Monthly Archives: September 2014

Do conservatives who advocate for the Second Amendment do so in order to preserve the means to overthrow their government, in the event i…

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

TL;DR A qualified Yes.

Here's the purpose of the Second Amendment:

It is "just" one more place that the framers of Our Constitution, carefully, and intentionally, left the Power to control and strictly limit government authority, in OUR (as in We The People) hands for all of history to see.

They had LIVED under a despot, and wanted to INSURE FOR ALL OF THEIR FUTURE GENERATIONS that any US government was ALWAYS subservient to the the highest  Good of the Citizens.  Here's how they attempted to do that:

They wrote Our Constitution in what was, at the time, PLAIN ENGLISH so that there couldn't be "convenient interpretations" of the foundation for our Laws.

They STRICTLY limited or banned many of the most henious government behaviors in very direct and specific common language.

They set up a government subject to the Rule of Law.

They gave US the TOOLS to enforce that Law.

Here are some of those Tools, and Restrictions rendered in today's plain English:

1) Congress may not ever use Law to Speak about any organization of religion.  They may not support it. They may not restrict individual practice of it.
Congress may not ever restrict freedom of speech.  Congress may not ever restrict the freedom of the press, or the Right of Citizens to gather peacefully and demand corrections of government actions which they consider to be wrong.

2) Because a well supplied Citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state, Congress may not ever limit the Rights of Citizens to keep and carry Arms.

3) In times of peace (absent an active Declaration of War BY CONGRESS) Soildiers shall not be housed in homes without the consent of the Owner. This shall also not be done in War, except as prescribed by civil Law.

4) People, their homes, papers, and possessions shall never be searched unreasonably. A reasonable search is based upon probable cause, and is supported by a Warrant, which is supported by an Oath or Affirmation. The Warrant shall specifically call out what, and where the search is conducted, AND shall call out what or who is being searched for.

5) NO PERSON SHALL EVER be arrested for a serious crime without an indictment from a Grand Jury.  The sole exception to this is in a time of War or public danger, IF the person is an active member of the armed forces.  No person may EVER be tried for the same crime more than one time.  No person may ever be required to testify against themselves.  No person may ever be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law (this means that "plea bargains" are strictly forbidden… no matter that they're convenient for busy judges and DAs).  NO private property may be taken from people, for public use, without fair compensation.

6) In ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the following Rights:
A speedy public trial, by an impartial jury, where the crime was committed. The district shall be established prior to the crime. (No making up "special" districts)

The Right to know, specifically, what the charges are, and what the basis for those charges are.

The Right to confront any and all accusers and witnesses.

The Right to confront and challenge those accusers and witnesses.

The Right to have those accusers and witnesses compelled to be present and get challenged.

The Right to have help from an attorney in defending themselves.

7) In lawsuits under common law, if the value in controversy is over $20.00, the Right to a trial by jury shall be protected.
No Fact tried by a jury shall be re-examined except by an Appeals Court.

8) Excessive bail (that which is beyond the legitimate need to prevent flight from prosecution) is strictly prohibited.
Excessive fines shall not be imposed.
Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be used.

Now for the Ace in the Hole!

9) That we call out specific Rights here shall not be used to deny or disparage any Rights that the people assert.

10) If we didn't specifically say that the Federal government can do a thing, then it is RESERVED to the States and/or the People (in that order).

Add to these tools:
The mandate that ALL taxation of individuals incomes by by apportionment amongst the States. (The Power of the Purse)

The mandate that ALL changes to the basic Law of the Constitution be done ONLY with the approval of the Citizens via the Amendment and Ratification Process.

The mandate that We the People approve ALL treaties through Our Representatives.

The MANDATE that ONLY Congress may declare war (and thus mobilize troops and arms).

Seems pretty air tight to me, now all We need to do is drag Our bribed government back to these Legitimate Laws… kicking and screaming bloody murder if necessary.

Here's the "qualified" bit I mentioned at the start:
Bottom line: Either Our government SERVES THE PEOPLE who ordained and authorize it, or it has no valid function at all!  PERIOD!

