So I see on the news last night...

[Resident Loser]

...Firstly, that extrapolation is beyond bogus, it's oversimplifications like that which confuse the sheep...someone posits that it is so, therefore it must be so...

You are conveniently ignoring the fact thet there seems to be two different scenarios as I have already pointed out...if you can point to evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

"...you're the one who's championing the First Amendment..."

Really? And how did I do that? I simply pointed out Kerry's use of an insulting word and its' implied accusation of some sinister right-wing conspiracy to upset his applecart.

"...And show me ANY event that the Kerry campaign has sponsored that requires attendees to sign loyalty pledges in order to attend..."

Can you spell smokescreen? Never said there was now did I? And yet again I ask, was it open to all in order to convince swing voters? If you want to dance to the music...etc.

Just an oblique side-bar to that police state mentality... the Dems want to restrict firearms, the first step in the road to complete disarmament...some day, and I hope it never comes, all those "gun nuts" out there may save your bacon when the sh!t really hits the fan...remember the Minutemen, the enemy is in our midst and you can't tell the players with or without a scorecard.

jimHJJ(...I suppose you have some sort of problem with a national ID?...)

[Woochifer]

...Firstly, that extrapolation is beyond bogus, it's oversimplifications like that which confuse the sheep...someone posits that it is so, therefore it must be so...

You are conveniently ignoring the fact thet there seems to be two different scenarios as I have already pointed out...if you can point to evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

How's it an extrapolation? Kerry simply exercised his free speech rights to describe those demonstrators who were exercising their free speech rights. He's just as free to call them "goons" as they are to say "four more years". However, if a demonstrator's sole intent is to disrupt a sanctioned public gathering, then there ARE limits as to how far they can go -- plenty of legal precedents have established limits on free speech rights (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, signage laws, libel, etc.).

"...you're the one who's championing the First Amendment..."

Really? And how did I do that? I simply pointed out Kerry's use of an insulting word and its' implied accusation of some sinister right-wing conspiracy to upset his applecart.

No, you were using that example to imply that Kerry has some kind of contempt for free speech. Seems that if you're fine with the right of demonstrators to disrupt a political rally, then you too would take issue with the loyalty oaths that Cheney was demanding. Glad that you're consistent and we're on the same page.

"...And show me ANY event that the Kerry campaign has sponsored that requires attendees to sign loyalty pledges in order to attend..."

Can you spell smokescreen? Never said there was now did I? And yet again I ask, was it open to all in order to convince swing voters? If you want to dance to the music...etc.

How's it a smokescreen? Simple fact is that in the Kerry example, everybody got to exercise their free speech rights, while in the Cheney example, free speech was conditional on a pledge of loyalty. There are many methods of ensuring a friendly audience at a political gathering, Cheney happened to make the mistake of invoking a method that's more akin to what a totalitarian regime would use. I'm sure that Kerry and Edwards have got plenty of other events that will have a more preselected audience, and if they're pigheaded enough to demand a loyalty oath to attend those events, that wouldn't sit well with me either.

Just an oblique side-bar to that police state mentality... the Dems want to restrict firearms, the first step in the road to complete disarmament...some day, and I hope it never comes, all those "gun nuts" out there may save your bacon when the sh!t really hits the fan...remember the Minutemen, the enemy is in our midst and you can't tell the players with or without a scorecard.

jimHJJ(...I suppose you have some sort of problem with a national ID?...)

Yeah, and the Bush Administration has sought to further erode the privacy rights of citizens. If you want to get into a back and forth recrimination over which party's more likely to endorse police state policies, I'll be glad to indulge you. But, keep this in mind. BOTH parties want to redefine what's constitutional and what's not, only the specifics and emphases differ. That's simple exercise of power and the partisan politics that drive it.

I find it amusing that on the NRA headquarters building, they quote the second amendment as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and omit the first part which states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." I don't usually buy into slippery slope theories, and the notion that gun control laws like the assault weapons ban or criminal background checks for handgun purchases somehow will lead to complete disarmament is about as slippery a slope as there is.

[Resident Loser]

Numero uno...your obfuscatory rhetoric notwithstanding...did I ever say Kerry could not exercise HIS freedom of speech? NO! Your continued attempt at clouding the issue either means you don't understand OR you have nowhere to go and rely on a style of Clintonian grammatical usage.

