StrangeSox

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) I would assume that in a word definition, that all definitions would be valid. Not when the definitions vary in meaning and are describing militias as defined around the world. Reading the rest of that wiki, along with the associated US militia wiki and official US code makes it pretty clear on what the definition of a militia in the US is, and its a bit more than your chopped up definition. A military draft is not the same as calling out the unorganized militia.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125538.html Who needs actual police work to corroborate "informant" tips when you can just go in and bust some doors down?

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia No but the Army Reserve and National Guard apply. You selected one definition out of several they provide. Here's the entire definition portion: The Army is not a militia. The National Guard is not a militia in the sense of 2A, as it is part of the Army. Here is a more complete article on the United States militia. Note that in 1903, the organized and unorganized militias were split up legally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29 Why should only military and police get handguns? Don't civilians deserve the right to defend themselves?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) To my eyes, this simply makes no sense in the modern era. Having an armed populace does not in any way make the government more afraid of the people today...because the government is so much better armed. If the government felt the urge to execute every American (and could convince the army to go along with it) it wouldn't matter at all whether or not you had your small arms. Yes, it is an additional power denied to the government and I understand that. However, pretending that the 2nd Amendment is going to keep George from declaring himself King George the 2nd doesn't make sense to me, and hence, I don't see how you can consider it integral to anything. If the right to bear arms went away tomorrow and every gun in the nation magically vanished, aside from denying a few people the ability to go hunting and making a few areas more dangerous to travel because of actual wildlife, the impact on most people's lives would be practically zero, and the government wouldn't suddenly be more able to decide to become oppressive and start listening in on all my phone calls or something like that. That's another straw man. The government would never conceivably do such a thing and the 2nd amendment is not there to stop such an action (never mind that large chunks of the armed forces would break off and fight back under such circumstances). It would not benefit them. The right to bear arms is a check on oppression, not genocide. Again, look at what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan and what's happening to us in Iraq. Small groups of loosely organized people who are vastly overpowered in weapons, tactics, and numbers are causing an awful lot of problems.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) Because my .22 is going to be able to stand up to a couple of Abrams tanks and a few B-2's. See: Iraq, Afghanistan (2000's and 1980's versions)

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 10:19 AM) I do understand that civil defense and emergency response at the local level is the primary duty of state militias, so no, that's not my problem. My problem is that Article II states that the President shall be the COC of the state militias when they are called into actual service of the United States, yet I see no functioning mechanism by which the various private fringe militias can be called to national service. The need for state militias to be called to national service is no longer necessary because we have a standing army. As far as I'm aware, whatever mechanism was used back then is still in place today. That mechanism has always been the appropriate person (governor, President) simply calling militia members into service. Many of the resistance groups in Iraq (at least early on, there's a lot of foreign influence now) were militias. There was no national direction and leadership, but it was still militias of armed citizens. The national security need for a militia is pretty much defunct. That is not the only need for a militia. If you act in self-defense of yourself or others, that is an act of a citizen militia.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) This is where I need remedial education. If a citizen militia is explicitly stated as being necessary for national security , how could the militia possibly meet that need if it was not required to possess the ability to be called into national service?? Is it that cut-and-dried? I don't think so, or there would be no national debate on the issue. There's your problem; its not. It's more of a state and local-level emergency response, not a national defense force. There does not need to be government action for a militia response.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) 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. Even if the need is no longer there (it is), the right still exists. The second clause stands on its own.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) 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. National service is not the requirement and purpose of a general militia. That's the purpose of the National Guard which is a reserve unit of the Army and Air Force.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:13 AM) 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. It's in the code I posted: If the National Guard WAS the militia, that part would be unnecessary. As its written, it clearly and cleanly identifies the NG and the militia as separate entities. Also, if the NG was the militia, this code would mean that we are all members of the NG, which isn't true. I think the founders' stance on gun control is pretty clear and that gives you a good idea on whether or not they viewed the right to keep and bear arms as an individual or collective right. Don't own a gun. Don't know that I ever will. And don't make the mistake that the primary argument for individual gun ownership is based on the need for a militia. I was just refuting the idea that the NG is the modern-day militia, no matter what they may claim.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 09:10 AM) Without an end point the show is Gilligan's Island with bad people. I would bet that the outline is complete and like you said they are just trying to keep in interesting and rake in dough until it is all finished. The sub-plots I think are the hit or miss pieces. I still think the last episode is going to have to be two straight hours (no commercials) of the creators in a room with white boards and power points explaining everything. The main story line will wrap up nicely, but I think there will be some sub plots here and there that don't get fully explained.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 08:19 AM) 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? No one is making that argument, so its a strawman. BTW, you, me, and most people on Soxtalk are already members of the militia. This code was revised in the 50's, so it isn't just an 18th century hold-over. It also clearly states that the militia is NOT the same as the National Guard. Some more pertinent quotes:

