Cobol - OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?

Author

OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?

Howard Brazee

2005-01-06, 8:55 pm

On 3-Jan-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> You just made that up, and probably by extrapolating from the
> misinformation about '3 times' above. The proportion for each part is
> entirely dependent on individual factors and will vary enormously. No
> general figure can be given any credence at all.
>
> In fact if it were true in any way then 'silencers' would hardly work
> at all. If 2/3 were from the projectile then that 2/3 would not be
> affected by a silencer. A silencer works by baffling the gas expansion
> after the bullet has left the barrel and restricting it so that it is
> over a longer time period. It is effective because it is the explosion
> that makes the noise and spreading the pressure rise over a longer time
> reduces the peak of the pressure wave.

Also, shotguns must be much quieter than rifles.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-06, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:14:56 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 2-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>My brother is a Marine Colonel. He knows that his job is to accomplish the
>objectives of his superiors. And he expects his subordinates to accomplish the
>objectives he gives them. The objectives aren't "hit a particular target",
>but to "accomplish the mission".

The mission of infantry is killing people and breaking things. The
units I was in had other missions, primarily information gathering.

>There are people who put their personal objectives over the mission's
>objectives. These guys will show off their marksmanship, even if other tactics
>are better for the team objectives. These personality types are not limited
>to military or sports, but can be found in programming staffs as well. They
>"know better" than their bosses and their bosses' missions.

When the bosses' objectives change from day to day, or vary depending
on which boss you talk to, workers figure out there isn't a clearcut
objective.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-06, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:03:44 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 31-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>What, exactly is "general use"?
>
>There are cases where "hosing the area" achieves objectives best, and other
>cases where "good marksmanship" achieves the objectives best. Apparently the
>objectives are clear for "general use" - but not to me.

General use means normal infantry operations.

Automatic fire is appropriate for urban combat and for defense,
especially escaping from enemy territory. In both cases the objective
is to deny mobility to the other side.

Howard Brazee

2005-01-06, 8:55 pm

On 4-Jan-2005, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

> None of this applies to bullets (but does to rockets) because they
> don't, of themselves, make noise. They have no wings to create
> overpressure from lift, they are only a single shape so have no
> interference. Bullets do create a 'sonic boom' but it is trivial
> compared to the unsilenced explosion that drives it.

The bullets do make noise. The sonic boom we hear is similar to the crack of a
whip (for the same reason). It is not similar to the boom of the firing.

Shotguns are loud, even though they do not create shots that break the sound
barrier.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:30:06 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 2-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>No. The U.S. Constitution says: "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."
>
>The English above is straightforward.

It's not straightforward at all. Does it apply to militia members, or
people eligible for militia duty? Who does the regulating?

I used to work for a Texas supermarket chain that sold guns. Our
biggest seller, by far, was .25 cal handguns purchased by housewives.
How does "well regulated Militia" apply to that case?

When people are called to National Guard duty, they don't take their
own weapon.

>The Courts have found that exceptions are weapons particularly well suited for
>Militias, and weapons particularly unsuited for Militias.

One can legally own full-auto, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. by
obtaining a BATF Class III permit, which costs $200. The going price
for an M-16 is about $20K. The weapon had to be manufactured before
1986 and access is subject to State law, as shown here:

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=06

Howard Brazee

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

On 4-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> It's not straightforward at all. Does it apply to militia members, or
> people eligible for militia duty? Who does the regulating?

The English says it applies to the people.

> Who does the regulating?

It doesn't say. But that doesn't cloud what the words say.

> I used to work for a Texas supermarket chain that sold guns. Our
> biggest seller, by far, was .25 cal handguns purchased by housewives.
> How does "well regulated Militia" apply to that case?

Should it? The English above just says that militia is necessary. That could
be useful in defining "arms" to include what could be used by a militia. The
courts have redefined it. (Using English alone, we might argue that people
includes felons in prison). I don't have any firearms, and don't want any -
but I do know how to read English.

>
> One can legally own full-auto, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. by
> obtaining a BATF Class III permit, which costs $200. The going price
> for an M-16 is about $20K. The weapon had to be manufactured before
> 1986 and access is subject to State law, as shown here:

You admit that this is limited. Also, why should this amendment be subject to
State law?

Richard

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

>> they don't, of themselves, make noise.

> The bullets do make noise.

They don't, of themselves, make noise. Unlike a Jet Aircraft, bullets
do not generate noise while stationary (and running).

[color=darkred]
> The sonic boom we hear is similar to the crack of a whip (for the
same reason).

Mostly. A supersonic plane's sonic boom is not just the 'bow wave', it
is also the accumulation of noise from its engines, etc. When a
subsonic jet flies towards you you can hear it for all the time it
approaches, the sound energy is spread over a long time. When flying
at Mach 1 towards you all that sound energy arrives at the same time,
along with the 'bow wave' of pressure.

When it flies faster, such as a Concorde at Mach 2.2, it gets
'downrange' faster than the sound can get to ground level, so it gets
60 deg from vertically above (ie is only 30 deg above the horizon)
before you can hear _anything_. Then there is a diffuse boom (from ten
miles above) followed by a rumble for some minutes from points along
its track as the noise arrives, initially from directly above, then
moving along the track both ways.

Those 4 Olympus in after burning are _loud_. I haven't been under a
Concorde at full speed but have been at the end of a runway as one took
off (with afterburners) over me.

Whether the 'crack of the whip' is _entirely_ due to the tip going
sonic is another argument. For example I get exactly the same noise
from a strap by folding it over and, holding it in two hands,
'snapping' it. The strap never gets close to moving at supersonic
speed, but the air ejected laterally probably does.

William M. Klein

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

I may or may not LIKE it, but I don't see anything at ALL ambiguous about

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, >shall not be infringed."

"the people" is not limited and what the amendment says is that no government
(or other institution) shall be allowed to get in the way of the "right to keep
and bear arms".

It is true that the MOTIVATION (allowing for a "well regulated Militia")
"limits" the purpose of the amendment but it does not make what the amendment
says ambiguous or unclear.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:qd0mt0tempjpc0ujpss46hpcvijn4msn1q@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:30:06 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> It's not straightforward at all. Does it apply to militia members, or
> people eligible for militia duty? Who does the regulating?
>
> I used to work for a Texas supermarket chain that sold guns. Our
> biggest seller, by far, was .25 cal handguns purchased by housewives.
> How does "well regulated Militia" apply to that case?
>
> When people are called to National Guard duty, they don't take their
> own weapon.
>
>
> One can legally own full-auto, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. by
> obtaining a BATF Class III permit, which costs $200. The going price
> for an M-16 is about $20K. The weapon had to be manufactured before
> 1986 and access is subject to State law, as shown here:
>
> http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=06
>

Robert Wagner

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

On 4 Jan 2005 05:19:10 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <37pjt054637ec7urstg1bpf53npimhci67@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
>There's an aphorism I was taught in a language class decades ago, Mr
>Wagner... something in French about 'tell me with whom you associate and
>I'll tell you who you are'.

How judgmental.

>I would not dream of asking someone to make an evaluation, Mr Wagner, nor
>would I dream of making an evaluation about something so complex based on
>a few lines in a UseNet posting; to attempt to reduce the complexities of
>the lad's existence to such speaks *volumes* of you.

You didn't hesitatate to evaluate their parents, above.

LX-i

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner wrote:
>
> I used to work for a Texas supermarket chain that sold guns. Our
> biggest seller, by far, was .25 cal handguns purchased by housewives.
> How does "well regulated Militia" apply to that case?
>
> When people are called to National Guard duty, they don't take their
> own weapon.

The "militia" is not the military - it's there to protect the people
from the government. Besides, the Constitution just uses that as one
reason - you can't really twist the second part "shall not be infringed"
to mean anything other than that. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner wrote:
>
> The Second Amendment is based on a false premise. The militia has
> never been called to serve, and probably never will be. It is NOT
> "necessary to the security of a free State".

