[pedonbio]

Prove it.  Everything I've been reading about this guy is that he is a 100 percent lunatic, like the VT Shooter.  Socially inept, not that smart.  Prove to me he is some sort of hardcore Republican, because he's NOT.  One of his favorite books is the Communist manifesto!

Okay. Here is a screencap of his voter registration from the AZ Secretary of State. You want to see his colonoscopy video?

[pedonbio]

It's more interesting to see what *isn't* in there!

For example, nowhere does it explicitly state that there is a "Freedom of Religion". The only times religion is mentioned are in Article VI, Section 3: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." and in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Nor does it define a "militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Far too many people forget the part about the well-regulated militia.

Other things not covered are how the US acquires new territory, and how that territory becomes new states. That's why there was such a big fuss over the Louisiana Purchase. People thought Jefferson was overstepping his authority. And the rule saying that a VP takes over when the President dies, leaves office, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the duties of the office doesn't come in until the 25th amendment - AFTER Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Coolidge, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson all took office after the death of their predecessors.

And sometimes what *is* in there is so couched in obscure legalese that you can't understand it without annotations. Here's the second paragraph of Article III, Section 3:

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Any idea what that means? Without looking it up?

Let me leave you with this peroration from Jill Lepore's essay, "The Commandments", in the current issue of the New Yorker:

The Constitution is ink on parchment. It is forty-four hundred words. And it is, too, the accreted set of meanings that have been made of those words, the amendments, the failed amendments, the struggles, the debates—the course of events—over more than two centuries. It is not easy, but it is everyone’s. It is the rule of law, the opinions of the Court, the stripes on William Grimes’s back, a shrine in the National Archives, a sign carried on the Washington Mall, and the noise all of us make when we disagree. If the Constitution is a fiddle, it is also all the music that has ever been played on it. Some of that music is beautiful; much of it is humdrum; some of it sounds like hell.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/01/17/110117crat_atlarge_lepore#ixzz1AglYlQHO

You still have time to edit your post so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Start by reading the Lighthouse Act of 1789.

EDIT: After reading your post again, it would be much better for you to start with a very basic high school textbook on American history. Oh--So the Constitution doesn't say how new states join the country? Jesus fucking Christ, how can someone know so little about his own fucking country? So you think the whole thing sprung full-blown from the mind of Zeus?

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

Another Edit: Rtpoe, I am truly appalled at your almost perfect ignorance displayed in that post. I had a very routine public school education in what would now be a "failing" high school; but anyone knowing as little as you seem to know about U.S. history and government would not have been allowed to graduate. Did you **82** through your classes? Virtually every "fact" that you stated in your post is wrong, and some are the opposite of reality.

[onion_writer]

In partial defense of rtpoe, his/her comment on gun ownership is excellent.

[SwitcherX]

And with regards to the Tucson Shootings, I have one question...

The Glock 9mm pistol can hold a magazine with up to thirty rounds. I've read varying estimates of the rate of fire, depending on the specific model - from 40 rounds per minute to over a thousand. In any case, the exact rate isn't going to make much difference to those at the receiving end.

Such a handgun can have one and only one purpose: to kill or wound as many people as possible as fast as possible, while still being able to be carried in a concealed manner on your person.

My question is: why the hell is anyone able to purchase one of these legally? Any rational reason for wanting to own a weapon can be satisfied with something far less dangerous to innocent bystanders.

I think that magazine was originally for the Glock 18, a full-auto version of the Glock 17.

There are lots of people that can empty 3 10 round magazines,with really good shot accuracy, before the average person can empty a 30 round one.  A 30 round magazine isn't a big deal.

[pedonbio]

In partial defense of rtpoe, his/her comment on gun ownership is excellent.

If you say so.     

[pedonbio]

I think that magazine was originally for the Glock 18, a full-auto version of the Glock 17.

There are lots of people that can empty 3 10 round magazines,with really good shot accuracy, before the average person can empty a 30 round one.  A 30 round magazine isn't a big deal.

Some reports indicated that he loaded the chamber, then attached a thirty-round magazine.

By the way, at least one babbling head suggested that he was trying to "invent" an insanity defense. The opposite is closer to true--Even the way he loaded the gun indicates both clarity and deliberation--If the 31-shot story is true. His on-line apology is as close to a "declaration of sanity" as you ever get.

