.jpg)
- "The Texas attorney general's office has ruled that Tarrant County must make public information related to a sexual harassment complaint filed against District Attorney Joe Shannon." About a year ago, the DA's office hired a Public Information Director who I have dogged constantly as being nothing more than a mouthpiece for a re-election campaign. Now we'll learn if I'm wrong. What will she say, if anything, about this?
- Mrs. LL waited up past midnight to open our house up to a couple (relatives on her side of the family) who are in the metroplex to begin an adoption process this weekend. At least I think she did. When I left this morning the guest bedroom door was shut, and I assumed there were people in there.
- Nothing makes a house cleaner than having guests come over. You are all invited for the rest of the year.
- Thoughts on the Cowboys hiring of 72 year old Monte Kiffin as defensive coordinator: (1) I guess his age doesn't bother me, but I can't convince myself, (2) He's the father of the "Tampa 2" defense (which I truly don't understand) but I'll credit The Ticket's Jake Kemp with a great line yesterday: "He invented a defense 20 years ago to stop the West Coast Offense that no one runs anymore", and (3) I wouldn't hire him because of his idiot son.
- What a horrible fire: Four people, three of them children, dead in Haltom City. But there's something weird about that one. It looks like it was a small fire that was contained inside the house but filled the place up with toxic smoke. It occurred in the afternoon. My internal "something ain't right" alarm is going off.
- The NRA and Joe Biden met yesterday. Afterwards, the NRA said that the Administration could now check the box that reads "met with the NRA" and now they'll "do what they want." Even I agree with that.
- The Wise County Republicans are holding a raffle with a chance to win a .22 rifle with a scope. Timing, people. Timing.
- 71 degrees this afternoon. 39 degrees tomorrow afternoon. (But I'll never utter that "Texas Weather" cliche which is like nails on a chalkboard to me.)
- There's a lot of talk about the Second Amendment and what the "well regulated militia" phrase means. A couple of year's ago the Supreme Court interpreted that Amendment and, although I haven't read it, I suspect the opinion contains a first rate history lesson.
- I see lots of headlines about a "trillion dollar coin" in connection with the debt ceiling debate, but I've not clicked on a single headline.
- I know I keep mentioning the X-Box and Kinect, but I continue to be amazed. You manipulate menus by sweeping your hands right to left. It is right out of Minority Report. (But I actually yelled at my virtual trainer in my exercise program last night when he said, "Come on. Don't stop on me" when the device detected that I wasn't completing an an exercise routine.)
- And apparently the Kinect is a big player in Paranormal Activity 4. Mrs. LL, a huge fan of the series, will freak out.
- Wow. Hunter S. Thompson and I have the exact same daily routine.
.jpg)
67 comments:
RTG: BEEFY!!!
Bacon Scale
4 out of 5
Very HOT.
Nice and curvy!!!
GJ BG!!!
Wow. Hunter S. Thompson and I have the exact same daily routine.
That is not a smart thing to say on the world wide web....just sayin
The Republicans having a gun raffle a year after the local Democrats had a gun raffle. What does this say??? Only a good way to get donations!
The key part of the Second Amendment is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The word "shall" is directive, not discretionary.
I fear the Obama Administration wants to infringe on my rights and will use any means to do so.
I agree BG. Something fishy about a small garage fire that killed 4.You would have to be asleep or dead to not know there was a fire. Who sleeps at 5 PM with children 6 months to 10 in the house? I suspect fowl play for sure.
In the last two weeks or so I have bought a gun, shaved my arms, and purchased a pair of grizzly bear arms just in case the 2nd Amendment interpretation arguments get any more silly than they already are. Just want to exercise my rights, whatever they might be on any given day.
all 10 from the toenails up, wow best in a long time.
RTG: Come on BG< what's with the fat chicks? She probably has back boobs as big as her front ones! NO BUENO!!
What brand of .22 rifle? If it's a Marlin semi, it can hold 14 bullets about the same size as an AR-15, but with less powder. Even with a bolt action, you can still instantly end life with a single shot at 400yrds, or slowly with a single shot to the gut.
The libs would gladly ignore 200 years of history for a chance to assume they new what the framers really meant when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.
I have a deal for the anti-gun crowd if we really want to talk progressive. The day you outlaw all abortions (except in rapes-yeah I said it), ban the death penalty, and put a stop to systemic welfare programs, I will gladly turn over every last gun I own without one single complaint.
