voting 'yes', and when that didn't work they've been trying to ignore their own law that the vote had to be unanimous: and now here's another country saying "Forget it." And they'll try to ram it through anyway, because they know what's good for everyone. So they think.
Bravo, Poland! Bravo, President Kaczynski!
Poland's parliament gave it the green light in April, but the signature of the country's president, Lech Kaczynski, is essential for the constitution to be enshrined in Polish law.
He was asked whether, following Irish voters' rejection of the treaty, he would ratify it. Mr Kaczynski said: 'This is now pointless.'
And in a sign that he would not be bullied into backing down, he added: 'It is difficult to say how this whole thing will end.
'The bloc functioned, functions and will go on functioning. It's not perfect but such a complicated structure cannot be perfect.'
In a newspaper interview, he also warned EU leaders desperately searching for a way out of the crisis by sidelining Ireland: 'If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time it will never exist again.'
His remarks, which came as France took over the EU's six-month rotating presidency, won praise from eurosceptics, who are convinced that Brussels is trying to bully Ireland into voting again.
The EUnuchs have tried to bully and threaten Ireland into voting 'yes', and when that didn't work they've been trying to ignore their own law that the vote had to be unanimous: and now here's another country saying "Forget it." And they'll try to ram it through anyway, because they know what's good for everyone. So they think.
Bravo, Poland! Bravo, President Kaczynski!
I would like to invite Joe Klein to kiss my ass
And I'm having a bit of trouble not continuing downhill from there in my opinion of this clown and his distaste for air conditioning. I'm not going to go over this in detail, but I will give you a taste:
I will confess a bias here. I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%.
Well, Mr. Klein I suggest you haul your nanny-state butt down to Oklahoma, or Texas or Arizona or a number of other places in July(just to pick one month) and see how you like it with no a/c. Does '...warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity...' include mid-90's with anywhere from 40 to 65% humidity? If not, then shut the hell up, you lecturing little boil on our overheated backsides. A little note for you, since you don't seem to understand something: summer can kill you.
Remember a few years ago, heat wave in Detroit & Chicago? People were dying in droves because they had no a/c in their homes. That kind of weather isn't a heat wave down here; it's normal summer weather. And people, especially older folks, sometimes die from it, fans and all, when they have no a/c.
I'll throw something else out here: people very well understand 'conserving energy': they also understand that they like to be cool enough not to sweat through their clothes in the house, and cool enough to sleep confortably.
So go away, Mr. Klein, and leave us alone.
And by the way: every hotel room I've ever been in, there was one of those thermostat devices: you don't like the temp in the room, turn it up.
Dumbass.
I will confess a bias here. I love warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity. I detest the harsh, slightly metallic quality of the air forced through even the fanciest AC systems. The only air conditioner I own sits, unused, in my car; my home is happily unrefrigerated. But given the energy mess we're in, I can now gild my personal preference with a patina of high-mindedness: air-conditioning is bad for the planet, and for national security, and for our balance-of-payments deficit. Unfortunately, it is not as bad as I'd like it to be — in part because not all of our electricity is provided by fossil fuels (although coal does predominate). And also because air-conditioning represents a relatively small slice of our energy use, an estimated 4%.
Well, Mr. Klein I suggest you haul your nanny-state butt down to Oklahoma, or Texas or Arizona or a number of other places in July(just to pick one month) and see how you like it with no a/c. Does '...warm weather, even when it slouches toward humidity...' include mid-90's with anywhere from 40 to 65% humidity? If not, then shut the hell up, you lecturing little boil on our overheated backsides. A little note for you, since you don't seem to understand something: summer can kill you.
Remember a few years ago, heat wave in Detroit & Chicago? People were dying in droves because they had no a/c in their homes. That kind of weather isn't a heat wave down here; it's normal summer weather. And people, especially older folks, sometimes die from it, fans and all, when they have no a/c.
I'll throw something else out here: people very well understand 'conserving energy': they also understand that they like to be cool enough not to sweat through their clothes in the house, and cool enough to sleep confortably.
So go away, Mr. Klein, and leave us alone.
