Seven shot dead at US army base in Texas

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Obama is telling congress to hold off investigations on the Fort Hood until local law enforcement do their probes. This is insane!!! Congress is in charge of the military, not the military or local law enforcement. This isn't a political theater, it's a terrorist attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/obama-urges-congress-delay-fort-hood-investigation/

Serious question: what would you recommend? If Congress does not have the forensic and other findings from federal and military law enforcement, on what should they base their assessment?

Congressional hearings don't do original on-scene investigations, e.g., forensics. I can't think of an example. Anyone?

I couldn't find local law enforcement mentioned in the article cited; it does state "until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes...."

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Obama is telling congress to hold off investigations on the Fort Hood until local law enforcement do their probes. This is insane!!! Congress is in charge of the military, not the military or local law enforcement. This isn't a political theater, it's a terrorist attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/obama-urges-congress-delay-fort-hood-investigation/

Serious question: what would you recommend? If Congress does not have the forensic and other findings from federal and military law enforcement, on what should they base their assessment?

Congressional hearings don't do original on-scene investigations, e.g., forensics. I can't think of an example. Anyone?

I couldn't find local law enforcement mentioned in the article cited; it does state "until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes...."

/Marg

Ever since the steroids in baseball thing, I've considered congressional hearings to be mostly a taxpayer-funded political circle-jerk anyway.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Obama is telling congress to hold off investigations on the Fort Hood until local law enforcement do their probes.

He's not telling them, he's asking them. If I was I was in the Administration, I'd feel it was executive prerogative, since the President is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Secretary of Defense is also part of the executive branch. If I was in the Congress, I'd remind the President that Congress does control the purse-strings, and does have checks-and-balances oversight responsibility to monitor the other 2 branches of government. If I was in the FBI, I'd ask everyone else to kindly back the fuck off, so I could do my job without all the other assholes compromising my investigation.

Quote

Congress is in charge of the military

Incorrect. See above.

Quote

This isn't a political theater, it's a terrorist attack.

Would that that were true. That's why I'd probably toss my support behind the FBI right now. Having said that, as long as the LEOs' investigations are not compromised, both the President/DOD and the Congress have legitimate reasons - duties, in fact - to conduct diligent investigations.

Quote

In addition, now there is ommission from radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki that he was Major Hasan's confidant. I know, I know.... he claims he didn't tell Hasan to do anything "bad to the American's" (Yeah right!)

I presume you mean admission. At any rate, yeah, you're right; Muslims are scary; let's relocate them to internment camps.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Ever since the steroids in baseball thing, I've considered congressional hearings to be mostly a taxpayer-funded political circle-jerk anyway.

Ah, yes, perhaps not the finest example.

I guess I think first of Congressionally-chartered commissions, which do tend to be independent and I would argue have been valuable, e.g., 9-11 Commission, the Intelligence Commission, the Church Commission. There is a certain amount of politics that do end up in them, in my experience. I briefed a Congressionally-chartered Commission a couple years (not Congess-folk). It was interesting. I'm not sure how to completely remove any/all politics. And at some level, one person's politics is another's disagreement. That's hard to parse sometimes.

W/r/t the Fort Hood shooting and possibility of a Congressionally-chartered Commission or Congressional hearing, which are even *more* politicized, I can speculate on some possible areas of investigation. But until the DoD and FBI finish their investigations and analysis, I'm not sure Congressional hearings are warranted. *If* the investigation and analysis (both internal and external) raise unanswered questions or expose unadressed systematic gaps, then I would support heartily Congressional-level investigations.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Ron 7]

Quote

So when young men were involuntarily drafted into the military that didn't apply?

Great question.... Since there has not been a draft since the year after I was born, I have not thought about it.

My initial thought is that combat arms soldiers should be armed all the time after BASIC. I see no harm in a trained person with a weapon.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

please find a quote of the 2nd amendmend which includes the words self-defence.

Answered with a quote from a founding father already to look at the situation and the intent.

But hey look at the 2nd... It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So if you want to just look at the words, no gun bans or limits are legal.

Quote

If they specifically intended that, why would they not have mentioned that specifically. They do mention protection against the government specifically.

Yes, and as I have already shown, self protection was a given... They were setting up a govt and putting limits ON that govt to prevent what they just had to do.

Quote

prove that he specifically meant against self-preservation and protection of those three rights from another individual and not the government.

Prove he didn't. He said it in plain English...

Quote

Exactly, the individual has a choice. Like you have a choice not to work for your employer, cause he does not allowe [SIC] guns. Are you have the choice not to go to a mall that does not allow guns. You also have the choice not to send your kids to a school which doesn't allow guns.

What is wrong with those choices?

The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyChimp 0]

Admission yes sorry... no coffee at that time. The circumstances should have Congress involved and investigating in my opinion. I know others disagree with that but when US soldiers are killed by an extremist then it's far more than fucking baseball & steriods. (That wasn't toward you Andy) The fact is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan jumped on a table, yelled “Alah Hu Akhbar” and began the shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded 30 more. I think Obama is simply reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks on his watch.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think Obama is simply reluctant to take the rap for inadequate protections against such attacks on his watch.

I don't know why you think that. He's publicly made statements that the tragedy will be fully investigated and that those responsible will be held accountable.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The 2nd said "shall not be infringed". How is that a hard concept to grasp?