Again, my objection was, and still is, his use of a demeaning term and the implication of connection with that "vast right-wing conspiracy"...Now, you can either address THAT issue or go prattle on about "yelling fire in a theater"...

Secondly, another point you choose to ignore, was Kerry's affair closed or open to all in order to convince swing voters?...you pays yer money and you takes yer chances...I still await a response on that one.

Right, wrong or indifferent, Cheney's method is his method. You don't like it. So, I assume that is THE reason you're not voting for him in November...you know going in what it's about and after all, as you pointed out, he's "...preaching to the choir..." and the church doors are to be closed! BTW, how many invitation-only $1000 rubber-chicken dinners are YOU(or I, for that matter) going to attend?

Now with regard to the Second Amendment/NRA thing...Registration is the first baby-step to confiscation...in order to round 'em on up, you hafta' know who's got 'em...no slippery slope there. Our government is going about it in a more genteel and roundabout way...not just bustin' in and searching the premises, why do you think THAT is? Could it be because of that darned Second Amendment?

There are laws in effect right now that restrict handgun sales...all they need is to be enforced. Period.

With regard to the "militia" aspect, do you think your 21st century mind-set is the same as those in the 17th and 18th century?

To start, even the definition of "militia is as follows:

1. A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency
2. The whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Now with the Guard and Reserves called to active duty, it seems as though those "gun nuts" as some phrase it, may indeed wind up as the embodiment of that second definition...scary thought, but quite possible.

Further, in overturning a lower court's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of United States v. Miller [307 U.S. 174(1939)] the Court stated with regard to militia "with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view." The significance of the militia was in the court's opinion was that it was made up of "...civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion..." and further that this was a force the States could rely on for defense and securing of the laws "...comprised [of]all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense..." who, " when called for service, were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at that time..."

Matchlocks to flintlocks to rifled barrels and handguns and now to semi-auto and even full auto(although these are prohibited, by law, for civilian ownership)...parity is essential, and indeed recognized, in this decision.

Even Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, in his article which appeared in the Yale Law Journal "The Embarassing Second Amendment" concedes " I, for one, have been persuaded that the term 'militia' did not have the limited reference that ...many legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that 'militia' refers to all the people, or at least those treated as full citizens of the community". He cites situations that pre-date 9/11 and how certain events might not have occurred in other countries with an armed citizenry.

His article also cites the "Comentaries on the Constitution" of Joseph Story who emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment and described the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections" but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers". On that last group, Story went on to write "...it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them".

Additionally, from Judge Thomas Cooley, an influential 19th century constitutional commentator, in what seems to be part of an interpretational debate wrote "if the right(to keep and bear arms) were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altoghether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check".

Also, Theodore Schroeder, an early 20th century freedom of speech theorist stated, "...the obvious import(of the second amendment) is to promotes a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of government, because only governments have ever disarmed any considerable class of people as a means toward their enslavement"

Levinson goes on to quote Edward Abbey's revision of the common bumpersticker "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns".

jimHJJ(...police state? privacy rights?...)

[Woochifer]

Numero uno...your obfuscatory rhetoric notwithstanding...did I ever say Kerry could not exercise HIS freedom of speech? NO! Your continued attempt at clouding the issue either means you don't understand OR you have nowhere to go and rely on a style of Clintonian grammatical usage.

Again, my objection was, and still is, his use of a demeaning term and the implication of connection with that "vast right-wing conspiracy"...Now, you can either address THAT issue or go prattle on about "yelling fire in a theater"...

As I said before, you were stating that Kerry has some kind of contempt for free speech because of his comments. Sorry, but calling people who were obviously trying to disrupt his rally "goons" hardly shows disregard for free speech. If anything, it's a rather vigorous exercise of those rights. It's not like Kerry called in the National Guard and had the Bush supporters shackled and thrown into the basement.

Use of a demeaning term? Yes, and if you're a Bush supporter drawing attention to yourself at a Kerry rally, that shouldn't be unexpected. Implication to "vast right-wing conspiracy"? That's quite a stretch, and not exactly a logical one at that.