It's not necessary for the *defense* of a free State, but I'd say it's
very necessary for the security of one. How many dictatorships allow
their average joe/non-connected citizens to own private firearms? Were
they always dictatorships?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert Wagner

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:56:49 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>Just to throw some gasoline on the fire with respect to the Constitutional
>citation:
>
>However I might feel about gun control (or the lack thereof) on personal,
>moral or ethical grounds -- and I'm inclined more in favor of it than
>against it -- I have come to the conclusion that private citizens originally
>were permitted to own just about the most powerful weaponry available to the
>military, and that the arguments that the "right to bear arms" has never
>applied beyond the formally-organized militia is at the very least weak.
>
>I believe the principle is founded in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the
>constitution, and was arguably most visibly emphasized during the War of
>1812. In that latter war, the navy had 23 armed ships with a total of 556
>guns, while 517 privateers were licensed, and the armament of their ships
>totalled 2,893 guns.

Article 1:8:11 says Congress has the authority to "Issue letters of
marquee and reprisal". Translated: hire mercinaries. More relevent
are clauses 15 and 16:

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively,
the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress has never exercised clause 15, has never called forth the
Militia. Granted, it hired mercinaries, who today would be called
independent contractors. In my experience with them, the Soldier of
Fortune types are dreadful failures. They're long on bravado, short on
winning performance.

>Privateers figured significantly in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the War
>for Texas Independence, the Mexican War, and (most particularly on the
>Confederate side) in the Civil War. While Europe repudiated privateering in
>the Declaration of Paris in 1856, the US apparently refused to do so until
>it finally signed the Hague Convention of 1907.

All true.

>And even if such licensing for use on behalf of the country is now
>prohibited by international treaty, the principles, *and* the precedent of
>the early history of the US, *both* presuppose the ability to *possess* them.

No, it doesn't. The Hague Convention says nothing about that.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-07, 3:55 am

In article <7dk9t0diouj568spjbchdl61v28iqim3a8@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>We routinely hit a ten-inch target at a thousand yards (half a mile)
>with an M-1 with iron sights (no telescope). Doing so with deer would
>have been very easy. Current 'sportsman' say 200 yards is outside
>their range .. with telescopic sights. Their incomptence explains
>their poor marksmanship.

Mr Wagner, if everyone could do it - or even a goodly chunk of 'everyone'
were able - you'd no longer be able to claim the status of 'the few and
the proud'.

(Note - this appears to be a manifestation of what I saw to be a common
paradox in the thinking of military folks: 'We are a specially selected
and trained crew who have spent years honing particular skills and we
always give 110%... and if we can do it, *anybody* can and those who can't
deserve our scorn and derision.')

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-01-07, 8:55 am

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:7dk9t0diouj568spjbchdl61v28iqim3a8@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:57:48 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
<snip>>
> I used to hunt deer when I was in the Marine Corps .. without a
> weapon. My objective was to sneak up on them and touch them with my
> hand. Doing so became pretty easy once I got the hang of deer-thinking
> -- don't move when they're looking and stay downwind. Initially I
> thought it would hone my skills on sneaking up on people, then
> realized it wasn't the same.
>
> We routinely hit a ten-inch target at a thousand yards (half a mile)
> with an M-1 with iron sights (no telescope). Doing so with deer would
> have been very easy. Current 'sportsman' say 200 yards is outside
> their range .. with telescopic sights. Their incomptence explains
> their poor marksmanship.
>
I mentioned this to a friend who is a bowhunter.

He said to have a reasonable chace of killing a deer with a hunting arrow
you need to be within 15 metres of it. Stalking skills to get that close to
a wild deer in the New Zealand forest have to be exceptional.The arrows cost
$40 each and most of them end up lost in the bush. About 1 target in 6 is
brought down and most of the carcasses are carried out of the bush and
eaten. "Incompetence" is not a word I would associate with this bloke, and
certainly not to his face... :-).

Pete.

SkippyPB

2005-01-07, 3:55 pm

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:48:08 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:7dk9t0diouj568spjbchdl61v28iqim3a8@
4ax.com...
><snip>>
>I mentioned this to a friend who is a bowhunter.
>
>He said to have a reasonable chace of killing a deer with a hunting arrow
>you need to be within 15 metres of it. Stalking skills to get that close to
>a wild deer in the New Zealand forest have to be exceptional.The arrows cost
>$40 each and most of them end up lost in the bush. About 1 target in 6 is
>brought down and most of the carcasses are carried out of the bush and
>eaten. "Incompetence" is not a word I would associate with this bloke, and
>certainly not to his face... :-).
>
>Pete.
>
>

What Pete described is truly "sport" hunting. Using a rifle,
especially the high powered ones with telescopic sights that are
available today is NOT sport. Animal murder maybe, but clearly not
"sport".

Happy New Year.

Cheers,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"Santa Claus has the right idea ...
Visit people only once a year."
-- Victor Borge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-07, 3:55 pm

In article <qmedt0tk4qe3rqana1e5v9vse3psmeprf5@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 31 Dec 2004 23:04:04 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>We practiced such defensive tactics in Advanced Infantry Training ..
>at night, with tracers and machine guns. It was an impressive sight.

It also has practical application, Mr Wagner, as if the object of one's
covering fire is so busy keeping his head down that he cannot return fire
and your man gets close enough to toss in a pineapple... well, we've all
seen the movies, at least, I am sure.

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-07, 3:55 pm

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:52:07 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:6hjot01ra1o0lhl79ba6fap5coh99qv2j5@
4ax.com...
>
>
>Irrelevant, unless each and every one of those footsoldiers hired into an
>army has *also* received a "letter of marque and reprisal" from the US
>congress permitting them to seize for their own use the assets of other
>individuals or agencies in Iraq at will! I don't think so!

Marque and reprisal applies to naval operations, not foot soldiers.

>
>Isn't that primarily a state/local civil issue rather than a matter of
>criminal law?

The Bill of Rights is not limited to criminal issues. The right to
trial by jury applies to civil cases.

>
>Just as "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, so is "sane".

That decision is made by medical doctors.

>
>Well, my point is that until about a hundred years ago it *didn't* exclude
>cannon or battleships!

When possession of a specific weapon poses more of a danger to the
public than a safeguard, banning that weapon is a reasonable
exception. Even ardent gun supporters agree when it comes to nukes and
anti-aircraft missles.

>
>Probably only because of income and estate taxes!

Income taxes are illegal too .. according to some. Here's what the IRS
says:

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enfor...=106444,00.html

>
>Which wasn't the topic of discussion of the paragraph you were citing. The
>use of *privateers* was, and the relationship of a privateer ship to the
>military weaponry of the day.

I don't see a connection between privateers and the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is about ground-pounding militia. Its weapons
were described in the Militia Act of 1792, where they do include
artillery.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

>
>Irrelevant to my point. Is it *legal* to own a working Abrams tank? A
>Polaris submarine? An aircraft carrier? A nuclear weapon?

An Abrams tank is an appropriate militia weapon; the others are not.
It's legal to own a tank, but not the howitzer.

>Anybody who had the funds in the first half of the 19th century could build
>the biggest, baddest armed ocean-going vessel he could envision, without any
>sort of license at all. If the US went to war, or even got piqued at some
>government, the owner could get a "letter of marque and reprisal" from the
>US congress and go off on raiding parties against that government, and would
>keep whatever goods he might capture in that process.
>
>The fact that doing so today is not *economically* feasible is irrelevant to
>my point that it is now considered *illegal* as well as impractical. I
>believe any *law* that prevents me -- or you -- from owning something like
>an armed ICBM, by the precedent of both the *allowance* of massive private
>weaponry and its semi-official use in several wars in the form of
>privateering, is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

Weapons with a bore larger than half an inch were banned in 1934, 26
USC 53.5845. The justification at the time was stopping rum runners
and bank robbers. The act also bans grenades, bombs and rockets.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/us...45----000-.html

Howard Brazee

2005-01-07, 3:55 pm

On 7-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> That decision is made by medical doctors.