And by the way: every hotel room I've ever been in, there was one of those thermostat devices: you don't like the temp in the room, turn it up.
Dumbass.
I didn't think they allowed indentured servitude
in (formerly great) Britain anymore.
A Down's syndrome man and Special Olympics champion who has been working for free for years is now being charged a fee to wash councillors' dishes.
Virgil Taylor has been helping to wash up, wipe tables and set up trolleys in a restaurant used by town hall staff for 17 years as part of subsidised adult care services.
Every week Mr Taylor - who won a gold medal at the Special Olympics in Glasgow in 2005 - has attended 10 sessions run by the William Knowles Centre in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.
But now savage cuts have ended the subsidies and the 34-year-old will have to pay £2.50 per session for the 'privilege' of cleaning up after councillors.
Un-freakin'-believable. Especially
Mr Taylor will even be charged for non-attendance, his mother said.
But don't worry: your betters have things well in hand: A council spokesman added: 'A non-attendance charge will only be applied for repeated failure to attend. It will not apply for planned absences.'
Well, la-de-effin'-da, isn't that nice of them?
And, while on the subject of (fg)Britain, here's a judge who should have his wig set on fire. After it's been glued to his head.
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.
Which will last until the usual suspects whine that the 'law of the land' is infringing on their religions and cultural traditions.
Brits: stock up on arms. Before everything blows.
A Down's syndrome man and Special Olympics champion who has been working for free for years is now being charged a fee to wash councillors' dishes.
Virgil Taylor has been helping to wash up, wipe tables and set up trolleys in a restaurant used by town hall staff for 17 years as part of subsidised adult care services.
Every week Mr Taylor - who won a gold medal at the Special Olympics in Glasgow in 2005 - has attended 10 sessions run by the William Knowles Centre in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.
But now savage cuts have ended the subsidies and the 34-year-old will have to pay £2.50 per session for the 'privilege' of cleaning up after councillors.
Un-freakin'-believable. Especially
Mr Taylor will even be charged for non-attendance, his mother said.
But don't worry: your betters have things well in hand: A council spokesman added: 'A non-attendance charge will only be applied for repeated failure to attend. It will not apply for planned absences.'
Well, la-de-effin'-da, isn't that nice of them?
And, while on the subject of (fg)Britain, here's a judge who should have his wig set on fire. After it's been glued to his head.
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with the law of the land.
Which will last until the usual suspects whine that the 'law of the land' is infringing on their religions and cultural traditions.
Brits: stock up on arms. Before everything blows.
Pre-4th note of the cost of freedom
Call from the son the other day. It's kind of hot, especially in all the gear, when "you're right on the edge of drinking too much and you still haven't had to piss all day."
There's a bunch of people on the sharp end, abroad and here, with their ass on the line to keep the barbarians from coming through the gate. Remember them tomorrow.
There's a bunch of people on the sharp end, abroad and here, with their ass on the line to keep the barbarians from coming through the gate. Remember them tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Something I ran across while casting bullets for the Steyr
Yes, the wax helped a bit. And I remembered this, and wanted to get it down before I forgot it. Again.
Lee molds are made of aluminum, and generally work quite well. Aluminum being the conductor it is, they tend to be a bit temperature-sensitive: if it's cold out, it can be hard to keep them up to heat.
When I started casting these, did all the usual stuff and still had a problem: the damn things wouldn't fill out, every one had wrinkles. Turned up the heat a touch(wrinkles usually from things not being quite hot enough), fluxed the alloy, no good. I was getting both frustrated and ticked off, and finally decided it had to be the temperature. I use a Lee bottom-pour casting furnace that works well, and the highest I'd ever had to turn it before was about 7.5 on the thermostat. And that was on a chilly day(do the casting in the garage). That was where I was at now, on a hot day- the sweat pouring off me not helping my mood- that should have been plenty. But since it didn't, I turned it up to 9 and let it sit a while. After I was sure the whole pot was up to heat, ran a couple of pours to heat the mold back up and after that, Shazam! Perfect bullets, time after time.
All I can figure is between the weight and length of the bullet, the mold just wasn't heating enough at the lower temp. In any case, the higher setting made it work.
