Recent Comments by scheherazade subscribe to this feed

Hey Incels, women don’t owe you anything

scheherazade says...

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.

And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)

Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)

Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.


Louis C.K. Stand-Up Monologue - SNL

Why the White Man Gotta Be King of the Jungle?

scheherazade says...

I believe it's a 'monkey' joke.

Because some primate species (barring exceptional individuals) won't go into the water.


RFlagg said:

Swim. He said swim. I've heard the stereotype joke before, but not sure where it comes from... and I'm way too tired to google it out... Okay, no I'm not. lots of the other google responses were a bit too offensive and this gave some possible reasons to the question.

Colbert Takes the Gloves Off: Gun Control

scheherazade says...

The rep version wasn't too bad.

Basically the status quo, but would get the person flagged onto LE radar along with a 3 day delay.

Doesn't crap too hard on innocent people, while at least drawing attention... in case attention is needed.

All in all a decent compromise, given that the watch list is packed full of innocent people that were robo-flagged.


SDGundamX said:

It broke down along party lines with each party voting for its own measure and against the opposition's. To be honest all the proposals were shit and didn't deserve to be passed, so yea for democracy actually working. Passing knee jerk legislation in the wake of a tragedy is how we got the TSA, Guantanamo, and massive NSA data collection.

Colbert Takes the Gloves Off: Gun Control

scheherazade says...

1 in every 300 Americans is on the terror watch list.

Dems cried about how bad the watch list is, how it's unfair that innocent people are flagged and have practically zero ability to get their name off the list (unless they're some big wig).


But now it's not a retarded broken list that unjustly punishes innocent people without due process. Now it's good to go.


Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

"Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)"

Well, it's now off topic, but still equally detached from the statement that followed.

I could say "because kids sports helps child development, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear sports equipment".

So, would it then be that only sports teams can have sports equipment? Only children? Only young children?
Or how about people (i.e. multiple persons) can bare sports equipment, just so if/when they want to teach their kids to play and put them on a team, they have that ability?

Honestly, it sounds more like a rule that is in place to preserve a specific capacity, and less like a rule in place to assign a restricted use.
Otherwise, it would make more sense to replace 'the people' with 'kids sports teams' and make it particular to a restricted use. There's no need to even mention the people.

Ok, I think we read around each other.

I though that earlier you had said that Hamilton was in opposition to the idea of the lesser "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education" - which confused me because I thought that Hamilton was in favor of a "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education".
And now I see you actually meant the same thing I wrote.


newtboy said:

OK, one last reply.... They didn't do commentary pieces in the constitution. If it's in there, it's because it's important to understanding the law/right it's attached to.
OK, it's meaningless huh?...."[Because our countrymen having farmers tans and wearing wife beaters is an inalienable right, the] right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)

Bi yearly training/testing was Hamilton's FAR LESS invasive and LESS time wasting idea to counter the idea of a "well regulated militia" which he saw as far too time consuming for the entire populace to live up to. HIS way of seeing it was that twice yearly proficiency and equipment testing was far LESS restrictive than what "well regulated militia" meant...because to live up to "well regulated militia" would require extensive training, and re-training constantly.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

Regulation *can* mean operating under government direction.

If militia is open to regulation, then the government only needs to make such a regulation.

The option is there for the taking.

That's why the idea of an entity needing a protection from the government, when the government can simply require the entity to serve the government's will, is moot.

All good. We can agree to disagree. Cheers.


newtboy said:

I disagree completely that a militia that follows basic regulations is somehow an agent of and under the direction of the government that makes those regulations, that's nutty and paranoid thinking. "Regulation" does not mean 'operates at the discretion of' or 'under the sole direction of' or even 'operates only in ways the government supports'. It means there are basic rules to follow to be in compliance with the law. Your characterization is silly on it's face, and totally wrong IMO.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, some people in regulated (self regulation is not any regulation, BTW) militias (it's members thereafter known as "the people") would have to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily let individuals keep them at home, one 'regulation' could easily be that the arms must remain in the firm custody of the militia at all times, not be taken home by members, and not used outside militia activities. Again, I find your characterization silly.

HILARIOUS. You are now saying only NON regulated militias have a right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the exact words of the document?! Now who wants to re-write the law?!? ;-)

"Well regulated" is one of those terms that's left to the Judicial to define since they didn't define it in the document. Sorry. That makes your argument moot.

The word "People" denies the individual. If the rights are only secured for "people", they are not secured for a single "person". Two different words.

Again, I disagree 100% with your entire premise.

"So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'."

No, only in your silly argument have you established that to yourself. I do not concede at all, and disagree with every point of your premise.

I grow weary of this. I get your point. I strongly disagree. Enough said.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :

The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.