Are there legal criteria for sanity?

> When possession of a specific weapon poses more of a danger to the
> public than a safeguard, banning that weapon is a reasonable
> exception. Even ardent gun supporters agree when it comes to nukes and
> anti-aircraft missles.

It sounds like the left and the right are in agreement here. But nobody has an
objective way of measuring the value of such a danger and of such a safeguard.

> Income taxes are illegal too .. according to some. Here's what the IRS
> says:

I'll read the Constitution here. People say a lot of things.

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-07, 8:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:cggtt0pel8lt3hn2hmp0ei49l5idloqdvq@
4ax.com...

> Marque and reprisal applies to naval operations, not foot soldiers.

I'm having some trouble establishing a clear consistency between the above
and your posting of 1/4/2005 which says in part "Article 1:8:11 says
Congress has the authority to "Issue letters of
marquee and reprisal". Translated: hire mercinaries. "

Could you clarify for me how these two statements represent a single
perspective? Or have you changed your mind?

>
> The Bill of Rights is not limited to criminal issues. The right to
> trial by jury applies to civil cases.

You missed the point. The details of what is and what is not slander are
state and local issues; so far as I have been able to determine, the only
*federal* laws I know of are those that prohibit suing the federal
government for libel or slander.

> That decision is made by medical doctors.

Who gets to decide which medical doctors? And is the gentleman down the
street wearing a tinfoil hat so that the FBI can't read his thoughts insane
or a righteous patriot behaving reasonably? Wouldn't that depend on the
personal views of the *doctor*?

exclude[color=darkred]
>
> When possession of a specific weapon poses more of a danger to the
> public than a safeguard, banning that weapon is a reasonable
> exception. Even ardent gun supporters agree when it comes to nukes and
> anti-aircraft missles.

It wasn't a "reasonable exception" 100 years ago! That's *exactly* my
point! What ardent gun supporters -- or for that matter anti-gun
ctivists -- agree or disagree upon today is not all that relevant to what
rights the constitution explicitly or implicitly granted, and what the
Founding Fathers thought was appropriate in 1789 (or before) and embodied in
the Constitution. .

It was considered *reasonable* for a private citizen during the War of 1812
to own a ship that could literally blow the best the British -- or the US --
Navy had to offer right smack out of the water, and to do a pretty good job
of smashing a good-sized harbor-defense fort to smithereens had the captain
a mind to do so!

Even as the US signed the 1907 Hague Declaration, it didn't agree to
*prohibit* citizens from owning ships that could be used as privateers, it
just agreed not to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal that would allow
them to engage in piracy legally!

>
> Income taxes are illegal too .. according to some.

That's one reason I mentioned it! But it's probably *estate* taxes that
are the bigger issue.

> I don't see a connection between privateers and the Second Amendment.

Only if one takes the position that the Second Amendment *limits* the sort
of weaponry a private citizen can own. I think it's a *clarification* of
that point already established in Article 1 Section 8 Item 11.

> The Second Amendment is about ground-pounding militia. Its weapons
> were described in the Militia Act of 1792, where they do include
> artillery.

Irrelevant to the point as to what weaponry the Constitution allows -- or
may be shown to presume to allow -- private citizens to own *outside* of
what's applicable to the Second Amendment.

> An Abrams tank is an appropriate militia weapon; the others
> [Polaris submarine, aircraft carrier, nuclear weapon]
> are not.It's legal to own a tank, but not the howitzer.

If the presumption that a private ship could constitutiontally be armed with
as many nine-pound cannon as the builder wished, why is it unreasonable to
assume that a land-based vehicle could be armed the same way? A
fully-armed brigantine wasn't an appropriate *militia* weapon in 1812,
either! Was owning one *unconstitutional* or *illegal* because of the
Militia Act of 1792?

> Weapons with a bore larger than half an inch were banned in 1934, 26
> USC 53.5845. The justification at the time was stopping rum runners
> and bank robbers. The act also bans grenades, bombs and rockets.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I'm also not at all convinced it's constitutional.
It was constitutional, legal, and even patriotic to own a full warship in
1812, and I would argue that a law that does *not* amend the constitution
but *does* prohibit such ownership is of at best questionable
constitutionality.

I do not ascribe the status of Holy Writ to the constitution, nor do I
ascribe either Divine Wisdom or Divine Foresight to its framers. Article 1
Section 8 Item 11, along with Amendment II, might have been meaningful back
in 1789, but application of either one *as they were almost certainly
envisioned by the framers* is not reasonable today.

Note that I do not own anything more lethal than a hunting knife, nor do I
have a particular desire to do so. I have no particular animosity toward
those who do have more deadly weaponry, so long as they don't use it against
me. I have no personal vested interest on either side of the argument as to
what sort of weaponry a private citizen "ought to be able" to own, whether
on constitutional grounds or otherwise.

As I see it, the framers of the Constitution would almost certainly allow
today's tinfoil-hat anti-everything paranoid wacko to own whatever weaponry
he or she wants to own; if his behavior got even *more* bizarre, he might be
locked up and not have *access* to his property. And that's the way I think
they wrote the Constitution. Whether that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing I
don't really care, but I do think that's the way it *is*. Do I think an
amendment repealing either of these Constitutional amendments would stand a
prayer of passage? Nope. Do I think laws that limit the weaponry one
might own are unconstitutional? Yup. Am I interested enough to file suit
to challenge them? Nope. Do I think such laws are appropriate? Yeah,
probably.

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2005-01-07, 8:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:jkjdt0lv5msqckvtn2bjoamujjb4n9n2qm@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:48:08 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
to[color=darkred]
cost[color=darkred]
>
> An arrow costs $40?! A dead deer costs $240! That's about $4 per pound
> of edible meat. He could save money by taking pictures of the deer and
> buying meat from a store.
>
I'll pass this wisdom on to him the next time I see him, Robert... :-)

Although venison IS available in stores, here it is usually farmed venison
and, as such, does not have the same flavour that the wild meat does.
Furthermore, the people who do this (much like the people who hunt wild pigs
with 3 dogs and a hunting knife) do it for the sport and the food. I don't
know how much gun ammunition you would buy for $NZ40, but these are
aluminium arrows with steel barbed hunting tips and match type flights. We
are not keen on guns here. Our cops don't normally carry them and don't
normally need them. The general population is not obsessed with guns and
very few households possess one. Handguns are, for the most part, illegal,
and rifles/shotguns require a licence. Automatic weapons are unobtainable
and you can't buy assault rifles, bazookas, or stinger missiles over the
counter... (I'd love to hear someone explaining why he needed a bazooka for
deer hunting...:-))

Some people do hunt with rifles, but the number is declining. Outdoor
sports, including hunting and fishing are popular here. No licence is
required to hunt deer or pigs, and there is open season on them all year
round, as they were both introduced, and they both destroy the native
forest. I haven't checked GOOGLE, but I would think that our deaths per
annum from gunshot wounds, per head of population would be extremely low.

> I know people who hunt for subsistence rather than sport. They don't
> use $40 arrows; they use a shotgun that fires a .62 cal slug at
> subsonic speed.
Why?
Why not use a slingshot or crossbow? (I have friends here who hunt (edible)
birds with a slingshot.)

A specially modified gun to avoid game wardens seems a bit extreme to me...

> Contrary to popular belief, a gun's bang does not come
> from exploding powder; it's a sonic boom caused by the projectile.

Yes, the crack of a whip is caused by the tip of it passing through the
sound barrier.

>A
> subsonic projectile and inexpensive choke reduces the noise to 10
> deci-bels (100 bels at 300 yards) to avoid the notice of game wardens.
> The report is about the same as an air rifle.
>
Ah, but is it ""sport"...?