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 11:38 PM) Uh, I'm going to assume that was supposed to be a green comment. Because in 2007, based on ERA, Buehrle would have only been a #3 on 2 AL teams, which would have been the Angels and Indians. And on all but 6 teams, Buehrle would have been the ace in 2007. Again, this is based on ERA. The durability and quiet leadership that Mark brings to our club is extremely underrated, and I think most people with baseball smarts know this. Rowand's comment was so over-the-top in response to the idea that Buerhle is a #3 at best that it didn't require green.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 04:03 PM) Seems to me like his campaign did the same thing today in a 5 year war statement. Doesn't seem that way to me. They said AQ and Shia, with support from places like Iran, not that AQ is Shia and Iran is supporting them. The unstated link is there, of course (like Saddam-9/11), but I wouldn't call this a gaffe.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:07 PM) Based on the way he's being looked at going into this season compared to the way he's pitched the last two seasons (although he was a lot better last year), I'd say he is. And Buehrle might be my favorite player, but he's a #3 starter right now on a good team, and is regarded as a 1 and a half but a lot of people. What teams would Buehrle be a #3 on? He might not be a #1 on several teams, but if he's their #3, then they have one hell of a staff.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) Not when you're talking about it being .240 vs. .135 it's not, no. And that's ONLY because Josh is 6 for his last 14. They both have been disappointing this spring. The difference between .135 and .240 and .235 and .340 is the same. You're getting a hit 10% more of the time.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) I think this show had to be written from start to finish before airing or at least the the main storyline and gist of the island. The writers have the next two seasons laid out it is simply filling in the space and creating the dialouge. Should they decide to go in a different direction I guess they could but I beleive they have the ending all figured out. This is to hard to sketch out one episode or season at a time. They have claimed from the beginning that the "Adam & Eve" skeletons found in Season 1 will show that they knew where the story was going to end the entire time.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) After looking at it a little more, I think Aaron is one of the 6. The "Oceaianic Six" is not really an official title for anything, rather just a phrase the media obviously came up with it. Because there were six humans that got off the island(as far as we know, Jack-Kate-Hugo-Sayid-Sun-Aaron) they became the 6. I really thought because Aaron never physically was on the plane, and that he never had a ticket, he couldn't be part of it, but it's not really a very technical term when you look at it big picture. If you go by Jack's testimony, he said something to the effect of "8 people survived the crash and two later died." It would be odd to say that an unborn child survived the crash the way he said it. BTW, the Lostpedia is ridiculous. I particularly like this "literary device" they use in certain episodes: WARNING, STRONG LANGUAGE

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) Ok, I think I get what he was saying now. I get the 10th amendment I was just confused by the end of the post, he was saying everything in the BoR is an individual right except that one. Sorry if I didn't explain myself well. Amendments 1 and 3-9 are clearly individual rights. You have the individual right to free speech, individual right to trial by jury, etc. Amendment 10 is clearly speaking about limits on the Federal government's powers and does not address anything that could be considered an individual right (there was a lot of opposition to the idea of a "Bill of Rights" as they feared it would be seen as the ONLY rights granted to people by the government, so I think this is the way around that). Now, that leaves us with the 2nd amendment. Given all of the speech used by the framers and the fact that every other amendment deals with the individual rather than the collective, I believe that the 2nd amendment does refer to an individual right to keep and bare arms. Too bad the framers didn't just write something more precise! I think this comment, from the SCOTUS blog I posted, nails the point home: Here's another question from Roberts during yesterday's arguments:

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 09:24 AM) I really lose all respect for the dopes that backed the war and then just feel we should up and leave. We made our bed now we need to lie in it. I love the hindsite being 20/20 of these morons. If you leave Iraq in shambles, it becomes hot bed for terrorism as there is no governemnt in place. That is the intent of the attcks now. You can not just up and leave and let the place fester. Fools. What about those with the 20/20 foresight that invading Iraq was going to be a huge disaster?

I listened to the arguments live yesterday. Gura (arguing against DC) didn't have good answers for where the court should set limits for gun bans/ restrictions. Dillinger (for DC) kept answering the judges by blowing off their questions and saying "but the real issue is...." I don't think SC judges like being told their questions aren't important and that they don't know what is important about the case. Listening to the hearings, I got the clear impression that the SC will interpret an individual right to firearms ownership but will allow some restrictions on "reasonable" civilian possession -- i.e. civilians shouldn't have rocket launchers and machine guns, but that things like the DC (and probably Chicago) gun bans are unconstitutional. A nice wrap-up with plenty of links. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized...ument-round-up/ My thoughts are this: Isn't every other right in the BoR* clearly an individual's right? Why would this one be any different? *The 10th reserves powers not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government for the States and people and the language makes it clear that its a collective/ government right.

Anyone know of a good gym with a pool in the Woodridge/ Downers Grove area? I'd love to start swimming, and the HS only has one night of lap swimming a week.

Dupre was in Girls Gone Wild videos. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/dupree.gi...d.ap/index.html

Dollar up, too. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/18/markets/do...sion=2008031815