[Real]

have I used the word putrid to describe this cunt and her followers yet?   if so, not nearly enough.


(right click view image)

with people editing comment's off her feed in less than a minute's time, tina king's managed to stay up for at least 20 minutes.

keep waving that flag and acting like you arent dealing with a burgeoning domestic terror bloc...

[onion_writer]

I'm honestly confused. PB, I defer to your legal expertise, but I take it that you believe that ownership of semi-automatic weapons is a Constitutional guarantee? Please clarify.

That's just an aside. I am honestly upset that -- looking over all the posts, amid so many calls for more civil debate -- all of us here are still so angry, and anxious to call names.

I'm as guilty as anyone, but please let us set a new example starting now. Let us agree to disagree upon many issues, and still respect each other.

[pedonbio]

I'm honestly confused. PB, I defer to your legal expertise, but I take it that you believe that ownership of semi-automatic weapons is a Constitutional guarantee? Please clarify.

That's just an aside. I am honestly upset that -- looking over all the posts, amid so many calls for more civil debate -- all of us here are still so angry, and anxious to call names.

I'm as guilty as anyone, but please let us set a new example starting now. Let us agree to disagree upon many issues, and still respect each other.

Sorry, O_W. The Second Amendment stuff sets me off, and I agree with rtpoe's conclusion. What bugged me was that popular beliefs about it, and about the whole role of the military in the U.S. is about 180 degrees changed from the meaning it had when enacted. The idea that it would be used as an excuse to create a private right to carry a firearm would have been inconceivable to the framers. What bugged me about the post is that the term "militia" had a very precise meaning known to every man who voted on the Bill of Rights.

[onion_writer]

Sorry, O_W. The Second Amendment stuff sets me off, and I agree with rtpoe's conclusion. What bugged me was that popular beliefs about it, and about the whole role of the military in the U.S. is about 180 degrees changed from the meaning it had when enacted. The idea that it would be used as an excuse to create a private right to carry a firearm would have been inconceivable to the framers. What bugged me about the post is that the term "militia" had a very precise meaning known to every man who voted on the Bill of Rights.

Sir, we are completely agreed!

[rtpoe]

You still have time to edit your post so you don't look like a complete idiot.

Start by reading the Lighthouse Act of 1789.

EDIT: After reading your post again, it would be much better for you to start with a very basic high school textbook on American history. Oh--So the Constitution doesn't say how new states join the country? Jesus fucking Christ, how can someone know so little about his own fucking country? So you think the whole thing sprung full-blown from the mind of Zeus?

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

Another Edit: Rtpoe, I am truly appalled at your almost perfect ignorance displayed in that post. I had a very routine public school education in what would now be a "failing" high school; but anyone knowing as little as you seem to know about U.S. history and government would not have been allowed to graduate. Did you **82** through your classes? Virtually every "fact" that you stated in your post is wrong, and some are the opposite of reality.

Okay. I cannot let this go by without commenting.

No, I have not read the Lighthouse Act of 1789. As far as I know, it was a set of laws that took control of lighthouses and other aids to coastal navigation from the states and gave it to the federal government. I do not see how that is relevant.

The Northwest Ordnance (one of my favorite documents in American History), predates the Constitution. I am fully aware that it covers the process by which states are formed from territories and admitted to the Union. The Constitutional Convention evidently chose to accept it as part of the "law of the land" and not reiterate it in the Constitution. The major fuss over the Louisiana Purchase was that nowhere, neither in the Constitution, nor in anything under the Articles of Confederation which preceded it, were there any laws or customs about the purchase of territory.

Let me sum up my point, since you seem to have missed it:

There are laws, customs, and principles fundamental to the American legal system that are NOT EXPLICITLY STATED in the Constitution.

If some of my facts are wrong, please point out my specific errors and correct me.

If you can find an EXPLICIT mention of "Freedom of Religion", or the definition of a militia, or what happens when a president dies in office (prior to the adoption of the 25th Amendment), or, for that matter, a "Right to Privacy" or why I cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, anywhere at all in the Constitution - and not in any legislation, commentary, analysis, or interpretation thereof - I'd be delighted and forever in your debt.

Until then, I stand by my post.