Both killers in the Colorado theater mass murders in Connecticut school had something in common. They both played violent video games. I also point to the movie that was playing at the Colorado theater - Batman. Most of us identify with the good guys in this type of movie but there are a few whose heroes are the bad guys.
Minds are warped by violent videos. What weapon they choose is a matter of convenience. The weapons in these crimes could just as well have been buckshot fired from a shotgun. Homemade explosives could have been used. Both killers were highly intelligent and could have done their deeds in many different ways.
I am glad Biden is addressing violent video games. Hope he also talks about violent movies. However, I doubt that the violence coming out of the Hollywood den of liberalism will be talked about.
The Colorado weirdo soaked his carpet in gasoline as a part of that booby trapped apartment. Had someone entered there, the place would have been engulfed in flames. Maybe we need to consider outlawing gasoline along with the gun.
The Wise County Republicans group - What a bunch of p----ies for raffling off a 22 rifle. The Wise County Democrats raffled off a 12 gauge shotgun last time. Come on guys, get it together! Raffle off a real gun.
I suspect the opinion contains a first rate history lesson.
It does, and the current gun nuts woudl ignore it if possible. It essentially states that "bear arms" is a military term, that 'militias' have been military in nature and used by rulers throughout history (and keep in mind we had no standing army back then), and that the original draft contained a clause for conscientious objectors who could not be compelled to bear arms--essentially noting that the amendment was intended to refer only to an army for use by the state (not against the state) as we understand it today.
But, interpretations do change. For instance, I'm willing to bet wordkyle has a few of his own, whether they are rational, based on the past or current state of the law, or not.
"Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
Wow... that randy girl is HOT. I just want to pluck that belly button. Kinda reminds me of Veronica Rayne without the tats.
Jerry Jones does it again. This newest (old) defensive coordinator is a has been who never was. His son is even worse (check So Cal's record). Sorry, Cowboy fans, you're doomed.
Hunter S. Thompson doesn't have a routine...he's dead. Of course he was an avowed athiest, so his routine might be:
3:05 Burn in hell
3:15 Poked in ass with pitchfork
3:20 Weeping and Gnashing of teeth
3:25 Fruitless search for water
3:45 Try to figure out how to get pitchfork out of flaming ass while weeping and gnashing teeth.
4:05 Repeat for remainder of day
This Christian is tired of Hobby Lobby and their chest thumping Christian mantra. They can go against the Obamacare abortion mess all they want, but the fact is that most of their junk is Chinese made by kids making pennies a day. No Christian should be supporting companies whose workers are subject to human rights violations such as these. These workers commit suicide, suffer serious health hazards, etc. all to make the Christian consumer's goods that they could have bought for a little more elsewhere that is made here in the U.S. I agree with their stance, but walk the walk on all Christian issues, not like the gossipers/ troublemaker small minority "I hate you because you sin different than me" FBC Decatur troublemakers.
Bud Kennedy needs to buy a raffle ticket from the Wise County Democrats for the gun giveaway they have every so often.
10:06 Wanting to retain the right to own a gun is not being a "gun nut". We are not ignoring the history of it, you are. You are simply analyzing the text and forgetting that the citizens of this country have been armed since day one. If they (framers) thought they got it wrong they could have changed the amendment to say gun ownership is not for all private citizens. Their inaction speaks for itself.
You also seem to forgot, somewhere down the line in your sad sack family tree, one of your ancestors shot a killed dinner so that you could be with us here today.
I hope the Wise Dems raffle off a 270 this year. That 22 wont cut it.
9:36
I need my violent video games, so I can grow up to be a kick-a$$ Navy Seal or drone pilot, and participate in the termination of evildoers in the world.
10:06 You are the one who needs a history lesson. You are definitely one of the "sheep"
Your quote "Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation"
It was also put there for defense from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic.
Molon Labe
Monte Kiffin previously served 26 years as an NFL assistant coach, including 13 years as defensive coordinator for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with whom he won Super Bowl XXXVII. His defensive units have finished ranked in the top 10 in points allowed and yards allowed 10 times during that period, an NFL record.
Why would you judge this man on the basis of his son's record or reputation?
12:27 and others - General Washington's militia did indeed defeat King George's army (with critical help from the French). However, you may have noticed times have changed. I suggest that your arsenal of M4's or AR15 etc may not match up well against the Texas National Guard or the US military. So you may have to deal with the government through the ballot box not armed resistance.
