FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) And don't make the mistake that the primary argument for individual gun ownership is based on the need for a militia. But based on the language of 2A, that IS the primary argument. "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." Again, there does not seem to be much debate among constitutional scholars that securing individual private ownership of firearms was not the primary objective of 2A, and that Madison inserted the language only after Jefferson objected to the absence of a security against a standing army.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) It's in the code I posted: "10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA Pertinent portion: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." OK, I can follow that so far. Now, where is the modern mechanism by which all able-bodied citizens are called to national service in the militia? If that is laid out equally well, I'll have to revise my opinion considerably. As of now, my belief is that a callup of average able-bodied US citizenry is not actually possible and so my citing 2A as ensuring my right to own a gun because someday I'm going to get that call is flawed.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 03:31 AM) Well, if you go the wrong way in f***ing, it's all a dirt road. ouch.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) BTW, you, me, and most people on Soxtalk are already members of the militia. A point well-taken and one I had already noted a couple of posts earlier, via Jefferson: By 1802 the central government had collected enough data to realize that the citizens were very under-armed, and by 1808 there began to be an annual allocation of federal dollars to help arm the citizen militia. It was an amount that was not even 1% of what would have actually been required to fully arm the people, but it demonstrates early precedent for the government to assume some responsibility for arming the citizen army, ala the national Guard. This is the part I'm not up to speed on. If you can, please provide those pertinent bits from the 1950's revisions that clearly distinguish an American citizen militia from the National Guard. I will certainly add this information to my considerations on the subject. btw, it's not just me an a handful of liberal constitutional scholars that see the National Guard as the only extant lawfully sanctioned proxy for the citizen militia Jefferson had in mind. The Guard itself points this out and is extremely proud of that heritage. They specifically cite their charter as the militia clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Here's a really good National Guard page that sumarises all of the constitutional and federal legislative acts that sanction today's National Guard. I think the actual strawman in the debate is the notion that any modern mechanism exists by which you, me, most people on Soxtalk, and the citizenry in general could be called into service in the manner Jefferson envisioned. The experiences f the American Revolution, I think, gave Jefferson a faith in a citizen militia that was entirely unrealistic, and this was borne out in any post-Revolutionary conflicts in which the militia was called into service. If, in fact, the mechanisms for a callup of the average citizen are broken, then I think it is a charade for gun-toting contingent of the population to cite the civil defense need for an armed militia as per 2A as the primary protection of the right for individual gun ownership.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 08:03 AM) But again, as the quote that Strange posted earlier states... what difference does that make? The militia was a citizens' army, not a national one. They are one in the same for this purpose. A militia is not a standing national army. The National Guard is not a standing national army. That is what the militia's of Madison and Jefferson evolved into, to the degree that the National Defense Act specifically refers to the constitutionally derived authority of the federal government to call the Guard to national service in time of crisis. Do you think that today's "militias" – extremists armed paramilitary groups driven an anti-government conspiracy-oriented ideologies were the types of people Jefferson thought the nation would be able to call upon to repel an invading force?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 06:47 PM) Simple question. Why is this man still both alive and able to run around free? Because our president is "not really concerned about him"??

Back to the chicken-and-eggism, and my well supported belief that protecting the state militias, not codifying the rights of individuals to own firearms, is the crux of the second amendment biscuit (remember this is back when it was unthinkable to have a standing American army during peacetime). From a December 2007 piece by P.A. Madison on federalistBlog: The author also notes: Here's some similar thoughts by paul Finkleman from a 200 Chicago-Kent Law Review article. So, no, I don't think 2A was ever strictly intended to explicitly secure the rights of individuals to own firearms. I think the framers and Federalists alike would have believed that right would rest with the states and not the Federal government. That said, since 9A goes on to bar denial of unenumerated rights, and since individuals indeed needed to possess arms in order to operate within a militia, there continues to be a lot of room for interpretation. Still, it is clear that the Framers didn't include 2A in response to demands that individuals' rights to own weapons be ensured. the reality is that nothing in modern America resembles the militias as Jefferson understood them. . . The only regulated entities that come close to this in concept are the units of the National Guard. And it is the National Guard – not whackjob backwoods private gunclub armise – that today can be called to service of the US in times of emergency under authority granted by the Constitution. This was clearly laid out in the 1916 National Defense Act. It's a convenient but preposterous NRA myth that the hodgepodge of gun-toting individuals were the militiamen the framers had in mind when drafting the second amendment. But the right to own firearms is certainly not denied here. The right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be a state consideration not to be infringed at the federal level.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) What about those with the 20/20 foresight that invading Iraq was going to be a huge disaster? My ears were burning.