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-07, 8:55 pm

In article <mjeft05kahl5kpmca3uh7p7a9ffkqhc9kj@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 1 Jan 2005 20:20:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I wouldn't get in front of covering fire in an offensive situation.

Marines follow lawful orders, Mr Wagner... or so I've been told. What's
been here is that if 'covering fire' counts then your assertion has been
disproven.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-07, 8:55 pm

In article <2ffft0tanfb1p94v6obj3e90tr528sqakk@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

Fish in a barrel, I tell ya.

>Spoken like an Army guy. We Marines are proud of our marksmanship.

From:

<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?h...br /> 404ax.com>

--begin quoted text:

>
>Mr Wagner, if everyone could do it - or even a goodly chunk of 'everyone'
>were able - you'd no longer be able to claim the status of 'the few and
>the proud'.

Everyone can do it.

--end quoted text

Proud of something 'everyone can do', Mr Wagner?

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:28:10 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 7-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>Are there legal criteria for sanity?

Before the M’Naghten decision in 1843, the standard was 'wild beast'.
After M'Naghten, the House of Lords defined it as:

“To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must clearly be
proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party
accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of
the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was
doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was
wrong”

>
>It sounds like the left and the right are in agreement here. But nobody has an
>objective way of measuring the value of such a danger and of such a safeguard.

The standard is popular opinion .. of the man on the street.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with my neighbor in
Parsippany, NJ, owning a 300 mW laser pointer, until he pointed it at
a plane approaching Teterboro and blinded the pilot. The FBI descended
on him like you wouldn't believe. He's now facing 25 years in jail for
playing with a $130 yuppie toy.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

In article <b4cgt05njic81mktm2odg32939ruujfros@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 2 Jan 2005 07:07:18 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Infantry follows lawful orders; Special Ops are expected to think and
>make intelligent decisions.

Special Ops are Marines, Mr Wagner, and Marines follow lawful orders... or
so I have been told... and honorable men admit when their assertions have
been disproven: if 'covering fire' counts then your assertions of 'The
only firepower that counts is one bullet hitting one target. The ones that
miss don't count.' have been disproven.

>
>Which are better suited to corporate Cobol programming?

That depends on whom one asks, Mr Wagner; from what I have seen, as posted
in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...m&output=gplain>
and referenced in
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?s...m&output=gplain>
is that there are some who believe that the one best suited for their
corporate COBOL programming slots would be a ''great, heads-down,
run-with-the-ball coder who was a real Team Player'

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

In article <95ggt0pki121qm091u5ig83pmumnf1f2h7@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 2 Jan 2005 07:11:49 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Did you ever try to shoot fish in a barrel? It's trickier than it
>seems.

In the Air Force we were taught to use the proper tool for the job, Mr
Wagner; while a torque-wrench can be used as a hammer, true, it might not
be the most accurate torque-wrench afterwards. Shooting fish in a barrel
requires more energy and attention as using small quantities of low-grade
explosives (things that used to be known as 'cherrybombs' or 'M-80s' a few
decades back)...

.... and *both* of those methods take time and equipment that simply
pushing the barrel over and picking the things up do.

Now I *cannot* resist...

.... try to think outside of the barrel, Mr Wagner... even though you might
be more used to spending nights *in* them.

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

On 2 Jan 2005 16:00:39 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <95ggt0pki121qm091u5ig83pmumnf1f2h7@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>In the Air Force we were taught to use the proper tool for the job

Air Force! That explains it all.

> Shooting fish in a barrel
>requires more energy and attention as using small quantities of low-grade
>explosives (things that used to be known as 'cherrybombs' or 'M-80s' a few
>decades back)...

Rednecks do it with dynamite. Air Force personnel, being more
sophisticated(?), use July 4 fireworks.

In the Marine Corps, we used one pound blocks of TNT to fell trees and
bridges. It never occurred to us to use explosives on fish.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

On 2 Jan 2005 15:56:13 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <b4cgt05njic81mktm2odg32939ruujfros@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Special Ops are Marines, Mr Wagner, and Marines follow lawful orders... or
>so I have been told...

<Laugh> Yeah, right.

>and honorable men admit when their assertions have
>been disproven: if 'covering fire' counts then your assertions of 'The
>only firepower that counts is one bullet hitting one target. The ones that
>miss don't count.' have been disproven.

Covering fire was presented to us as a DEFENSIVE tactic, never as
offense. The idea was to dissuade the enemy from attacking.

>
>That depends on whom one asks, Mr Wagner; from what I have seen, as posted
>in
><http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...m&output=gplain>
>and referenced in
><http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?s...m&output=gplain>
>is that there are some who believe that the one best suited for their
>corporate COBOL programming slots would be a ''great, heads-down,
>run-with-the-ball coder who was a real Team Player'

I never understood the part about sexual favors. I've not seen that in
my experience, either homo- or hetero-.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

On 2 Jan 2005 18:08:15 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>
>They also derive food. In this country all mammals except a few native
>bats were introduced and most are now considered pests to be
>erradicated.

Does the same logic apply to humans and sheep?

>
>Now if killing animals is to show they are 'smarter' then letting them
>go must be to prove you are dumber.

Reverence for life is unique to some humans.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-08, 3:55 am

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:35:44 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:cggtt0pel8lt3hn2hmp0ei49l5idloqdvq@
4ax.com...
>
>
>I'm having some trouble establishing a clear consistency between the above
>and your posting of 1/4/2005 which says in part "Article 1:8:11 says
>Congress has the authority to "Issue letters of
>marquee and reprisal". Translated: hire mercinaries. "
>
>Could you clarify for me how these two statements represent a single
>perspective? Or have you changed your mind?

I see no connection between the Second Amendment and 1:8:11. The
Second Amendment is about States' Rights and people's rights against a
Federal government. The privateer thing is about defending the
Federation from assault by other countries.

>
>Who gets to decide which medical doctors? And is the gentleman down the
>street wearing a tinfoil hat so that the FBI can't read his thoughts insane
>or a righteous patriot behaving reasonably? Wouldn't that depend on the
>personal views of the *doctor*?

We use board-certified psychologists. Sure it's fallible. What to you
propose as a better test of sanity?

>exclude
>
>It wasn't a "reasonable exception" 100 years ago! That's *exactly* my
>point! What ardent gun supporters -- or for that matter anti-gun
>activists -- agree or disagree upon today is not all that relevant to what
>rights the constitution explicitly or implicitly granted, and what the
>Founding Fathers thought was appropriate in 1789 (or before) and embodied in
>the Constitution.

Things change with time. It's no longer 1789. In Cobol terms, it's no
longer 1959. When the 'founding fathers' of Cobol gave us ALTER, they
were simply mistaken.

>Even as the US signed the 1907 Hague Declaration, it didn't agree to
>*prohibit* citizens from owning ships that could be used as privateers, it
>just agreed not to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal that would allow
>them to engage in piracy legally!

If no country would employ them, privateers were effectively outlawed.

>
>Only if one takes the position that the Second Amendment *limits* the sort
>of weaponry a private citizen can own. I think it's a *clarification* of
>that point already established in Article 1 Section 8 Item 11.

I disagree. The Second Amendment gives rights to individual citizens.
1:8:11 gives rights to the federal government.

>If the presumption that a private ship could constitutiontally be armed with
>as many nine-pound cannon as the builder wished, why is it unreasonable to
>assume that a land-based vehicle could be armed the same way? A
>fully-armed brigantine wasn't an appropriate *militia* weapon in 1812,
>either! Was owning one *unconstitutional* or *illegal* because of the
>Militia Act of 1792?

The Constitution doesn't say whether individuals may legally own a
brigantine. It does say, in the Ninth Amendment, that rights not
explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the
people. Because 1:8:11 authorizes the federal government to employ
brigantines, one could interpret that as a transfer of rights from
individuals to government.