Nice job on the RTG!
We all know that arms are not the problem. I've said before that there's not much we can do about the crazies, except shoot them in the act. It is time to consider the paranormal. For we do not know even 1% about the universe. We are merely infants in evolutionary intelligence. Following example of procession per zetatalk:
"Clearly James Holmes had a personality change in the weeks before the massacre. He had died his hair red like the Joker and sought action on an online sex club. 60 days ahead he had loaded up on weapons and ammo. But none of this fit his prior persona which was described as quiet, kind, studious, and accomplished. Like the Miami zombie cannibal, who regularly carried a Bible, Holmes was even described as regularly attending church functions. Was this another case of possession, as was the case in Miami? Yes and no, as possession has many aspects to it and can take many forms. We predicted after the Miami face-eating episode that the world would see more of these episodes, due to the polarization during the Transformation period, and this is an example of that. ...Holmes was painfully shy, and felt unable to break out of this prison. Thought bright and accomplished, he was boring, described by those who had social contact with him as someone they could hardly remember. He was wall paper, something not noticed, and had a zero sex life. The job market is tight. Holmes was in school, deferring his job search, and surviving on scholarships and welfare, so no desperation there, but he saw his boring and unfulfilling life stretching out before him, like a prison sentence, and was lured into a possession over time."
I think the violent video games and movies contribute a lot to the mental problems of people. Changing the gun laws won't help that. The government needs to look at all that and not just the guns.
I need my violent movies so I can discern from right and wrong, and good and evil. To think, what would I do in that situation. How I wouldn't let myself get in that situation in the first place. To vent anger and frustration. To fantasize vengence, for vengence is innate. To see outside of the tiny world most of us live in. To get out of the cave.
10:06 - Was your point that "gun nuts" only want guns so they can resist the government? It's unclear from your comment. I doubt that the SCOTUS would rule that insurrection was legal.
Your comment on the Supreme Court's decision in Heller ignores the clearly-stated opinion. Their decision clearly identifies the rights of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense, without regard to whether they are in a militia or not. Moreover, the opinion says that the Second Amendment doesn't grant a new right, it codifies a pre-existing right. (Page 19.)
10:06 You are the one who needs a history lesson. You are definitely one of the "sheep"
Your quote "Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation"
It was also put there for defense from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic.
I quoted the Supreme Court, dumbass!
The young girl from Lubbock who got 15 years for drunk driving death that you reported on didn't show up to jail to start her sentence.
http://www.kcbd.com/story/20558603/the-search-is-underway-for-bail-jumper-jeena-roberts
Their decision clearly identifies the rights of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense, without regard to whether they are in a militia or not. Moreover, the opinion says that the Second Amendment doesn't grant a new right, it codifies a pre-existing right. (Page 19.)
I never said anything contrary to this. It's obvious that complete bans of handguns (the subject of the case) are not constitutional. It leaves open the issue of the amount of regulation, short of a complete ban, that is constitutional.
/10:06
10:06. What part of "shall not be infringed" so you not understand?
1006/1254 - Your comment was so vague and muddled that gleaning what you actually said was difficult, much less what you meant. References to "gun nuts," "militias," and "conscientious objectors" have nothing to do with regulation. Sorry if I addressed a point you didn't make.
The court's decision left a lot of things "open." That the right of individuals to possess weapons is not unlimited should not surprise anyone.
Whatever they do, it's just going to increase the black market sale of guns. And increase the theft of guns to supply the black market. The criminals want their assault weapons and big magazines as much as the NRA members.
I am opposed to the all the screaming gun law bullshit, both sides. One side going in the wrong direction, the other side making up bullshit to further their cause. This fits either side. Put the NRA in charge of national gun security. Whenever a nut does unthinkable things, the NRA can answer for it.
Sheesh 10:31; did you forget to take your meds this morning?
Your comment was so vague and muddled that gleaning what you actually said was difficult, much less what you meant
Your failure to comprehend is not my failure to make a point.
That the right of individuals to possess weapons is not unlimited should not surprise anyone.
Yet it does. The right (you know, people like you) thinks that the only unregulatable right is the right to bear arms. They're wrong completely, whereas you're usually wrong on the finer points.
1:49
"Put the NRA in charge of national gun security. Whenever a nut does unthinkable things, the NRA can answer for it."
This one statement sums up what is wrong with this country.
Gun control, welfare, government fraud, rape, abortion, the list can go on ad infinitum.