Now, I'm off for more naproxyn and bed.
Lee molds are made of aluminum, and generally work quite well. Aluminum being the conductor it is, they tend to be a bit temperature-sensitive: if it's cold out, it can be hard to keep them up to heat.
When I started casting these, did all the usual stuff and still had a problem: the damn things wouldn't fill out, every one had wrinkles. Turned up the heat a touch(wrinkles usually from things not being quite hot enough), fluxed the alloy, no good. I was getting both frustrated and ticked off, and finally decided it had to be the temperature. I use a Lee bottom-pour casting furnace that works well, and the highest I'd ever had to turn it before was about 7.5 on the thermostat. And that was on a chilly day(do the casting in the garage). That was where I was at now, on a hot day- the sweat pouring off me not helping my mood- that should have been plenty. But since it didn't, I turned it up to 9 and let it sit a while. After I was sure the whole pot was up to heat, ran a couple of pours to heat the mold back up and after that, Shazam! Perfect bullets, time after time.
All I can figure is between the weight and length of the bullet, the mold just wasn't heating enough at the lower temp. In any case, the higher setting made it work.
Now, I'm off for more naproxyn and bed.
If you want Steve's book
but you're too lazy to find it, just to make it easy you can go here. C'mon, a little cholesterol never hurt anyone.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stick my hands in wax.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stick my hands in wax.
Well, if the coal companies are using 'the old Hitler
lie' for telling the truth, I guess I can be called a Nazi for saying "HARRY REID WANTS YOU TO FREEZE IN THE DARK THIS WINTER! AND PAY $7 A GALLON FOR GAS! AND HAVE FOOD PRICES KEEP RISING! Which is exactly what'll happen if we follow his prescription for our ills. He seems to think those things are better than burning any nasty fossil fuels:
"Coal makes us sick," Reid said, "oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel . . . ."
Seems what Reid & Co. want is lots of 'plans' for future alternatives that, assuming we actually find something to replace oil and coal, he won't want us to actually use:
The irony here is that it's environmentalists and Democrats who often stand in the way of alternative energy. Reid needs to talk to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about their opposition to a wind farm off Cape Cod because it might spoil their view.
A 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm scheduled for Valley County, Mont., was stopped by environmentalists who complained that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area.
The Sunrise Powerlink solar-energy project in Southern California is being fought because of a 150-mile, $1.5 billion high-voltage line connecting desert-based solar panels with the urban customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.
And so on.
"Coal makes us sick," Reid said, "oil makes us sick, it's global warming, it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world, we've got to stop using fossil fuel . . . ."
Seems what Reid & Co. want is lots of 'plans' for future alternatives that, assuming we actually find something to replace oil and coal, he won't want us to actually use:
The irony here is that it's environmentalists and Democrats who often stand in the way of alternative energy. Reid needs to talk to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry about their opposition to a wind farm off Cape Cod because it might spoil their view.
A 500-megawatt, 20,000-acre wind farm scheduled for Valley County, Mont., was stopped by environmentalists who complained that 400-foot turbines would disturb a nearby wilderness area.
The Sunrise Powerlink solar-energy project in Southern California is being fought because of a 150-mile, $1.5 billion high-voltage line connecting desert-based solar panels with the urban customers of San Diego Gas & Electric.
And so on.
Bad joints + hot weather + heavy lunch =
I ain't moving.
My folks were in town so had lunch with them at Pancho's Mexican Buffet. I'd be full in any case, but with all the carbs in Mexican food... urk. And it's low 90's outide and my hands and knees and one elbow have been giving me hell the last couple of days. So, I'm sitting here for a while. I'll go outside and take care of the yard stuff after there's more shade and the temp has eased down a bit. Also after things have moved through the system a bit.
The joints are just accumulated wear and damage(though nowhere near as bad as Chris has), added to the arthritis in my hands. I can take naproxyn and it helps a lot, but I don't like taking it more than a few days; I'm lucky in that it doesn't bother my stomach, but the warnings on long-term use make me very leery of it. This crap has taken a lot of the fun out of forging, and is a big reason I don't do much now: when it hurts to hammer, or on some days you can't use bigger than a 2lb hammer(which leaves any heavy work out), it removes a lot of the joy out of making things.