Do conservatives who advocate for the Second Amendment do so in order to preserve the means to overthrow their government, in the event i…

The second amendment reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep an…

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

It doesn't say that word for word.

What it does say, after all the explanatory language is:
"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

However, the militia has LONG been defined as "every able male between the ages of 17 and 45" because these are the folks who were to be called to Service in the event of a war, or any other need for troops.

What you have to remember is that when the Constitution was drafted there was to be only one "standing force" which was the Navy.

The Army was designed to be essentially disbanded in peace time, and was intended as a strictly temporary force so far as the rank and file was concerned. Many of the officers even went home.

suggestion: Look up the term militia at Blacks dictionary of Law or another legal (vs. common usage) dictionary.

The second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep an…

Why do some people who want to end the war on drugs think a prohibition of firearms would work?

The inconvenient Truth about prohibition and human nature.

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Those who would ban guns in the US, and loudly assert that "It would work to curb gun violence" are suffering from a particularly  pernicious version of Magical Thinking which is a close kin to religious zealotry.  This is inspired and encouraged by our so called news media which celebrates every time an atrocity occurs and completely ignores the "news" when crimes are stopped by an armed Citizen.  It's also encouraged by "our" politicians as one more way to keep Citizens so occupied scrapping amongst ourselves that we don't notice "our" Congresscritters are, in point of fact, working consistently against Us, Our Rights, and the interests of the Nation.

Here's the Facts on prohibition of any sort (which we only need to look at the history of the 18th Amendment to verify).

People always have been and WILL always CONTINUE TO get "stoned" because we are biologically, physically, and emotionally, hard-wired to use and need stress relief mechanisms. In Fact most animals are wired that same way.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17032_7-species-that-get-high-more-than-we-do.html

Here's some of the ways we get "stoned" (activate the body's natural endorphins )…

Pathological Thrill seeking.
Generally legal.

Pathological exercise.  (Sorry, but if you've worn out a knee or ankle running or an elbow playing tennis, and you continue to do that it IS medically pathological… that is, not good for the organism being treated).
Both of these are legal btw.

Meditation.

The classic… SEX (Ghasp!! Shudder!)
Generally legal, so long as the exchange isn't based upon cash.  In other words, it's perfectly acceptable "legally" for me to take a gal to a $300 evening out, but it's illegal for me to just hand her $300. This seems… utterly idiotic and pedantic (and…* blisters paint at 20 paces *) to me.

Especially Illicit sex, eg. Sex between teenagers. (Saints Preserve!)
Prohibited.

Drugs.
Prohibited unless "legally" prescribed.
(Wealth has its priveleges… Here's looking at YOU, Mr. Limbaugh, and Mr. Jackson!)

Alcohol.
Generally legal, except in supposedly dry counties.

Abuse of others (thrill seeking)
Legal with mutual consent.

Abuse by others (thrill seeking)
Legal with mutual consent.

Abuse by self.
Generally legal, so long as it doesn't kill you.

Food, esp. very spicy or savory food.
Legal.

The simple Fact is that you can use prohibition to (sometimes) shift these behaviors to more socially "acceptable" ways of getting stoned, but you will NEVER eliminate it because it's hard wired into us by biology.

Let's take a close look at the "success rates" for various forms of prohibition:

Illicit or Teen Sex: nope Fail.
The States with the most stringent laws against it, contraception, and education, also have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. This proves that teens ARE having sex (ghasp!) regardless of the prohibition.
Further, EVERY SINGLE city (world wide) I've ever been in over my 52 years has a "red light" district.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/11/24/explaining-variation-in-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state-race-and-sex-education/

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/10/Capture4.jpg

Drugs: nope. Abject Massive FAIL!
When the vaunted "War on Drugs" started up again in the 1970s, I distinctly recollect Ms. Nancy crowing on the radio about "We need to DO SOMETHING" because some "29% of teens admitted to having tried illegal drugs (ghasp! Shudder!)"  Today, that number is closer to 40%, after hundreds of billions of our national wealth having been intentionally wasted in direct costs, and tens of trillions being wasted directly and indirectly by Imprisoning folks whose sole "crime" "harmed" no one but themselves… but for the artificial prohibition.

