Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Oh i think the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun. I just think there's plenty of evidence that one of the main reasons the Founders wanted that right protected is to preserve the notion of a temporary "citizen army", like the Romans and Greeks used to have. Cincinnatus picking up his sword when the need arose, but always retiring afterwards to tend to his olive trees or whatever.

I have no clue what the Founders would think of AR-15 style rifles and if the ordinary citizen has as much of a right to own such a weapon as an 18th century single-shot flintlock. Anyone claiming to be sure of what Jefferson would think is likely talking out their ass.

I approach it more along the lines of the language is clear and you better have a good reason to deviate. So, if we don’t what Madison thought about AR-15s then the default is the language absent a compelling argument to the contrary.

And if semi-automatic rifles aren’t protected then I’m not sure what is. Semi-automatic handguns? Is the distinction really between handgun vs rifle (they’re both semi-automatic)? Weren’t all available rifles protected in 1789?

Again, you either approach it like a real right or you don’t. And I’m fine if it’s the latter. I used to be in that camp. But if it’s a real right then substitute freedom of speech for every argument you make. Yeah, we may not “know” what Madison would think of Internet blogs but we default to protecting the right.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I approach it more along the lines of the language is clear and you better have a good reason to deviate. So, if we don’t what Madison thought about AR-15s then the default is the language absent a compelling argument to the contrary.

And if semi-automatic rifles aren’t protected then I’m not sure what is. Semi-automatic handguns? Is the distinction really between handgun vs rifle (they’re both semi-automatic)? Weren’t all available rifles protected in 1789?

Again, you either approach it like a real right or you don’t. And I’m fine if it’s the latter. I used to be in that camp. But if it’s a real right then substitute freedom of speech for every argument you make. Yeah, we may not “know” what Madison would think of Internet blogs but we default to protecting the right.

I don't think I'm approaching it as a "phony" right, I'm just drawing a different line than you when it comes to restrictions. There's a good chance you think some of the other Amendments should be more limited than I do.

And FWIW I don't think the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear and direct in the same way the 1st Amendment is clear. The language is odd and indirect. Why is that clause about the well-regulated militia even in there if the Amendment's entire sole purpose was just to protect individual ownership? Even though I will repeat, I do think it protects individual gun ownership. But if the 2nd Amendment was intended to serve nothing MORE than that purpose, it's should've just read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

[Hannibal]

The only "guns" in 1776 were muskets so the Progs say we should ban all because of that.

Nothing to see here.

It ain't even true. Private citizens can and did own cannons.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I know. But Progs are claiming it was just muskets.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Senate passes gun bill 65-33, onto the House.

[lineygoblue]

The founding fathers may have been only thinking about muskets when they were considering the right to bear arms.

But I doubt they were thinking of aborting babies when they were discussing the right to privacy.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The founding fathers may have been only thinking about muskets when they were considering the right to bear arms.

But I doubt they were thinking of aborting babies when they were discussing the right to privacy.

I mean that's a fair point. Most of them probably would've agreed there is no right to privacy. But it's mainly the 14th Amendment that the so-called right to privacy relies upon, not anything the Founders thought and said.

[iam416]

I don't think I'm approaching it as a "phony" right,

I didn't mean to imply phony, but definitely secondary or tertiary. Certainly not on par, or anywhere close to on par with the 1st A.

Preamblular language is usally just that -- preambular. If the drafters wanted to incorporate that language into the affirmative language it isn't that hard ("the right shall not be infringed...provided that the guns are use for the militia"). At best, they gave A reason...not THE reason, A reason for the Amendment.

I mean that's a fair point. Most of them probably would've agreed there is no right to privacy. But it's mainly the 14th Amendment that the so-called right to privacy relies upon, not anything the Founders thought and said.

Correct. And, perhaps most germanely, the 14th A is also the "incorporation amendment". The Bill of Rights applies only against the Federal Government and did so in antebellum America. That meant that States were free to, e.g., ban speech. Now, almost all States adopted a Bill of Rights modeled after the Constitution, so it wasn't a huge concern. The Supreme Court has since held that the 14th A incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States. (I say this generally -- they've rule on this issue on an right-by-right basis). So, yesterday's ruling against the State of New York was actually a 2nd A as incorporated against the State through the 14th A ruling.

So, the Founders would not have thought the NY law unconstitutional.

And, of course, the right to bear arms is explicitly in the text of the Constitution. The pebumbric right to privacy is, well, not.

[iam416]

I would also like to note that The Chairman is celebrating 50 years of Title IX by instituting a rule-making process to make it illegal to prohibit men from competing in women's sports. What fucking world are we living in? I have long championed the fundamental goals of Title IX and the fact it has essentially achieved those goals. I take massive issue with using Title IX to turn Universities into police departments and kangaroo courts, but the fundamental purpose of Title IX is, IMO, both noble and realized.