The knees have been bad for a long time, God knows how bad they'd be now without glucosimine. I used to go to a folk-dance groups meetings every week, and it forced the knees to my attention. As in I'd finish the first hour, which was all easy beginner stuff both for new people and for warmup, and have to leave as it hurt to walk. For that matter, on some days before a cold front would come through they'd ache like hell; forecasting by your joint pain is funny to tell, but no damn fun to live with. One night I said something about it and someone told me about the stuff, during which conversation about four other people chimed in; all were taking it and loved it. So I got a bottle to give it a trial, and I'm still taking it: took about 1.5-2 months to notice a difference, and then it was bloody wonderful. They're starting to give me more trouble, though, whether age is combining with damage or I'm not taking enough now. Friend said she got better results from it combined with chondroitin, so I'm going to get a bottle of the mix and try it. It seems a literal case of 'it can't hurt'.
And yes, sometimes typing and mousing is, let us say, uncomfortable. So I have to be somewhat careful of hand/forearm position if I have much to say, or a long report at work or whatever. For that matter, it really, truly sucks to pick something up and drop it because you can't squeeze hard enough to hold it, or a pain shoots through and it slips. Or you can't put enough tension on a tool to get something done. Damn.
What was that bumper sticker? Something like "If I'd known I'd live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself".
My folks were in town so had lunch with them at Pancho's Mexican Buffet. I'd be full in any case, but with all the carbs in Mexican food... urk. And it's low 90's outide and my hands and knees and one elbow have been giving me hell the last couple of days. So, I'm sitting here for a while. I'll go outside and take care of the yard stuff after there's more shade and the temp has eased down a bit. Also after things have moved through the system a bit.
The joints are just accumulated wear and damage(though nowhere near as bad as Chris has), added to the arthritis in my hands. I can take naproxyn and it helps a lot, but I don't like taking it more than a few days; I'm lucky in that it doesn't bother my stomach, but the warnings on long-term use make me very leery of it. This crap has taken a lot of the fun out of forging, and is a big reason I don't do much now: when it hurts to hammer, or on some days you can't use bigger than a 2lb hammer(which leaves any heavy work out), it removes a lot of the joy out of making things.
The knees have been bad for a long time, God knows how bad they'd be now without glucosimine. I used to go to a folk-dance groups meetings every week, and it forced the knees to my attention. As in I'd finish the first hour, which was all easy beginner stuff both for new people and for warmup, and have to leave as it hurt to walk. For that matter, on some days before a cold front would come through they'd ache like hell; forecasting by your joint pain is funny to tell, but no damn fun to live with. One night I said something about it and someone told me about the stuff, during which conversation about four other people chimed in; all were taking it and loved it. So I got a bottle to give it a trial, and I'm still taking it: took about 1.5-2 months to notice a difference, and then it was bloody wonderful. They're starting to give me more trouble, though, whether age is combining with damage or I'm not taking enough now. Friend said she got better results from it combined with chondroitin, so I'm going to get a bottle of the mix and try it. It seems a literal case of 'it can't hurt'.
And yes, sometimes typing and mousing is, let us say, uncomfortable. So I have to be somewhat careful of hand/forearm position if I have much to say, or a long report at work or whatever. For that matter, it really, truly sucks to pick something up and drop it because you can't squeeze hard enough to hold it, or a pain shoots through and it slips. Or you can't put enough tension on a tool to get something done. Damn.
What was that bumper sticker? Something like "If I'd known I'd live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself".
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
A little more on the American Politically-Correct Civil LIberties Union
The gentleman here goes further into their website for their full feelings about the 2nd Amendment. There's a lot there, I just want to quote one bit:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. . . .
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
Gee, doesn't that just make you want to pick up your credit card and join them?
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. . . .
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
Gee, doesn't that just make you want to pick up your credit card and join them?
Oh yes, the left wants to argue ideas
on their merits.
"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.
"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)