>
>Yeah, I'm not surprised. I'm also not at all convinced it's constitutional.
>It was constitutional, legal, and even patriotic to own a full warship in
>1812, and I would argue that a law that does *not* amend the constitution
>but *does* prohibit such ownership is of at best questionable
>constitutionality.

You seem attached to flamboyant pirates. Did you see Johnny Depp's
impersonation of Keith Richards in Pirates of the Caribbean?

>I do not ascribe the status of Holy Writ to the constitution, nor do I
>ascribe either Divine Wisdom or Divine Foresight to its framers. Article 1
>Section 8 Item 11, along with Amendment II, might have been meaningful back
>in 1789, but application of either one *as they were almost certainly
>envisioned by the framers* is not reasonable today.

Amen, brother. Level heads have prevailed since 1789, despite the
Constitution's presumtion of infallibility.

>Note that I do not own anything more lethal than a hunting knife, nor do I
>have a particular desire to do so.

You should consider Kyocera's high-tech ceramic knives. They're as
hard as a diamond, never require sharpening, you can shave with them.
They're a delight in the kitchen. They look like cheap plastic but
cost over $100.

>As I see it, the framers of the Constitution would almost certainly allow
>today's tinfoil-hat anti-everything paranoid wacko to own whatever weaponry
>he or she wants to own; if his behavior got even *more* bizarre, he might be
>locked up and not have *access* to his property. And that's the way I think
>they wrote the Constitution.

Actually, no. The concept of insanity was poorly formed in 1789. They
thought the insane had no more logic than wild animals. More recent
decisions dealt with those who use ultraviolet light on doorknobs and
toilet handles.

Jeff York

2005-01-08, 8:55 am

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>You should consider Kyocera's high-tech ceramic knives. They're as
>hard as a diamond, never require sharpening, you can shave with them.
>They're a delight in the kitchen. They look like cheap plastic but
>cost over $100.

And probably don't show on airport x-ray machines..! :(

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-08, 8:55 pm

In article <24bht0d0smt21rrbi48af7i8ri5tpbesvj@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 2 Jan 2005 15:56:13 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
><Laugh> Yeah, right.

Yeah, right, Mr Wagner, this is what I have been told. Are you calling me
a liar?

>
>
>Covering fire was presented to us as a DEFENSIVE tactic, never as
>offense.

Covering fire was presented as a tactic, Mr Wagner, and neither defensive
or offensive was suggested; its use demonstrates that there are others
than the bullet hitting the target which 'count'.

>The idea was to dissuade the enemy from attacking.

The idea, Mr Wagner, was to pass along what might be knowledge; in
demonstrating that there are situations where your original assertion is
proven wrong it was hoped you might learn something new.

>
>
>I never understood the part about sexual favors. I've not seen that in
>my experience, either homo- or hetero-.

You can ignore that part, Mr Wagner, and not lose too much of the import I
intended... but it is a reference to an old joke told me by a temp
secretary:

There are three candidates for a Executive Secretarial position. One
types 45 wpm and takes shorthand at 70 wpm (I told you it was an old
joke), one types 55 wpm and takes shorthand at 85 wpm, one types 60 wpm
and takes shorthand at 95. Which one gets the job?

The one with the largest breasts... haw haw haw.

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-09, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

On 31-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> The only firepower that counts is one bullet hitting one target. The
> ones that miss don't count.

Depends on what your objectives are. If your objective is to keep a bunch of
other guys from shooting at your guy, then you want a bunch of other guys
ducking, instead of one other guy dying.

Howard Brazee

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

On 2-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> Infantry follows lawful orders; Special Ops are expected to think and
> make intelligent decisions.

Special Ops are expected to think, make intelligent decisions, and follow lawful
orders. Good leaders give them orders that allow them to use their skills.
They don't always have good leaders.

> Which are better suited to corporate Cobol programming?

CoBOL programmers are expected to think, make intelligent decisions, and follow
lawful orders. Good managers give them orders that allow them to use their
skills. They don't always have good managers.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

In article <oqmlt0lhvu3isek4926r1q1gvqmku1b4vu@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:03:44 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> General use means normal infantry operations.
>
> Automatic fire is appropriate for urban combat and for defense,
> especially escaping from enemy territory. In both cases the objective
> is to deny mobility to the other side.

In terms of 'general infantry use' -- we had a position of
auto-rifleman. His sole job was to be first out of the APC or Bradley
to 'hose down the area' towards the enemy, with a full 30-round
magazine. We kept M16A1's around for this purpose.

This distracted the enemy long enough for the rest of the squad to exit
the vehicle and assume fighting positions.

Robert Wagner

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:18:13 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 4-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>They did.
>
>
>
>It appears that way to me too. That's why "The right of the people to keep and
>bear Arms shall not be infringed".
>
>
>That's an assumption. People who don't want to read it as written find this
>to be a very attractive assumption. I wouldn't mind seeing the amendment
>repealed - but I am very much against reading the Constitution the way *I* want,
>as others will read it the way *they* want. Let's just read it the way it is.

I am reading it as written. You want to brush aside the preamble,
interpreting the amendment as though the militia clause were deleted.

The US Supreme Court interpreted it my way. In US v. Miller it said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=307&invol=174

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals offers this analysis:

" In the last few decades, courts and commentators have offered what
may fairly be characterized as three different basic interpretations
of the Second Amendment. The first is that the Second Amendment does
not apply to individuals; rather, it merely recognizes the right of a
state to arm its militia.(9) This "states' rights" or "collective
rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment has been embraced by
several of our sister circuits.(10) The government commended the
states' rights view of the Second Amendment to the district court,
urging that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual
citizens.

Proponents of the next model admit that the Second Amendment
recognizes some limited species of individual right. However, this
supposedly "individual" right to bear arms can only be exercised by
members of a functioning, organized state militia who bear the arms
while and as a part of actively participating in the organized
militia's activities. The "individual" right to keep arms only applies
to members of such a militia, and then only if the federal and state
governments fail to provide the firearms necessary for such militia
service. At present, virtually the only such organized and actively
functioning militia is the National Guard, and this has been the case
for many years. Currently, the federal government provides the
necessary implements of warfare, including firearms, to the National
Guard, and this likewise has long been the case. Thus, under this
model, the Second Amendment poses no obstacle to the wholesale
disarmament of the American people. A number of our sister circuits
have accepted this model, sometimes referred to by commentators as the
sophisticated collective rights model.(11) On appeal the government
has abandoned the states' rights model and now advocates the
sophisticated collective rights model.

The third model is simply that the Second Amendment recognizes the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This is the view advanced
by Emerson and adopted by the district court. None of our sister
circuits has subscribed to this model, known by commentators as the
individual rights model or the standard model. The individual rights
view has enjoyed considerable academic endorsement, especially in the
last two decades.(12) "

It then presents a well-reasoned and substantiated argument supporting
the third model. It's too long to post here. The conclusion:

"We have found no historical evidence that the Second
Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states,
limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing
army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on
active duty.(60) All of the evidence indicates that the Second
Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to
and protects individual Americans."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...e&no=9910331cr0

>A better argument is that this explanation for the amendment is that it defines
>"arms" as weapons suited for use by a Militia. But still - Let's read the
>Constitution as it says, not as we wish it says. We know our enemies are
>willing to read it as they wish it says.

Understanding what it MEANS, why it is there, involves history of the
Anti-Federalist movement. The Fifth Circuit (above) deals with that,
and also this analysis:

"The Revolutionary War taught, in other words, that a standing army is
necessary to effective military action. Accordingly, when it came time
to write the Constitution in 1787, in addition to empowering Congress
"to provide for calling forth the militia," the framers also gave
Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and "to provide and
maintain a navy." These latter forces were to be--and have
been--independent of state militias.