So, let's look at scope.

If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.

So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.

So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights

This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.

But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.

In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.


Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

That, or they simply wanted to be clear about why the rule is of utmost importance - to preserve a public capacity.

In any case, in the end it made it into the constitution - most supreme law we have. "[Because reasons ...] right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They could have put in the bi-yearly training requirements right there. But they decided not to. They just left it at that. That description given by Hamilton is close to what eventually got to paper. Whether he was for or against it, ok (I searched for a quote that was along those lines, I could be thinking of a different guy). My understanding was that he didn't like any ideas. Military can be abused to impose tyranny, militia can be unmotivated and misbehaved (unless hyperbole).

I thought it was that paper, but I can't find it as I scan through, I thought he (or someone else?) wanted a subset of individuals trained in military arts, that could organize and direct militias should conflict arise, to take the burden of military-level training off of citizens.


newtboy said:

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)

Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.


newtboy said:

Exactly....but now it's interpreted to give a right to a single individual...300000000 times.
Yes, you could, but that militia must be well regulated (which doesn't mean it never wets the bed or cries about it's parents being mean) before it meets the criteria to be protected...technically.

Your contention that "regulated" as a legal term actually means "adjusted", as if a "well adjusted militia" was a phrase that makes any sense, or did back then, makes no sense. You may continue to claim it, I will continue to contradict it. Unless you have some written description by a founding father saying exactly that, it's just, like, your Try reading "Miracle at Philadelphia" for context.

If Y and Z didn't exist, but are incredibly similar to X, then it's reasonable to interpret laws to include Y and Z....if they existed and were not EXCLUDED, it's up to the judicial to interpret meaning...the less clear they are in meaning, the more power they give the judicial. Today, congress is as unclear as possible, and complain constantly that they are interpreted 'wrong'.

It's not a simple matter to make any law matter how clear the need is for a law or how reasonable and universally the concept is accepted. Sadly. It SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not.

The court never "jumps the gun". They only interpret/re-interpret laws that are challenged, and a reasonable challenge means the law is in some way open to interpretation.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).

"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.


newtboy said:

According to whom?

They don't normally do that. They decide "well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" is how they usually interpret laws. Creating entirely new law based on entirely new circumstances is NOT how they are supposed to work...but I do admit it has happened, just not often.

The Judicial exists for a reason. Interpreting and enforcing laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and interpret laws so the legislature can (not) do theirs and write new laws to cover new circumstances or re-write old ones to actually SAY what's intended, and remove or redefine parts that have been interpreted in ways that were not intended.

EDIT: I would point out that it's judicial interpretation that has given the right to own and bear arms to individual citizens rather than only well regulated militias, the amendment only specifically gives it to "people" not "persons"...which technically means only groups of people are allowed to own them. It was new, recent judicial interpretation based on a challenge to the DC gun ban that granted the right to individuals, no where in the amendment does it spell out that individuals may own and bear arms.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.

The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.


newtboy said:

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.

You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.

The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.

Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.

Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.


newtboy said:

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then. just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

The supreme court is in a position to take liberties because there is no court above it to which one can appeal.

Courts have a mandate to judge compliance with the law - not to redefine the law (that's the legislature's role).

If due process was followed, courts would find cases like 'yelling fire' as protected, and refer the law to the legislature to exempt-from-1st-amentment-protection any inappropriate behaviors via new written constitutional law.

As it stands, there are many judicial opinions that are enforcible via the legal system, that are never written down as law by the legislature.

Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce. The courts are just people. The law is only as important to them as they will it to be. If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm.

(aside : Yelling fire is a stupid example. If you did it, everyone would look around, and then look at you, and would be like "wtf are you talking about?")

Words are written to convey meanings. They don't exist for their own sake. The 1791 meaning of "well regulated" is similar to today's meaning "well adjusted". It would be best summarized as "orderly" or "properly functioning". It has nothing to do with government regulation.

Similarly, "eminent domain" means "obvious domain" (obvious because republic, and every citizen (i.e. statesman) owns the country collectively, and you never actually owned your land, you only had a title to be the sole user).
Sounds weird by todays' standards, but back then the norm was that regular people had nothing and the crown (and its friends) owned everything. Republic sounded quite progressive at the time. Remember, the U.S. revolution was just prior to the French revolution. Kingdoms were the norm.

Sounds a bit different when translated from 1700's english to 2000's english.


newtboy said:

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the

Native American Bummer | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

scheherazade says...

Were there [successful] complaints at some point during the civil rights movement about black defendants being tried by all white juries? I have some vague memory about that being 'a [legal] thing' at some point. I could be imagining it. In any case, it came to mind when watching the first part of the video, so I wonder if there's some precedent in place for what dollar general is claiming.


Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon