Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A bit of background for slashdotters (Score 2) 282

by Nimey (#46790667) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

Yep. Mann was also investigated by former North Carolina AG and failed gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, basically for political reasons - Cooch wanted to punish Mann for daring to question Republican orthodoxy on AGW. The case was thrown out for lack of evidence.

Comment: Re:It's crap (Score 1) 1573

by Nimey (#46770923) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

As I posted elsethread:

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution reads in part:

The Congress shall have power...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[...]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

In other words, it was intended that we have no standing army[1] and that instead we have a militia of armed citizens that could be quickly mustered to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and for this militia to be governed and regulated by rules promulgated by Congress (but ultimately under the command of the President as commander-in-chief).

The bit about "suppressing insurrections" is particularly damning of the idiots who think the intent for the Second Amendment was to give us the ability to overthrow the government. Even in George Washington's presidency the militia was used to suppress an insurrection (the Whiskey Rebellion), so it's quite obvious that the intent was to have the "well regulated militia" be our primary fighting force at least until a proper army could be mustered and fielded, and so the right for people to keep and bear arms was meant to make sure we had a militia capable of fighting.

Since we now have a permanent standing army, there's no longer any reason under the original intent for citizens to have an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

I am not making any arguments as to whether relying on a militia rather than a standing army is a good one, I'm just going for the "original intent" argument that gun-rights people have such a huge boner for.

[1] which is why we have the biannual vestigial fig-leaf of the National Defense Authorization bill.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1573

by Nimey (#46769143) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution reads in part:

The Congress shall have power...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
[...]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

In other words, it was intended that we have no standing army[1] and that instead we have a militia of armed citizens that could be quickly mustered to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and for this militia to be governed and regulated by rules promulgated by Congress (but ultimately under the command of the President as commander-in-chief).

The bit about "suppressing insurrections" is particularly damning of the idiots who think the intent for the Second Amendment was to give us the ability to overthrow the government. Even in George Washington's presidency the militia was used to suppress an insurrection (the Whiskey Rebellion), so it's quite obvious that the intent was to have the "well regulated militia" be our primary fighting force at least until a proper army could be mustered and fielded, and so the right for people to keep and bear arms was meant to make sure we had a militia capable of fighting.

Since we now have a permanent standing army, there's no longer any reason under the original intent for citizens to have an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

I am not making any arguments as to whether relying on a militia rather than a standing army is a good one, I'm just going for the "original intent" argument that gun-rights people have such a huge boner for.

[1] which is why we have the biannual vestigial fig-leaf of the National Defense Authorization bill.

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Working...