I confirm that I received no earlier version of the below email. Now Jim, a simple request is all that's needed for most folks who would ordinarily, go out of their way to spend a little of their own time, to verify something for you, at your request.
Anyway, I have posted a few examples of when I have experienced my own emails, sent to this list, completely disappearing "into a black hole", one very recently in fact. So this is a known problem. One possible explanation is spam filtering, especially for an example ISP as I use such as Telstra which is the incumbent, thus large and must handle millions of emails on a daily basis - it is at least conceivable that they somewhat aggressively filter for "spam" emails, and in doing so unfortunately black hole a few of the emails I draft ... not surprising given how many times I use the word "snowflake" in my emails. Good luck, On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 07:53:27PM +0000, jim bell wrote: > I'm going to re-send this, because after over a hour it doesn't seem to have > appeared on the list. > Jim Bell > ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: jim bell <[email protected]>To: > Steven Schear <[email protected]>Cc: cypherpunks > <[email protected]>; Razer <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November > 3, 2019, 10:30:21 AM PSTSubject: Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest > ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE] > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter > that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it > was ratified by states." > >Of course they are more strict. > > I will try to be clearer. In virtually any environment, there is "the way > things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are". One > major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is > that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago the Bill of > Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States > themmselves. There was a very long period of the practice called > "incorporation" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights So, for > essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the > wording of the Second Amendment. > I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense. It > effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, > despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified > the relevant Amendment. What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually > mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just > ratified. If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those > States, of course. > It's further illogically applied: Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, > "Congress shall make no law...". Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is. > Not the State legislatures, it seems. So,if any Amendment is written so as > to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First! Yet, > there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO > applies to the States themselves. That is certainly a good idea, but I dare > you to try to find out the actual, Constitutional justification for deciding > that's the way things have to be done. > And when the Second Amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed", > there is no indication at all that the ratifying States immediately intended > to exclude themselves from this obligation, Where did that idea come from? > > > >When these Amendments were written each state had militias controlled by > their governors, > > I don't think that's precisely true. Saying that "each state had militias" > can be interpeted in at least two ways:1. There are militias acting within > the territory of each state. OR2. [The Government] of each state owns > or controls [some of?] the militias acting within each respective state. > These are distinctly different concepts. I think State Constitutions > generally give such Governors power "to call out the militia". But the way > law works, that does not automatically mean that those militias become > obliged to obey that call. I realize that might seem to be a fine > distinction, especially to a non-lawyer, but the way American Constitutions > are interpreted, the absence of a explicit reference to an power has (at > least used to be!) interpereted as the ABSENCE of that power. When States > wrote their Constitutions, they (I think correctly) recognized that if "the > Government" was to EVER have the authority to "call out" a militia, that > power had to be listed in the Constitution itself. And it was. > "and these rights were linked to militia membership." > That reasoning is excluded by the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald > decisions. Sure, that was long the position of "the powers that be", and the > chattering leftist political classes especially, but the Heller decision > destroyed that concept forever. > https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 > >From the Heller decision: "Logic demands that there be a link between the > >stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if > >it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a > >free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances > >shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a > >prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The > >separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings > >of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear > >that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to > >clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does > >not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A > >General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter > >Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and > >Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).[Footnote 3] “ ‘It is nothing unusual > >in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often > >extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the > >necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their > >Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. > >B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the > >operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our > >reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced > >purpose.