I'm sensitive to the chicken-and-eggism inherent in this statement, but I believe the necessity of the well regulated Militia was the superceding concern of the Framers here. The right of the individual to bear arms derives from the Framers belief that the state militias were an important check on government abuse (i.e, the need for a standing army).

I feature a great Arthur Clarke quote on an exhibit panel in the oceanographic visitor center I manage: I've always liked that. Mr. Clarke, a gifted writer and visionary.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) yeah, there is some really weird stuff here. Didn't any of their friends wonder why they hadn't seen her in two years? There is a lot here that does not add up... That's certainly the first impression any normal person would have. But then we see stories about fatasses that grow into their couch from sitting on it so long and as unbelievable as that seems apparently it happens. In that case, iirc, the person actually cut a hole in the couch and floor in order to attend to bodily functions. I guess if you're perched on a toilet that's by definition not an issue. But, damn, my ass and leggs fall asleep if I'm on the pot for 20 minutes or so. But TWO YEARS!??!

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 15, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) You can't just say...I really like Obama and am still voting for him, I just wish he showed some better judgement here or I love everything obama, but this is f***ed up and I have to put one strike against my guy. Yes, actually I've done exactly that with this revelation about Obama's pastor. I don't at all like the fact that he's continued to belong to the same church for 20 years if he so thoroughly denounces all of the controversial aspects of the pastor's message. It doesn't mean i all of a sudden believe anothr candidate is a better choice, but I end up feeling frustrated/angry with Obama for either: 1) not having enough moral conviction to take a stand and leave this particular congregation if he disagreed with so much of what the paster espoused, or 2) maybe agreeing with the pastor on some of those views, even if now it's not politically convenient to cop to it. It is definitely a strike against the guy in my book, and it's not the first one but may be the biggest as far as my belief that this can be a guy to help move the country past some of this ugliness.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 07:14 PM) at least Obama, Clinton, and McCain voted anti-pork. which is encouraging. To bad all 100 Senators aren't currently running for President. On the teleco immunity issue, I think the House bill is an entirely reasonable compromise even though its very unlikely to get past the Senate much less signed by the president. Allowing a judge to confidentially review evidence would allow the telecos to defend themselves and would also protect the necessary secrecy of the surveillance programs. imo, only the certainty of the administration that they indeed asked the telecos to do illegal acts would keep them from signing the bill.

Middle Buffalo slams Grandpa Tex's age and weight with but a single zinger:

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) I believe that the masses that pay to see the movies in the theatres have a bigger impact on "re-imaginations" and "reboots" that we keep seeing. The directors get killed by critics and viewers alike for not being realistic enough in this day and age of CGI effects and HD. The Hulk in the comic books evolved into something different, I think I can accept a movie evolution as well. You're right, of course the audience now is a little more sophisticated than comic book readers in 1963. Still in all, just looking at comics I think Marvel and (especially) DC have retconned some of the coolest features of their respective universes out of existence by trying to keep things interesting after a several-decades long run. I guess I'm just the crusty old guy that doesn't want anybody f**king around too much with the things I got off on as a kid.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 12:31 PM) If we did go down that path, and use the comparisons between marijuana laws and alcohol, would it not be equally logical to conclude that we should ban alcohol, just like we ban marijuana? stop with the crazy talk already. :drink Alcohol Is Your Friend :drink

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) *You* posted it. Holy Cr@ppp! :o That is unsettling indeed. Yikes, that's not what I linked to. I linked to a goofball panflute flowchart and the chuckleheads and Chucklehead went and swapped the image. THIS is what was supposed to be there: Now the question, do I revise history and delete Mr. Manboobs on Parade or do I live him up to scar the psyches of everybody who reads the thread?