Why does someone else or some other group have to "answer" for the behavior of a person?
Why doe we think "someone else always has to answer".
People should be responsible for their own actions. I realize 70 % of the people even capable of reading that statement won't accept that as a reasonable alternative.
The country as constructed today is doomed. I guess I should have been a lawyer so I could suck on the hind tit of the "crime industry" Talk about a perpetual machine!
Hey Zetaboy,
Just stick to running your dope and stay out
of psychiatry.......and religion.
More people were killed in 2011 with hammers than assault weapons. When are we going to start holding
Lowes responsible?
What if I don't want to bare arms?
DF Emily Litella
1:14 What part of "well regulated militia" or" being necessary to the security of a free State" both of which appears in the very same sentence, do you not understand. It amazes me how you can take a few words of a sentence and disregard and ignore the rest of the same sentence.
I think a certain troll has stopped signing his work.
Question on the Cowboys switchin' over to a 4-3 defense: Most rate the strongest part of the Cowboys' defense as the linebackers and the weakest as the defensive line. Is there a point to taking one of your strongest positions off of the field and adding one of your weakest ones?
(Some smart ass will say they are just moving Demarcus Ware down into a stance. Wrong. There is a reason he plays so much better as an OLB than a DE.)
Re: Cowboys defensive Coach.
From 1 bad hair day to another
bad hair day!
@4:03 WK "I think a certain troll has stopped signing his work."
I think you could be correct.
@12:52 "I quoted the Supreme Court, dumbass!"
You misquoted the Supreme Court with every statement in that post at 10:06. In your closing quote of the opinion, you included no reference to the fact that the Court italicized "any sort" and "any purpose", which completely changes the meaning of that statement. "...to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for 'any sort' of confrontation," means, for example, that there is no right to commit murder included in the 2nd Amendment, but the opinion expressly includes affirmation of the right to carry arms for self defense and hunting.
You understand the opinion, you intentionally misrepresented what it said because you thought that, like BG, no one would read it.
Yours was a despicable act.
The Wise County Democrats are holding a raffle with a chance to win a coat hanger.
Take a look at this. A picture of Obama's mother, and grandparents. The grandfather looks very similar to Obama. They were all CIA. Also Hillary is a Lesbian? And was injured not from fainting, but in an aircraft shoot-down?
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2012/01/hidden-story-behind-jesse-ventura-piers-morgans-cnn-clash-over-obama-cia-ties.html
"What part of "well regulated militia" or" being necessary to the security of a free State" both of which appears in the very same sentence, do you not understand. It amazes me how you can take a few words of a sentence and disregard and ignore the rest of the same sentence."
These are the same people who stop at "Wives should submit to their husbands" and skip the part that states "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church..."
10:46 Um, apparently, like our blog host, you did not read the Heller opinion?
For, if you had, you would, or at least might, have understood the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses of 2A. The prefatory clause components, which you cite, set the stage - but do not limit or restrict - the operative clause that follows.
I'm not sure what relationship you believe the Second Amendment, prefatory and operative clauses included, has to do with Ephesians 5:22-26. One wouldn't think that a subject likely to be considered by the Supreme Court.
Just sayin'.
That was a Supreme Court decision, it was not what the founding fathers originally intended. They where talking about a regulated, organized citizen army. A militia. I will agree that do to the fact everyone now is armed, a weapon is necessary for ones personal protection, but that was not the original intent.
And the court doesn't necessarily make their decision based on the written Constitution, but on the ideology of the majority at the time. Just look at what they said about eminent domain. Kelo v. City of New London.
1022 - On what do you base your opinion about the founding fathers' "intention" applying to the militia? To the contrary, they based the majority of the Constitution on English law, including the English Bill of Rights, which specifically refers to the individual's right to bear arms for self-protection, without any mention of a "militia."
WK, 1046/1022's point regarding original intent vis-Ã -vis the meaning of "militia" is moot on several fronts.
First, as the Heller opinion states, recognizing standard English language sentence syntax, the prefatory clause does not restrict or limit the operative clause which follows. We all remember the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses from junior high school - and so do, apparently, at least five of The Nine.
Second, the word "militia" residing in the prefatory clause notwithstanding, the jurists nonetheless examined the term, rather extensively, and noted that 2A did not serve to create any militia, but to recognize that the armed citizens comprised such a body, which for the purpose of maintaining a free polity, would be useful.