And now the Chairman is using Title IX to make sure women's sports aren't just for women. Seriously, what fucking world are we living in?

[lineygoblue]

I'll admit that when Title IX came along I was among the most skeptical, and probably chauvanistic of men. I was concerned that funding of womens sports to make them 'equal' with men's sports, would kill a lot of men's sports.

Well, I was wrong. Badly wrong. Womens sports have prospered alongside men's sports and I don't think men's sports has suffered at all. I think its great that women's sports have grown, and now have televised games, and crowds at women's events are growing. The NCAA Women's Basketball tournament has done nothing but grow with each year.

And now, irony of ironies, what could actually start hurting women's sports is MEN infiltrating them, and dominating them due to some technicality where they decide they don't want to be masculine anymore. And Progs are on the side of the MEN. :: smh ::

[Mike]

I'm sure this won't present any long-term problems.

A Tesla was in a junkyard for three weeks. Then it burst into flames.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...re-sacramento/

When firefighters arrived, the electric car was engulfed, according to the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. Every time the blaze was momentarily extinguished, the car’s battery compartment reignited, the fire department wrote in an Instagram post. Firefighters and wrecking yard workers tried turning the car on its side to aim water directly onto the battery pack. But “the vehicle would still re-ignite due to the residual heat,” the department wrote.

So they tried something else: They used a tractor to create a pit in the dirt, managed to get the car inside, then filled the hole with water. That allowed the firefighters to submerge the battery pack and ultimately extinguish the fire, which burned hotter than 3,000 degrees, Capt. Parker Wilbourn, a fire department spokesman, told The Washington Post.

All told, it took more than an hour and 4,500 gallons of water for the dozen firefighters to extinguish the blaze, Wilbourn said — about the same amount of water used to put out a building fire.

...“This is a whole new animal for the fire service,” Wilbourn said. “We’re still trying to wrap our heads around the [electric vehicle] fires.”

... In December 2020, a home in San Ramon, Calif., went up in flames after two Teslas caught fire while parked in a garage, The Post reported. One of the cars had been charging overnight when it caught fire and spread to a second Tesla. The garage went up in flames and required at least six firetrucks to extinguish.

...In Woodlands, Tex., two passengers died in April 2021 after a driverless Tesla veered off the road, struck a tree and burst into flames. The battery ignited and burned for four hours, requiring 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish the fire, The Post reported. Another Tesla Model S in Frisco, Tex., shot out flames “like a flamethrower” after its owner pulled off the road upon hearing odd sounds coming from the car.

Extinguishing a Tesla battery can take as long as 24 hours and about 3,000 to 8,000 gallons of water “applied directly to the battery,” according to a Tesla Model S guide for first responders. Yet Wilbourn said the amount of water needed to extinguish battery fires could be closer to 20,000 or 30,000 gallons. The lithium-ion batteries found in electric vehicles can be difficult to extinguish because they continue burning until all stored energy is released, Wilbourn said: “We’re basically fighting energy release.”

[Dr. Strangelove]

As we wait for another Supreme Court drop in about 15 minutes, I'll quickly bury this J6 news. Seems like many phony Trump electors got served subpoenas or search warrants this week. Same week that Jeffrey Clark's house got raided. So something is clearly afoot. Republicans at least in Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Georgia were all reportedly served.

What crimes did these people commit? Well, if all they did was meet at a VFW and declare themselves the real Electors from the State of Nevada, then probably nothing. If they actually put together documents that mimic what the actual certified slate of electors looks like and then sent those to the the National Archives, then there could be some fraud liability. I dunno. I suspect the FBI is more interested in anyone who might have been coordinating these actions from DC.

Search warrants (whoever got em) are obviously more serious than subpoenas

Report: Nevada GOP chairman served FBI search warrant over ‘alternate elector’ actions – The Nevada Independent

[Tom W]

Hey Mike- That's not exactly a surprise failure mode in the Auto Industry. The spin machines have already started running with it.

[Da Geezer]

And FWIW I don't think the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear and direct in the same way the 1st Amendment is clear. The language is odd and indirect. Why is that clause about the well-regulated militia even in there if the Amendment's entire sole purpose was just to protect individual ownership? Even though I will repeat, I do think it protects individual gun ownership. But if the 2nd Amendment was intended to serve nothing MORE than that purpose, it's should've just read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Asked and answered. The reference to militias is about the Founders' belief that standing armies encourage tyranny.

But you progs simply do not want to admit that the most basic reason for the amendment was to give the citizens a way to overthrow a tyrannical government. And the (armed) fights the federal government had both before (during the Articles of Confederation) and after the adoption of the Constitution were about the balance between federal and state authority. That was the biggest political issue for decades after the Revolutionary War.

[Da Geezer]

New gun bill:

Parents who attend local school board meetings to protest CRT are domestic terrorists.
Domestic terrorists should not have guns.
Parents who attend school board meetings to protest CRT should not have guns

What could possibly go wrong?