But if late eighteenth century Americans viewed a standing army as
necessary to national defense, they also saw it as, at best, a
necessary evil. Anti-Federalists and others who originally opposed
ratification of the Constitution worried, among other things, that
Congress would create a standing army that the President could use
oppressively.

The Second Amendment partly addressed this concern by prohibiting
Congressional abolition of the state militias. Continued existence of
state militias would mean both that Congress would have less need to
rely upon the standing army and that, should the standing army be used
as an agent of domestic oppression, the people could resist militarily
through their state militias."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/script...f/20030514.html

Is that fear still relevant? How likely is it that President Bush
would send the Army and Air Force to invade Waco? If he did, do you
really think the Texas National Guard could defend it?

>
>You answered why this amendment should not be subject to federal law. Is this
>right to bear arms reserved to the states or to the people? You seem to think
>it's the states, I read the people.

I didn't say States; I said militia. The Fifth Circuit argues that
the other amendments 1-8 apply to individuals.

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-10, 8:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:jguut0paokdl3eb0t1bncffn1254pc2eri@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:35:44 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
above[color=darkred]
>
> I see no connection between the Second Amendment and 1:8:11. The
> Second Amendment is about States' Rights and people's rights against a
> Federal government. The privateer thing is about defending the
> Federation from assault by other countries.

I think you missed my point. I can't reconcile "Marque and reprisal
applies to naval operations [privateers], not foot soldiers [mercenaries]"
with "Article 1.8.11 ... 'Marquee and Reprisal': translated: hire
mercenaries."

what[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> Things change with time. It's no longer 1789.

Then how are the views of the Framers of that constitution relevant *today*?

it[color=darkred]
>
> If no country would employ them, privateers were effectively outlawed.

No. If no country *chose* to issue the appropriate documentation at a given
time (whether the country was a signator to the Declaration or not), the
issue is simply rendered moot.

> I disagree. The Second Amendment gives rights to individual citizens.
> 1:8:11 gives rights to the federal government.

I guess you *still* don't see it. Article 1.8.11 *presupposes* the right of
a private citizen (or a foreigner, for that matter) to own any armament they
want; the right it explicitly *gives* is the right of Congress to allow such
a citizen to use that armament at will against another nation or party.
Thirty cannon is thirty cannon whether they be mounted together on a mobile
platform or individually mounted on carriages, regarded as part of a single
weapon or taken individually.

why is it unreasonable to
>
> The Constitution doesn't say whether individuals may legally own a
> brigantine.

What relates to the topic is that it allows Congress to grant explicit
permission and protection to individuals who own brigantines so that they
can go beyond US borders and capture or destroy other ships or installations
with them. The authority of Congress to grant these Letters requires that
there be indivuduals to whom the letters are addressed for whom the letters
are meaningful.

> It does say, in the Ninth Amendment, that rights not
> explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the
> people. Because 1:8:11 authorizes the federal government to employ

Nope. Not *employ*.

>
> brigantines, one could interpret that as a transfer of rights from
> individuals to government.

One could interpret it as a Bach fugue or a rutabaga, I suppose.

> You seem attached to flamboyant pirates.

Why would you suggest that? I'm hard-pressed to distinguish between a
privateer and a pirate ship; if you're being attacked by either one, the
distinction is moot!

> Did you see Johnny Depp's
> impersonation of Keith Richards in Pirates of the Caribbean?

I saw Johnny Depp's performance in that film, but I wouldn't know Keith
Richards from a clerk at McDonald's, so your question doesn't mean a lot to
me. I gather he's some sort of musician, but I haven't run into mentions of
him as a superior interpreter of the music that is more likely to interest
me, and I don't think I've heard any of the conservatory-trained musicians I
know mention him (positively, negatively or otherwise) offhand ...

-Chuck Stevens

Howard Brazee

2005-01-10, 8:55 pm

On 10-Jan-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>
> I saw Johnny Depp's performance in that film, but I wouldn't know Keith
> Richards from a clerk at McDonald's, so your question doesn't mean a lot to
> me. I gather he's some sort of musician, but I haven't run into mentions of
> him as a superior interpreter of the music that is more likely to interest
> me, and I don't think I've heard any of the conservatory-trained musicians I
> know mention him (positively, negatively or otherwise) offhand ...

He's a guitar player for the Rolling Stones. I'm not much of a Stones fan and
have no idea what characteristics he has that Johnny Depp emulated. (I like to
catch most Depp movies as he is worth watching - and did see this movie).

Robert Wagner

2005-01-10, 8:55 pm

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:43:09 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:jguut0paokdl3eb0t1bncffn1254pc2eri@
4ax.com...
>above

Yes, I have changed my mind. On 1/4, I thought Letters of Marque
applied to any mercenary -- naval or land-based. Having since done a
little research at
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/5213/marque.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/5213/marque2.htm
I came to realize they applied only to naval mercenaries called
privateers.

Letters of Marque are now of historic interest only. The US stopped
using them in the 19th century, after signing the Declaration of
Paris.
[color=darkred]
>
>I think you missed my point. I can't reconcile "Marque and reprisal
>applies to naval operations [privateers], not foot soldiers [mercenaries]"
>with "Article 1.8.11 ... 'Marquee and Reprisal': translated: hire
>mercenaries."

Same as above.

>what
>in
>
>Then how are the views of the Framers of that constitution relevant *today*?

Their views on principles remain valid. Their writing about technology
is obsolete.

Letters of Marque are clearly obsolete. So is the notion of State
Militia to protect us from federal standing armies -- they've never
been employed.

So where does that leave the people, with their arms? Given a
Constitution that's very difficult to amend, it leaves them in limbo
... buffeted by court decisions on one side and administrative
bureaucrats on the other. The Constitution is not a solid island of
surety that many long for.

>
>I guess you *still* don't see it. Article 1.8.11 *presupposes* the right of
>a private citizen (or a foreigner, for that matter) to own any armament they
>want; the right it explicitly *gives* is the right of Congress to allow such
>a citizen to use that armament at will against another nation or party.
>Thirty cannon is thirty cannon whether they be mounted together on a mobile
>platform or individually mounted on carriages, regarded as part of a single
>weapon or taken individually.

No, I still don't see it. Article 1.8.11 doesn't grant any rights to
US citizens. It assumes privateers will be available, primarily from
other countries or no country, without giving Americans permission to
be privateers. The only permission it grants, in the Second Amendment,
is referred to in Article 1.8.12.

It would not be appropriate to issue a Letter of Marque to a private
army armed with thirty carriage-mounted guns.

>
>What relates to the topic is that it allows Congress to grant explicit
>permission and protection to individuals who own brigantines so that they
>can go beyond US borders and capture or destroy other ships or installations
>with them. The authority of Congress to grant these Letters requires that
>there be indivuduals to whom the letters are addressed for whom the letters
>are meaningful.

Lacking 'enabling legistlation', one assumes they're from outside the
US.

>
>I saw Johnny Depp's performance in that film, but I wouldn't know Keith
>Richards from a clerk at McDonald's, so your question doesn't mean a lot to
>me.

Kieth will play Johnny's father in the sequel. Art imitates life.

>I gather he's some sort of musician, but I haven't run into mentions of
>him as a superior interpreter of the music that is more likely to interest
>me, and I don't think I've heard any of the conservatory-trained musicians I
>know mention him (positively, negatively or otherwise) offhand ...

The classically-inclined musicians I know call it Art Music, not
Classical Music, and compose their own inspired by the one whose name
I adopted: Richard Wagner, who introduced complexity. I was born a
Quackenbush, changed it because the Marx Brothers despoiled my
surname.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-10, 8:55 pm

In article <peu5u01re3fascebdunqchrcdn37ushvsu@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:43:09 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
><charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Their views on principles remain valid. Their writing about technology
>is obsolete.

I've heard this before, Mr Wagner... that 'the right to keep and bear
arms' was intended to/should be limited to technology available when the
Constitution was written... flintlocks, bows and arrows... maybe the
occaisional smallbore cannon.