And third, following closely on the heels of the second reason, is the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, recognize and enumerate the limitations on the central government, and specifically acknowledge the natural rights as retained by the people. To assert that 2A purports to establish for the Federal government the right to create an army, instead of recognizing a right of the people, is wrong, as noted in Heller .
1046/1022's assertion that because Kelo's reasoning may have been erroneous (a proposition with which many former Hurst residents, and I, would agree), it follows that the Heller opinion is also incorrect. It suggests the possibility, but in no way proves the hypothesis. This is known as a logical fallacy, a rhetorical legerdemain.
BTW, this blog's host is quite correct that reading the opinion does constitute a superb history lesson.
T. Donald - I agree with you across the board. The reason I posed the question I did was that 1022 argues his point by dismissing the Heller decision as immaterial vis-Ã -vis the founders' "intent." I pointed out that their intent was clear if one takes into consideration the origins of the Constitution and where the founders got their ideas. 1022 needs to back up his opinion with more than just more of his opinions. Your points (as well as Scalia's very scholarly ones) are in addition to my limited argument.
Here Wordy.
From the constitution.
Article 1
Section 8
Paragraphs 15 & 16
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Militias may not be mentioned in the English Bill of Rights but it is mentioned in the US constitution, the US bill of rights and the Militia Act of 1792.
Hence the "well regulated militia" and "being necessary to the security of a free State" bit in the second amendment, the third of three documents which make up the constitution of the United States.
943 - You're right, militias are mentioned in those documents -- in reference to what became the National Guard. The fact that militias are mentioned in other contexts has no bearing on what the intentions of the founders were regarding the Second Amendment.
Your argument is like saying "Because mustard is sold in supermarkets, mustard is available only in supermarkets." Which is patently ridiculous to freedom-loving mustard users everywhere.
They, they militias, became the national guard in 1903. The militia act of 1903.
They were pretty clear about what they intended. That is why all the words in those above quotations all appear in the same sentence. You can't just take a couple words from a sentence and make it something that it is not. Well, you can, but rational people don't.
Like you like to say, back up your opinion with more than just your opinions. Show me where the founding fathers said otherwise. Not a court ruling from 2008.
And leave mustard out of this. Mustard has never don't nothing to anybody. Except mustard gas, but that different.
117 - You don't even understand your own citations. The Constitution's giving Congress the right to regulate or call forth a militia -- the point of Article 1, §8, ¶15, which as I said, became what we now call the National Guard -- has zero to do with the Second Amendment.
You're the one discussing mustard. Mustard is as relevant to a discussion of the Second Amendment as what you're trotting out.
You aren't understanding. The right to regulate or call forth a militia, a well regulated militia. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. A well regulated (def. Control or supervise) militia. Giving citizens the right to take up arms, bear arms, a military term, to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, for the security of a free State. Protect the fledgling United States. Pretty obvious. Show me where the forefathers said otherwise.
The national guard came into the picture 150 years later and is not reliant. Its about original intent.
Mustard is a relevant as the English bill of Rights.
"Giving citizens the right to take up arms, bear arms" is not part of the sources you quoted. You're making your mustard analogy again, trying to emulsify Congress's abilities with your tepid argument. As Scalia pointed out, under your argument the use of the word people in the Second Amendment would differ from all other uses of the word throughout the Bill of Rights.
Incidentally, the Second Amendment does not "give" citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It codifies an already-existing right.
Ahem. 2A does not give any rights, it recognizes, and pledges to preserve, the natural rights intrinsic to the people; moreover, it is blatantly absurd, as a matter of normal intellect and understanding, to assert that the original intent of the Amendment is to allocate to the central government a means to provide, control and supervise militia, inasmuch as the entire BOR enumerates and acknowledges limitations on the Federal government, and the rights retained by the people and the States.
To the extent that the English BOR unquestionably in that time informed the thinking of the U. S. Constitution's framers, I'm disinclined to summarily dismiss it as irrelevant.
As for mustard, make mine Woeber's Champagne Dill.
The BOR does not allocate to the central government a means to provide, control and supervise militia. The Constitution does.
T. Donald, you're clearly an elitist snob when it comes to mustard. If it ain't bright yellow French's, then I'm goin' for magical Plochman's Chili Dog mustard -- mustard that tastes like a chili dog! God bless America!
Oh, and I'm coming to realize what we're dealing with in the "2A applies only to militias" guy. He's raging a bit.
Post a Comment