Secondly, another point you choose to ignore, was Kerry's affair closed or open to all in order to convince swing voters?...you pays yer money and you takes yer chances...I still await a response on that one.

It was an open event and everybody had their say. I'm not the one who has a problem with that. And as I keep pointing out to you, where in ANY of Kerry's other campaign stops does he preselect the audience by using loyalty pledges? So if Kerry resorted to taking oaths of his audience before letting them thru the door, you wouldn't have a problem with that. If Kerry hates free speech as you say he does, then wouldn't he resort to more draconian tactics to ensure that speech is not free at his gatherings?

Right, wrong or indifferent, Cheney's method is his method. You don't like it. So, I assume that is THE reason you're not voting for him in November...you know going in what it's about and after all, as you pointed out, he's "...preaching to the choir..." and the church doors are to be closed! BTW, how many invitation-only $1000 rubber-chicken dinners are YOU(or I, for that matter) going to attend?

Like I said, you can go back and forth on both sides and find examples of preselecting a friendly crowd with each campaign. I just find the very idea of a loyalty oath as precondition to attend a campaign rally plain idiotic on many fronts.

Now with regard to the Second Amendment/NRA thing...Registration is the first baby-step to confiscation...in order to round 'em on up, you hafta' know who's got 'em...no slippery slope there. Our government is going about it in a more genteel and roundabout way...not just bustin' in and searching the premises, why do you think THAT is? Could it be because of that darned Second Amendment?

Oh brother, and I guess that boogey man is coming to steal our souls too. Sorry, but registration to confiscation is a pretty far reaching connection and another slippery slope. I mean, I register my car every year, and no one has come busting down my door or gone about trying to confiscate it.

[FLZapped]

As I said before, you were stating that Kerry has some kind of contempt for free speech because of his comments.

Well, lets see:

Kerry has been trying to keep Nader off the ballot.

He has threatened to sue anyone who mentiones his book "The New Soldier", where he directly attacks those who fought in 'Nam.

He now has lawyers threatening libel lawsuits against TV stations who show the Swiftboat commercials questioning his leadership in 'Nam.
(Funny, I don't see him doing likewise to "moveon.og" or M. Moore)

I would say his idea of free speech is that you either agree with him, or face any consequence he can throw at you.

-Bruce
(Kerry is so Scary)

[woodman]

Again, my objection was, and still is, his use of a demeaning term and the implication of connection with that "vast right-wing conspiracy"...

Sorry, Jim - but anyone who goes to a political rally (for the opposition) with the sole intent of disrupting it is a GOON, pure and simple. I find nothing whatsoever wrong with John Kerry calling them that. They are GOONS and A**HOLES in my view. Plus, if you aren't aware that there is indeed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy any and all Democrats and manipulate another election victory this November, you simply aren't paying attention - or, you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by Republican propaganda that you've lost the capacity to distinguish truth from lies.

Secondly, another point you choose to ignore, was Kerry's affair closed or open to all in order to convince swing voters?...you pays yer money and you takes yer chances...I still await a response on that one.

I'm quite certain that Kerry's campaign rallys are as open to all comers as can be ... which of course does open the door to GOONS. We'll probably see a plethora of same in the coming weeks. If that was the only "dirty trick" that the Republicans chose to employ, I'd be greatly relieved and quite confident that we will be rid of this administration come November. But alas, that's undoubtedly waaaaaaay too much to hope for.

Right, wrong or indifferent, Cheney's method is his method. You don't like it. So, I assume that is THE reason you're not voting for him in November...

No - THE reason that I won't be voting for Cheney or Bush in November is because I think that they're absolutely the most corrupt, dishonest, worthless, deceitful, conniving, scurrilous, lying scumbags to ever occupy the White House, that's why. I'ved lived under no less than 13 different administrations in my lifetime ... some of them I liked - some I didn't care much for - some, I even disliked. But I've never hated and despised any of them until this one! Doesn't that tell you something? It sure as hell should.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how you and I can be so "in tune" with each other when the subject at hand is audio-related or video. Yet when the subject turns to politics, we couldn't be further apart if we tried!