[onion_writer]

From the Associated Press:

At the International Space Station, Giffords' brother-in-law, Scott, the commanding officer, spoke over the radio as flight controllers in Houston fell silent.

"As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful," he said. "Unfortunately, it is not.

"These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions, but also with our irresponsible words," he said.

"We're better than this," he said. "We must do better."

[SwitcherX]

Okay. Here is a screencap of his voter registration from the AZ Secretary of State. You want to see his colonoscopy video?

Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, didn't vote in 2010 election

[TheZookie007]

have I used the word putrid to describe this cunt and her followers yet?   if so, not nearly enough.

Real, please tell me that that screenshot did not come from Sarah Palin's "hatebook" page. Please. I cannot believe what I am seeing. Who does that heartless bitch who said that a girl born on 9/11/01 would probably grow up to be a "left wing bleeding-heart liberal" think she is? Good God.

[pedonbio]

Okay. I cannot let this go by without commenting.

No, I have not read the Lighthouse Act of 1789. As far as I know, it was a set of laws that took control of lighthouses and other aids to coastal navigation from the states and gave it to the federal government. I do not see how that is relevant.

Okay. Let's go back to the First Congress. About half the members had been at the Constitutional Convention. March 3 or 4 of 1789, they all get together--At a place on Wall Street in New York City, BTW-- and start to do business. The first week some of the Dudes drop the Lighthouse Act into the hopper. It does what you say--Gives the feds control of state-owned (and privately-owned) lighthouses, and gives the feds authority to site and build more lighthouses. And it passes without significant opposition.

So they did that under the Lighthouse Clause, right?

I dunno if you get my point--There is no "Lighthouse Clause". The Constitution doesn't mention lighthouses. Are lighthouses a peculiarly federal business? No; the states had them. Is this something the states couldn't do themselves? No; the states had them. There was absolutely no Constitutional basis for that, if you listen to the Tea Party folks. It was just some "fraud and waste" that those politicians (who, incidentally, had written the Constitution) decided to do.
 

The Northwest Ordnance (one of my favorite documents in American History), predates the Constitution. I am fully aware that it covers the process by which states are formed from territories and admitted to the Union. The Constitutional Convention evidently chose to accept it as part of the "law of the land" and not reiterate it in the Constitution. The major fuss over the Louisiana Purchase was that nowhere, neither in the Constitution, nor in anything under the Articles of Confederation which preceded it, were there any laws or customs about the purchase of territory.

Exactly! These were guys who, unlike the Tea Party, didn't think it was a good idea to invent the wheel every time they went for a ride. The Constitution is a document; it is one of many that put things together, but there is nothing sacred (or exclusive) about it, or about the other documents that went into the mix. Virtually every word is encrusted with meanings that are not included in the text. But there had been a government for 13 years that had done some things, including setting up a system for incorporating new states, so there was no need to put a new system in the Constitution.

Let me sum up my point, since you seem to have missed it:

There are laws, customs, and principles fundamental to the American legal system that are NOT EXPLICITLY STATED in the Constitution.

Indeed, though Hugo Black would disagree.

If you can find an EXPLICIT mention of "Freedom of Religion",

No, because it is a shorthand expression for the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

or the definition of a militia,

It wasn't defined because it was a word with a precise meaning. Until at least 1863 (and perhaps as late as 1917) there was no recognizable U.S. Army; each state had a militia under the control of the governor which could be summoned to federal service by the president, but only under the terms established by the state that raised the militia. The First Congress (the Lighthouse Act dudes) argued over the Second Amendment at greater length than any other issue because they wanted to set some rules for the state militias, primarily by creating a right of conscientious objection, and set rules under which the president could override the governor's command. This was all done about a century later with the creation of the National Guard. But nobody had any doubt what was meant by "militia". 

or what happens when a president dies in office (prior to the adoption of the 25th Amendment),

I'm not clear what you mean; the vice-president took over.

or, for that matter, a "Right to Privacy"

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 --But you knew that already.

or why I cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater,

Why, in the Fire In A Crowded Theater Clause, of course! But you knew it was U.S. v. Debs, 249 U.S. 211, didn't you? And you knew it was applied to printing a pamphlet discussing the economics of World War One, didn't you.

You just like to poke old men with sticks, right?

Git offa my lawn, kid!