This would appear to make as much sense, though, as saying that freedom of
speech is limited to how far one can halloo into a hailing-trumpet and has
no application to radio or television... or that freedom of the press is
limited to the wielding of goose-quills and Gutenberg-machines.

However... the rights of speech and press, in the First Amendment, have
been shown to apply over changes in technology. For what reasons would
the right of the Second Amendment be handled any differently?

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-11, 3:55 am

On 10 Jan 2005 19:03:15 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <peu5u01re3fascebdunqchrcdn37ushvsu@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>I've heard this before, Mr Wagner... that 'the right to keep and bear
>arms' was intended to/should be limited to technology available when the
>Constitution was written... flintlocks, bows and arrows... maybe the
>occaisional smallbore cannon.
>
>This would appear to make as much sense, though, as saying that freedom of
>speech is limited to how far one can halloo into a hailing-trumpet and has
>no application to radio or television... or that freedom of the press is
>limited to the wielding of goose-quills and Gutenberg-machines.
>
>However... the rights of speech and press, in the First Amendment, have
>been shown to apply over changes in technology. For what reasons would
>the right of the Second Amendment be handled any differently?

Freedom of speech and press is a principle. The right to bear arms is
tied to a technology: the militia. It says so in the Second Amendment.
Now that the technology is obsolete, there's no reason for the people
to bear small arms.

Let's say the most conspiratorial paranoic fears are true. The Feds
are planning to subjugate the people. Do you realistically think Bubba
with a deer rifle is any match against FEMA and SWAT teams? They'd
swat him like a pesky fly. Look what happened to revolutionaries at
Waco and Ruby Ridge.

All we're doing with right to bear arms is killing each other in
crimes of passion, petty crimes and suicide. We're not defending
ourselves against a standing army.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-11, 8:55 am

In article <hrg6u093qjfqom1fdsei2ls7ke1qvvkrmi@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 10 Jan 2005 19:03:15 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Freedom of speech and press is a principle. The right to bear arms is
>tied to a technology: the militia.

Speech, Mr Wagner, is not a principle; it is an activity and it can be
carried via technical means. The press, Mr Wagner, is not a principle; it
is a technology. A militia is neither a technology nor a principle, it is
an organisation.

>It says so in the Second Amendment.
>Now that the technology is obsolete, there's no reason for the people
>to bear small arms.

Given that the definitions supplied are wrong the conclusion appears to be
likewise.

>
>Let's say the most conspiratorial paranoic fears are true.

Let's say that the Constitution of the United States of America carries in
it provisions for Its modification; until such time as this happens then
It still appears to apply, both the parts one agrees with and the ones
that one doesn't.

>The Feds
>are planning to subjugate the people. Do you realistically think Bubba
>with a deer rifle is any match against FEMA and SWAT teams? They'd
>swat him like a pesky fly. Look what happened to revolutionaries at
>Waco and Ruby Ridge.

I'll deal with that when it happens, Mr Wagner... and I've noticed that
those pesky Vietnamese, without any helicopters or airplanes, failed
miserably at preventing the USA from implementing Her will in their
environs...

.... and I've noticed that I am the King of England, as well.

>All we're doing with right to bear arms is killing each other in
>crimes of passion, petty crimes and suicide. We're not defending
>ourselves against a standing army.

Another overbearing generalisation... all it takes, Mr Wagner, are
citizens using firearms otherwise to prove this assertion wrong.

DD

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-11, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:6hjot01ra1o0lhl79ba6fap5coh99qv2j5@
4ax.com...

> A warship for hire sounds to me like a mercenary.

Privateers aren't "warships for hire". They get *permission* (via a "letter
of marque and reprisal") from a government to be what would otherwise be
pirates and to do what would otherwise be regarded as piracy. They are
motivated by what they are *permitted by the issuing government to steal*.

A mercenary is *hired*, is by definition *paid* by the hiring *army*, and is
almost always *not* a citizen of the hiring country.

> Nowadays most
> mercenaries are foot soldiers. I've read there are 20,000 of them in
> Iraq (on our side).

Irrelevant, unless each and every one of those footsoldiers hired into an
army has *also* received a "letter of marque and reprisal" from the US
congress permitting them to seize for their own use the assets of other
individuals or agencies in Iraq at will! I don't think so!

> The Bay of Pigs invasion used a private army, navy
> and air force.

That doesn't make them privateers. That doesn't mean they were covered
under the subject article of the Constitution, either.

> Nobody knows who owned them because they weren't flying
> a flag. Like most mercenary operations, it was a model of ineptitude.
> Planes kept getting lost, ships ran aground, infantry ran out of
> ammunition.

And this relates to "privateer" and "mercenary" being covered by exactly the
same set of statutes (constitutional and otherwise) ... exactly how?

> All articles in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable
> limitations.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, and is subject to modification.
In 1812 it would have been perfectly legal, even admirable, for me to own a
full-scale battleship if I so desired, and go off raiding British
merchantmen and blowing away whatever British military vessels I ran across
at will, by the simple expedient of getting Congress to grant me a Letter of
Marque and Reprisal.

> The right to free speech doesn't legalize slander.

Isn't that primarily a state/local civil issue rather than a matter of
criminal law?

> Double
> jeopardy doesn't preclude a second trial when the jury cannot agree.

I think this is implicit in the wording "be subject to the same offense to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", myself.

> Freedom from self-incrimination doesn't bar the defendant from
> testifying.

Reread the fifth amendment; there's nothing in the amendment itself that
says you *can't* incriminate yourself, only that you can't be *compelled* to
do so as a witness.

> The right to bear arms can be limited to adults who are
> sane,

Just as "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, so is "sane".

> and can exclude criminal-style weapons such as sawed-off
> shotguns.

Well, my point is that until about a hundred years ago it *didn't* exclude
cannon or battleships!

> Economics precludes private battleships and fighter planes.

Probably only because of income and estate taxes!

> "It"
> referred to possession of military-style guns.

Which wasn't the topic of discussion of the paragraph you were citing. The
use of *privateers* was, and the relationship of a privateer ship to the
military weaponry of the day.

> It IS legal to possess
> exotic guns, provided you pay a BATF tax and convince a local official
> to sign off. David Koresh was a licensed dealer of such weapons; look
> what happened to him.

Irrelevant to my point. Is it *legal* to own a working Abrams tank? A
Polaris submarine? An aircraft carrier? A nuclear weapon?

> A former neighbor had a store that sold exclusively full-auto weapons
> and other military/survivalist gear. He went broke because there
> weren't enough 'patriots' in West Texas.

Anybody who had the funds in the first half of the 19th century could build
the biggest, baddest armed ocean-going vessel he could envision, without any
sort of license at all. If the US went to war, or even got piqued at some
government, the owner could get a "letter of marque and reprisal" from the
US congress and go off on raiding parties against that government, and would
keep whatever goods he might capture in that process.

The fact that doing so today is not *economically* feasible is irrelevant to
my point that it is now considered *illegal* as well as impractical. I
believe any *law* that prevents me -- or you -- from owning something like
an armed ICBM, by the precedent of both the *allowance* of massive private
weaponry and its semi-official use in several wars in the form of
privateering, is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

I'd also note that the US *chose* to abide by the 1856 Declaration of Paris
and to eschew the use of privateers during the Spanish-American War of 1898,
just because we were Nice Guys (and I think because we wanted to preserve at
least the appearance of Righteous Indignation over the explosion of the
Battleship Maine and retain the Moral High Ground (IMHO not that we
succeeded in that respect!).

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-11, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:peu5u01re3fascebdunqchrcdn37ushvsu@
4ax.com...

> Letters of Marque are now of historic interest only.

Except that they offer proof that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned
the possibility that *private individuals* -- citizens or otherwise -- might
own what in that time would have been considered Weapons of Mass
Destruction -- and that *that was OK*.