[dean_martin]

Now with regard to the Second Amendment/NRA thing...Registration is the first baby-step to confiscation...in order to round 'em on up, you hafta' know who's got 'em...no slippery slope there. Our government is going about it in a more genteel and roundabout way...not just bustin' in and searching the premises, why do you think THAT is? Could it be because of that darned Second Amendment?

)

Actually, it is because of the Fourth Amendment that the federalies don't just bust in your home or office and search the premises for guns or anything else. The Fourth Amendment is just as crucial to your right to own (and, in particular, keep) a gun as the Second. But, it's eroding fast under the current administration. The upcoming election represents a trade-off for American citizens.

Do you want corporate interests running this country w/out any accountability to consumers, to taxpayers or to voters? However, what you will get with this corporate regime is morality via legislation. You'll get the "moral" position on abortion, marriage, stem-cell research, etc. You'll also get to keep your guns, but you'll be so happy with your guns and your country's newfound morality that you will not realize that the remainder of your civil liberties have been stripped away. In other words, you won't remember to use your guns to stop your runaway gov't until you have been jailed for video-taping skyscrapers on your trip to NYC or gov't buildings on your trip to your nation's capital.

Because I'm biased with respect to the upcoming election, I seek a volunteer to tell us what we will get with a Kerry/Edwards/Democrat administration. I'll only say that our gov't seems to do the least damage to its citizens when our Congress and Presidency are controlled by different parties. If you think about it, grid-lock ain't all that bad.

P.S. - Resident Loser, I do appreciate your research of the history and meaning of the 2nd Amend. But, consider that our fathers knew when to be vague and when to be crystal clear.

Tim

[Resident Loser]

...I know about "search and seizure"...

I meant that it's possibly the fact that one might be keeping and bearing arms that gives the man pause to consider the consequences of an unannounced visit...recall some of those quotes?...

Actually, I despise the suits...corporate swineAmerica has always been a victim of my terrible, swift mouth...I won't buy "Stanley" because of their off-shore tax evasion loopholes and hate the Col. McWendybelle's of the world on any number of levels and do not give any of them my business...and if something comes of the investigation into Halliburton's alleged futzing with the cash-box in Iraq, I hope they hang 'em out to dry...whoever "they" may be...

But, I don't see why abortion should be OK as an after-the-fact birth control device...personal responsibility in that matter is just the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg and reflects on so many facets of life...

And I'm sorry, marriage is male and female...any legal contract those of the "alternate lifestyle" wish to enter into should be just that, a contract, partnership, whatever neat little euphimism they care to double-speak...there are no guarantees, constitutional or otherwise, for sexual proclivities...and why should corporations be forced to provide health insurance, etc. I mean insurance companies can make it diffcult for cancer survivors and smokers to get policies but, for a percentage of those who willfully engage in "questionable" sexual practices, there are no questions asked? I can't adopt my dog and claim him as a dependent, even though I provide betrer care to him than some do for their children. Yeah, there's the can, here's the opener...have at it!

Stem-cell? It could open some ethical issues, which are what I believe are the source of reservations about it...don't know enough to have a rational discussion, so I won't.

In case you hadn't noticed, like it or not we are at war. Since obviously 9/11 and even before...And not just the Iraq deal. Ever since we changed our foreign policy with regard to that rogue Zionist-state in the middle east, by selling them arms in '62, we have been a target.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, there were internment camps in WWII...with our open borders and current state of PC, what are we supposed to do now...We SHOULD be rounding up all the illegals and expired visas and booting them out or locking them up...We are our own worst enemy due to our d@mned complacancy and bureaucracy. Democrats AND Republicans are to blame...as is our fat, dumb and happy populace.

You can't tell the players without a scorecard! If you are observed acting suspiciously, then you should be scrutinized, detained, arrested...it's a bad world, in bad times and bad things can happen...better to "them" than to that busload, trainload, 'planeload or building full of innocent slobs who are just trying to exist.

It's a different world, no more "duck and cover"...this time it's for real.

jimHJJ(...anything else you might like to discuss?...)

[dean_martin]

...


But, I don't see why abortion should be OK as an after-the-fact birth control device...personal responsibility in that matter is just the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg and reflects on so many facets of life...