It's only simple to grasp for those who really believe that absolutely NO restrictions are permissible - for example, but quite literally, if a person wants to own, say, fully-armed tanks, flamethrowers, RPGs, B-52 bombers (with full loads of live bombs), nuclear weapons, etc., the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right. And yes, looking at its language, that certainly could be one interpretation.

But most judges, even judges who have issued very pro-ownership/possession rulings on 2nd Amendment grounds, concede that there are certain limitations that are permissible - for example, re: the seriously heavy-duty military assets I just mentioned.

So the battle in the courts - both courts of law and courts of public opinion - has been over the correct and reasonable definition of "infringed". So, yes - in actual practice, "shall not be infringed" really is a hard concept to grasp.

[kelpdiver 2]

I don't think any 'reasonable' reading of 'shall not be infringed' would support a conclusion that self defense was not intended to be part of the rights guarantee. It was a pretty clearly stated element by those involved.

[Andy9o8 0]

My broad point simply being: the phrase is not unequivocally self-defining; it is subject to interpretation, depending on ALL sorts of variables (including, not insignificantly, the tenor of the times).

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My broad point simply being: the phrase is not unequivocally self-defining; it is subject to interpretation, depending on ALL sorts of variables (including, not insignificantly, the tenor of the times).

Except that "fully-armed tanks, flamethrowers, RPGs, B-52 bombers (with full loads of live bombs), nuclear weapons" aren't milita weapons - most of them are crew served. You could *possibly* make a case for the RPG, as AT-4's *are* sometimes carried by infantry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ron 7]

Quote

It's only simple to grasp for those who really believe that absolutely NO restrictions are permissible - for example, but quite literally, if a person wants to own, say, fully-armed tanks, flamethrowers, RPGs, B-52 bombers (with full loads of live bombs), nuclear weapons, etc., the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right. And yes, looking at its language, that certainly could be one interpretation.

Most consider it to include weapons that the average troop would carry.... But I'll be honest, I don't fear a citizen with a tank either.

Quote

So, yes - in actual practice, "shall not be infringed" really is a hard concept to grasp.

But to try and claim that self defense would not be a valid reason that the FF intended is pure BS. The FF stated several times that self defense was a persons right.

It is up to him to prove it was not to REMOVE a right. And the evidence does not support his position.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Andy9o8 0]

That's why I called it a broad point.

[Ron 7]

Quote

My broad point simply being: the phrase is not unequivocally self-defining; it is subject to interpretation, depending on ALL sorts of variables (including, not insignificantly, the tenor of the times).

Then you would support a State sponsored religion if the " tenor of the times" changed?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That's why I called it a broad point.

VERY broad

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

My broad point simply being: the phrase is not unequivocally self-defining; it is subject to interpretation, depending on ALL sorts of variables (including, not insignificantly, the tenor of the times).

Then you would support a State sponsored religion if the " tenor of the times" changed?

Sigh. I hate Speakers Corner.

Yer pickin' a fight where there ain't no fight to pick.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Sigh. I hate Speakers Corner.

No one is forcing you to be here.

Quote

Yer pickin' a fight where there ain't no fight to pick.

You said that "the tenor of the times" can reduce or add to the second. You saying that leads to believe that you are fine with it.... Me asking if you say and feel the same about another Amendment is a logical direction to head.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,380]

>Then you would support a State sponsored religion if the " tenor of the
>times" changed?

You mean like putting the words "under God" in the constitution and holding presidential prayer breakfasts, funded by taxpayers? How about a federally funded Easter Cross on top of a mountain in San Diego? Naah. That could never happen.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yer pickin' a fight where there ain't no fight to pick.

I'd say this was true when you inserted yourself into the discussion here. No one was debating (in this thread) if shall not be infringed means absolutely no limitations. The right (or lack thereof) to self defense was the discussion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Then you would support a State sponsored religion if the " tenor of the
>times" changed?

You mean like putting the words "under God" in the constitution and holding presidential prayer breakfasts, funded by taxpayers? How about a federally funded Easter Cross on top of a mountain in San Diego? Naah. That could never happen.

How about Congressional Chaplains and daily prayers to open Congress?

Nah... never happen.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

>Then you would support a State sponsored religion if the " tenor of the
>times" changed?
How about a federally funded Easter Cross on top of a mountain in San Diego? Naah. That could never happen.

Really? I could have sworn I saw one just last Saturday.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

So the battle in the courts - both courts of law and courts of public opinion - has been over the correct and reasonable definition of "infringed". So, yes - in actual practice, "shall not be infringed" really is a hard concept to grasp.

Who says it has to be reasonable?

The word means what the word means, whether or not it still seems 'reasonable' in the face of modern weapons technology.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ron 7]

Quote

You mean like putting the words "under God" in the constitution and holding presidential prayer breakfasts, funded by taxpayers? How about a federally funded Easter Cross on top of a mountain in San Diego? Naah. That could never happen.

And would YOU support them? Not asking *IF* it happens, I am asking if you would support it.

And all of your examples are a FAR cry from a State sponsored religion.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,380]

>And would YOU support them?

Putting "under God" in the Pledge - not a big fan of that one; the original was just fine.

Easter Cross funding - provided it is quickly sold off to a church for the value of the land (which was the stated intent) I'm OK with it. It better happen soon though.

Prayer breakfasts - provided they are nondenominational (which they are) I'm OK with it.

>And all of your examples are a FAR cry from a State sponsored religion.

Yep. Just as restrictions on ownership of tanks is a FAR cry from "outlawing guns."