>The US stopped
> using them in the 19th century, after signing the Declaration of
> Paris.

BZZZZT!! WRONG!! The US was *not* a signator to the 1856 Declaration of
Paris. The US did not formally agree to refrain from issuing Letters of
Marque and Reprisal as a matter of general foreign policy until it signed
the 1907 Hague Convention. During the 1898 Spanish-American War, the US
agreed *in that conflict* not to issue such Letters *even though* it was
*not* a signator to the Declaration of Paris.

It's not clear to me that the US Congress *actually issued* Letters of
Marque and Reprisal after the War of 1812 (although privateers were used by
the Texas Navy in the War of Independence in 1836, and were used by the CSA
against the North during the Civil War). I don't think they did so in the
War with Mexico.

> Their views on principles remain valid. Their writing about technology
> is obsolete.

Where is the line drawn about the use of technology to maintain the
principles they espoused? Why is it inappropriate to apply the principles
to whatever technology happens to come up with?

> Letters of Marque are clearly obsolete.

I happen to agree with you as a matter of *opinion*, but I cannot agree that
it is either clearly the only valid conclusion or, for that matter, fact.

> So is the notion of State
> Militia to protect us from federal standing armies -- they've never
> been employed.

That they have not been employed is irrelevant.

> So where does that leave the people, with their arms? Given a
> Constitution that's very difficult to amend, it leaves them in limbo
> .. buffeted by court decisions on one side and administrative
> bureaucrats on the other. The Constitution is not a solid island of
> surety that many long for.

What of that *sizeable* part of the American Electorate that ranks it
somewhere above the First Five Books of the Bible in terms of divine
inspiration?

> No, I still don't see it. Article 1.8.11 doesn't grant any rights to
> US citizens. It assumes privateers will be available, primarily from
> other countries or no country, without giving Americans permission to
> be privateers. The only permission it grants, in the Second Amendment,
> is referred to in Article 1.8.12.

The presumption is that privateers exist, and there is *no* presumption that
they will be "primarily from other countries or no country". I *believe*,
in fact, the overwhelming majority of *privateers* were *American* ships
with *American* captains and *American* crews. In the War of 1812, there
were 23 ships in the US Navy and 517 "official" privateers. Maryland alone
had sent out 40 armed privateers before the end of the first year of the
war. Where's the evidence for the presumption that privateers are primarily
furriners?

> It would not be appropriate to issue a Letter of Marque to a private
> army armed with thirty carriage-mounted guns.

My point is that it would be appropriate for a US citizen to own thirty
large guns whether those guns were considered arms suitable for militia and
mounted on carriages (2nd Amendment) or suitable for use by a privateer and
mounted on board a ship (Article 1.8.11).

> Lacking 'enabling legistlation', one assumes they're from outside the
> US.

One does, does one? What historical evidence do you have for that
presumption? The premise that a US citizen is only permitted to do what a
Federal law expressly allows him to do? That one's new to me ...

> Kieth will play Johnny's father in the sequel. Art imitates life.

And that's supposed to be of interest to me ... exactly why? Like as not
if I see the sequel it will be as a family afternoon with my foster
daughter. Somehow I doubt that such a film will have the impact on me that
"Battleship Potemkin", "Max Havelaar", "Dodeskaden" or even "Fargo" have
had.

> The classically-inclined musicians I know call it Art Music, not
> Classical Music,

The classically-*trained* musicians I know refer to it as "serious" music,
if they're trying to reserve the term "classical" to indicate the period
that stretches from Glueck and Salieri through early Beethoven. I've only
heard dilettantes refer to it as "art music".

> and compose their own

Well, goody for them.

> inspired by the one whose name
> I adopted: Richard Wagner,

Well, goody for you. I'm not that impressed by Wagner; I find his work
more than a little self-indulgent (though not quite so much so as
Tchaikowski). Give me Mahler, or better still, Hindemith!

> who introduced complexity.

*WHAT*??? Surely you jest! I can see an argument for Wagner
introducing concepts like "leitmotif" into the realm of opera, and of
eliminating the "numbers opera" and a more complete fusion of musical and
dramatic elements to form "music drama". But *complexity*?

Have you not looked at the works of Bach (who died 63 years before Wagner
was born), much less those of Orlando diLasso (who died 91 years after Bach
died) or Thomas Tallis (who died nine years before diLasso). Check out the
score for Tallis' "Spem in Alium" for linear complexity, or that of
diLasso's "Prophetiae Sybillarum" for harmonic adventurism. Then come back
and convince me that Wagner is fundamentally innovative for *complexity*.
Or for that matter, consider the *architecture* of either the Art of Fugue
or the Mass in B Minor by Bach.

I've actually sung in the chorus of full-scale productions of Dutchman,
Meistersinger and Rienzi, and have listened through the Ring Cycle many
times. I've tried to listen to Tannhaeuser, Lohengrin, Tristan and
Parsifal on several occasions. Bo-ring. I'm not a huge fan of Wagner or of
the Late Romantics in general. Way too self-indulgent.

> I was born a
> Quackenbush, changed it because the Marx Brothers despoiled my
> surname.

Oh, there's a good reason. How did your parents like that?

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-11, 3:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:crv543$63b$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <peu5u01re3fascebdunqchrcdn37ushvsu@4ax.com>,

> However... the rights of speech and press, in the First Amendment, have
> been shown to apply over changes in technology. For what reasons would
> the right of the Second Amendment be handled any differently?

Thank you, Doc, I agree. And my further point is that The Sorts Of Arms a
private citizen may be presumed to own -- even *without* the Second
Amendment -- include fully-armed battleships (Article 1.8.11). They
included that *before and during* the Revolutionary war, during the
Constitutional Convention, and during the War of 1812 as a matter of
*practice*. The US decided not to *issue* such letters formally for the
first time in 1898, relative to the Spanish-American War, and didn't sign an
international treaty agreeing not to do so until 1907.

I see nothing *constitutional* that *restricts* that; the Second Amendment
*emphasizes* it. Without that implicit permission Letters of Marque and
Reprisal couldn't reasonably be issued *to US Citizens* by Congress, and I
see no such constitutional restriction.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-11, 3:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:cs12m1$24is$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...

Typo:

For

> was born), much less those of Orlando diLasso (who died 91 years after
Bach
> died)

please read

> was born), much less those of Orlando diLasso (who died 91 years before
Bach
> was born)

-Chuck Stevens

Robert Wagner

2005-01-11, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:15:30 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 4-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>You're confusing mission with method. Marines have told me that their job is
>to take an objective and then hand it over to the Army to keep it.

I never heard that. We viewed the Army as competitors. They viewed us
as immature cannon fodder.

>
>It's not obvious that marksmanship is directly related to the task of
>information gathering.

Marksmanship was for fun. Stalking people and animals was job-related.
--------------------------------------------------------

Returning to the subject line, this article shows what happens when
religion tries to do science:

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/m...ws/10554404.htm

Robert Wagner

2005-01-11, 8:55 pm

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:19:36 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 4-Jan-2005, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>The English says it applies to the people.

Why didn't they write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed?" It appears to me the militia clause is an
explanation -- BECAUSE a militia is necessary for security. In that
case, it doesn't apply to every individual, it means The People
collectively, specifically those individuals who are militia
members. Militia is defined in 10 USCS 311 as able-bodied men between
17 and 45 who are not members of the military.

The Second Amendment is based on a false premise. The militia has
never been called to serve, and probably never will be. It is NOT
"necessary to the security of a free State".

>
>It doesn't say. But that doesn't cloud what the words say.

States regulate the militia. The Constitution says so in the Tenth
Amendment.

>
>Should it? The English above just says that militia is necessary.

Many things are necessary .. like air. One assumes there is a logical
connection between the two clauses in the Second Amendment. They
didn't include the first clause to fill space.

>That could
>be useful in defining "arms" to include what could be u