And I'm sorry, marriage is male and female...any legal contract those of the "alternate lifestyle" wish to enter into should be just that, a contract, partnership, whatever neat little euphimism they care to double-speak...there are no guarantees, constitutional or otherwise, for sexual proclivities...and why should corporations be forced to provide health insurance, etc. I mean insurance companies can make it diffcult for cancer survivors and smokers to get policies but, for a percentage of those who willfully engage in "questionable" sexual practices, there are no questions asked? I can't adopt my dog and claim him as a dependent, even though I provide betrer care to him than some do for their children. Yeah, there's the can, here's the opener...have at it!

Stem-cell? It could open some ethical issues, which are what I believe are the source of reservations about it...don't know enough to have a rational discussion, so I won't.

In case you hadn't noticed, like it or not we are at war. Since obviously 9/11 and even before...And not just the Iraq deal. Ever since we changed our foreign policy with regard to that rogue Zionist-state in the middle east, by selling them arms in '62, we have been a target.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, there were internment camps in WWII...with our open borders and current state of PC, what are we supposed to do now...We SHOULD be rounding up all the illegals and expired visas and booting them out or locking them up...We are our own worst enemy due to our d@mned complacancy and bureaucracy. Democrats AND Republicans are to blame...as is our fat, dumb and happy populace.

You can't tell the players without a scorecard! If you are observed acting suspiciously, then you should be scrutinized, detained, arrested...it's a bad world, in bad times and bad things can happen...better to "them" than to that busload, trainload, 'planeload or building full of innocent slobs who are just trying to exist.

It's a different world, no more "duck and cover"...this time it's for real.

jimHJJ(...anything else you might like to discuss?...)

Basically, we are not far apart here. My paranoia stems more from the fact that citizen, Inc. has more rights, protections, tax relief and power than citizen Individual and that as a result citizen, Inc. runs the country and not the people through elected officials. From this I conclude that I should vote Democrat, even though this party has its scars and rough edges. I'm not a proponent of abortion (especially as "an after-the-fact birth control device"). I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I'm also not a proponent of the gov't being able to arrest consenting adults privatley engaged in sexual activity that I might consider deviate. If I could find clear answers on whether stem cell research involves the destruction of fetuses I may or may not be a proponent of such. But, Democrats have been painted with a broad stroke. Edwards has said that he's not in favor of gay marriage. I've heard others say that Kerry is uncomfortable with abortion based on his Catholicism, but he supports the right to choose under the present state of the law.

On the other hand, the Republicans (corporate regime) have incorporated these "moral" issues and I have questions about their motives because I suspect it's merely a means to an end. Here, I am not talking about the man on the street who goes to work everyday and to church on Sunday. I'm talking about the power obsessed Karl Rove types at the top of the party/administration.

Living in the deep south/Bible belt, it's hard to campaign for democrats at the national level because of the stigmas attached (in fact, "liberal commie-lovin' pinko bastard" may still be in use down here). I think Kerry's taken the right approach with his tough defense platform. This is only a small step in changing the party's image, however.

I realize we're at war (even if the war on terror was not declared in the usual constitutional way), but with whom? Osama bin Laden and Al-Queada? Iraq? The entire body of Islamic fundamentalists? How is the war going? Have we prevented another attack? Have we caught all those responsible for 9/11? Do we know who was responsible for 9/11(not just the individuals who carried out the acts)? How are we going to get out of Iraq?

Because of all the uncertainty, I agree that we need to be more aware of what's going on, but I don't see a plan of concerted action. I see haphazard, apparently random acts of counter-terrorism here at home. I see a hornet's nest in Iraq - not by Saddam loyalists, that was at the beginning - that should have been predictable.

Without a concerted plan, I see our random acts of counter terrorism at home as a slippery slope somewhat like your view of gun registration as a slippery slope. In other words, if our gov't can do anything on impulse in the war on terror... With a plan, at least citizens would know how we are expected to behave and what we are expected to do to help the war effort. Right now, I feel like we fought the administration's war on Iraq and not the country's war against those who attacked us. If it turns out, however, that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to draw into Iraq those responsible for attacking us (and perhaps those who more likely than not would attempt to attack us in the future), then my feelings may change, but how likely is that scenario?

BTW, your point about our suppport of Israel did not go unnoticed, but that's a big, complicated issue that I would like to duck for now.