Here's the Truth: The war on drugs exists to enhance the profits of multinational corporations, and to control of Citizens who might potentially challenge the existing power structure.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJkFZ4W4bjg

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/07/books/he-parked-his-conscience-in-the-hangar.html

Abuse of others: again a massive Fail.
http://www.safehorizon.org/page/domestic-violence-statistics–facts-52.html

The 18th Amendment and "dry" counties: Fail.
Do I really have to go there? Do you have any idea how many homes have huge stocks of booze (a case or better) that are located in supposedly dry counties?  I do. It's roughly 2/3.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/The-Eighteenth-Amendment.html#.VCmZXr3n_qA

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Per capita consumption:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157a.gif
Note that alcohol prohibition started in 1920 and was given up as a bad policy in 1933. Yet we see a sharp drop in consumption in 1921, and a huge rise to greater than pre-prohibition levels immediately after (the following 2 years). 
Yet folks still think that prohibition might "work this time"!  Isn't that just terribly cute?!

The simple Fact is that prohibition never has, does not, and never will, offer us any valid, workable, effective, solutions to a societal problem which is  "caused" by biology and human nature. People WILL find a way to get stoned.

Here's another part of why this is: Folks NEED, both psychologically, physically, and emotionally, an easy, usable way to temporarily set aside the stresses and worries of life…they need to be able to temporarily escape those problems for their very sanity.
That "escape" or temporary setting aside also gives us the emotional distance to be better able to look at those problems neutrally without judgement, and come to good (or better) solutions.

It's called a coping mechanism, and we ALL use it to one degree or another.

Why do some people who want to end the war on drugs think a prohibition of firearms would work?

Would homophobia end once and for all if science proved that homosexuality had a biological base?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Sadly, no.
Science has already "proven" (more accurately, demonstrated that being gay is most likely, based upon reams of evidence and many dozens of repeatable observations…) natural to animals, which humans are a subset of, and most likely has a biological basis.

Here is some of those reams of evidence presented in layman's terms, for your review:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Here's a slightly more technical look at it:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

Since homosexuality occurs naturally and almost universally across the animal kingdom  and humans ARE animals Occam's Razor implies that this is natural and normal for a percentage of any animal population (including humans.

Now, I'm not gay and frankly don't /can't understand that attraction. On the other hand I don't understand those who link pain and pleasure, those who want swinger relationships, or those who enjoy eating tripe, Fugu, or Lima beans. Does any of these behaviors make them any less a "normal" human.? No.
Will that change hatred by zealots? No.

Would homophobia end once and for all if science proved that homosexuality had a biological base?

Are there any atheists on Quora who hate God (or any god)?

Answer by Kris Rosvold:

Not for this atheist.
For me it's a case of having investigated the concept of god (pretty thoroughly btw) and having come to the conclusion that God and the dogma which goes with it have absolutely no value to me as a basis for my morals.

I have a fairly strict moral code, but it's based upon kindness, logic, intentional congruence (sometimes called Mindfulness by buddhists) and enforced by application of Occam's Razor, rather than upon any concept of god.

My stance is one of knowledgeable  disinterest rather than any ill will, or anger towards the concept of god. It's very much the same way I would regard Orcs.

Now, I do get fairly annoyed with zealots (of any sort), but that's because they tend to use fiat law, proselytizing, and "custom" as tools to try and force my compliance with their beliefs while attempting to claim some sort of "moral exemption" from law. This, I regard as simply Rude. Those actions I regard as an implied statement that I'm not competent to determine my own values.
And… After all, I don't come knock on your door (after walking blithely through a closed and Posted gate) of a Saturday or a Sunday afternoon in order to convert you.

blithe

Syllabification: blithe
Pronunciation: /blīT͟H
 
, blīTH
 
/

ADJECTIVE

1 Showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper: "He had a blithe disregard for the rules of the road."

Are there any atheists on Quora who hate God (or any god)?