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) there is an interview of the director on screenrant, here is part of his explanation of the Abomination: Yeah, folks who want comic book heroes to be more plausible just don't get comic books imo. You said you don't want characters to be different from the comic versions, but for that matter the whole reboot of the Hulk origin – lab experiment gone wrong versus the cheesy but brilliant GAMMA BOMB BLAST!!! – is a big revision that irks me. I know that Silver Age comics were really hokey and completely implausible and all, but that's what I loved about them. Heck, the Golden Age stuff was even worse, but if they ever do a film version of the Jay Garrick Flash then he sure as hell had better have gotten his powers by breathing hard water fumes ( :lolhitting ) or I will channel the spirit of Gardner Fox and kick some Hollywod screenwriter's a$$.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) the initial picture on the page was changed. It was a Bearded first, then they changed it to a gecko later in the day, probably due to someone like me emailing them about it. I owned both, I had Leopard, brown, and tokay Geckos, and a female Bearded dragon. It was a stock photo from getty images of a dragon on a vet table or something OK, then, I'll rescind my suspicions over your herp acumen. And now I know who to talk with about crazy-cool things like anoles having two penises and such that usually make normal people wriggle a bit uncomfortably.

I done hit the wall. No loss or gain this week. No exercise, a couple of second helpings I didn't need, and a weak moment involving a mess of hot garlic Buffalo wings sums up my week. Poop.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 02:41 AM) OH MY F'N GOD IT'S MRS. BIGFOOT! QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) What IS that? QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 14, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) The pic of the day from Jim's porn collection What the heck are you all referring to? I don't think I'm seeing the image you're talking about.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) Geckos feet inspire high tech bandage I know its petty, but they don't even have a picture of a gecko, they have a picture of a bearded dragon. Im a stickler for this type of stuff because I used to own both a bearded dragon and a gecko, and they really dont look that much alike Beg differ, but your mad herpetologist skilz apparently aren't what they used to be. The animal pictured in that piece is in fact a New Caledonian crested gecko, Rhacodactylus ciliatus. The spikey projections above the eyes are a dead giveaway. Some other shots of this species that include the more gecko-like anatomical aspects. The head of the animal pictured in the article doesn't look quite as robust as the shots above, but there is quite a bit of morphological variation among the strains sold as pets. The thin-head animals are sometimes called crowned geckos. There is also sexual dimorphism in teh species, with only the males having the crown. And while they have spikes just about everywhere else, none of the Pogona (bearded dragons) species I know of have the eyelash=looking things the crested geckos have. Pagona vitticeps (pic below), is the one typicallly sold as pets, and you can see it's quite a bit different than the crested gecko.

If only Zamfir had seen this flowchart in time. . .

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 08:16 PM) I was against this one at first. I have since changed my mind Hell Yeah! When I was a kid, Speed racer was my world. I was also worried a live-action version would suck until I found out the matrix Brothers were going to be doing it. I saw Snake Oiler in there and I think I caught a glimpse of the flippin' mammoth Car too! Now, if they manage to get Kabbalah of Kopetipek in there and then have Inspector Detector show up for good measure, I'll be happy.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 13, 2008 -> 07:23 PM) They'd laugh thinking that the film was sped up, but actually, that's just how fast you finish. I kid because, I like to be a follower. ™ Get in. Get out. Get a sammich. Ladies Man, that's what I am.