[Footnote 4]" ===========end of Heller > >quote====================== > > > > This which dramatically changed in 1903, when Congress became Dicks. > > Some would argue that Congress was ALWAYS Dicks. And I couldn't disagree, > > >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 > > >Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are > >effectively no militias. > > Returning to the "the way things are SUPPOSED to be" vs. "the way things are > actually done" issue, I have explained that: "Incorporation" wasn't applied > to the 2nd Amendment until 2010, and maybe not even today! I argue that in > 2010, State legislatures became all obligated to "clean house" of > newly-discovered-to-be-unconstitutional laws, due to the McDonald decision. > But to my knowledge, none of them ever did so. Implicitly, this means that > they are thumbing their Legislative noses at the Supreme Court. As if they > are saying, "Just try to make me!... Nyah! Nyah!! Nyah!!!". > But that doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong, nor Heller's, nor > McDonald's. Just that those interpretations aren't currently RESPECTED by > legislatures, as reflected in their state laws. So while you can certainly > point out hundreds or even thousands of current State laws, their existence > doesn't mean that they don't violate the current interpretation of the U.S. > Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > >https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national-guard > > >I interpret this change to mean these rights originally conferred to the > >states now Constitutionally belong to the nation's individuals. > > Well, since the late 1800's, there has been the foundation of the 'National > Guard' organization(s) in presumably each state. But it is merely an > implication to suggest things like, 'now we don't need militias', or worse, > 'we can now ban militias, since the National Guard substitutes for it." Or > even worse, 'since we no longer have militias, none of the 2nd Amendment > rights are valid anymore.' (I'm not suggesting you said these things, > merely that such implicit arguments have frequently been cited by (mostly > liberal?) debaters, and much of the clueless populace, lacking any sort of > legal education, accepts them without apparent question.) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8 > "You come in here with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a > lawyer", The Paper Chase, 1973. When I originally saw this movie, in the > theater, I had no idea how accurate this statement was. And of course, I > also had no idea that I would eventually be giving myself much of a lawyer's > legal education 30 years later, and then understanding what "Professor > Kingsfield" meant. > Yes, there IS something which could be called "thinking like a lawyer". > Figuring out the precise meaning of words, sentences, and paragraphs. But as > importantly, the ability to understand (and reject) tantalizingly attractive > implications that might actually not be a proper way of thinking of some > issue. Just because a Governor may have the authority to 'call out the > militia', does not necessarily mean that the militia is obliged to obey him. > Yes, that's a hard concept to grasp. From the Wikipedia article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia > > "Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. > Some of the contexts in which the term "militia" is used include: > > - Forces engaged in defense activity or service, to protect a community, > its territory, property, and laws. [3] > > - The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or > state, available to be called to arms. > - A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond > to a call-up. > - A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of > legal obligation. > > > > [end of quote from Wikipedia] > Now, a state might hypothetically have a LAW requiring a militia member to > respond to a call. But that law would not necessarily be Constitutional, > and that law might be interpreted by a court that it violates the 2nd > Amendment. Such laws, of course, have been rarely, if ever, actually > challenged and decided on. (There is virtually never a NEED to: If there is > a genuine emergency, no doubt that most militia people would respond, and the > few who fail to respond would be ignored). > The Founding Fathers, being a product of the then-recent American Revolution, > deeply distrusted centralized government power. Their view of "a militia", > I believe, was that of armed force of neighbors who were entitled (virtually > by natural rights) to band together to defend their community. NOT a group > of people who only got that power to group from government, with the idea > that this could be taken away at a moment's notice, and who were somehow > obliged to act only under their State's beck and call, and could be demanded > to show up on cue. > I think the (certainly the current!) Supreme Court would decide that no, > while the Governor had the (positive) authority to 'call out the militia', > nevertheless that militia had no obligation at all to obey that call, if that > was their choice. And they might even show up intending to shoot the > Governor ! > These are the kind of distinctions that few non-lawyers comprehend. > Jim Bell > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 5:13 AM jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote: > >>For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most > >>endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have > >>been for a long time. > > > >Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not > >>the, worst possible slurs. > > > >>When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term > >>at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others > >>may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations. > > >Aussie Thomas Violence says: > > >"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended > >by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school > >children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" > Sure he said that! The current difference between America and Australia is > that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly America > hasn't done that. It's called the "Second Amendment", and my interpretation > fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. I > think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that > they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was > ratified by states. That's the meaning of the term "infringed", with its > root-word "fringe". > I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even > around the "fringed". Why this wording? Well, if the wording had says, "the > right to keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick politician some > day would decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more power than 1/4 of a > 0.22 pistol, they still hadn't actually DENIED people's rights to own a gun, > used singular. Slick. > I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot > people. It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but because > at that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act. "What has changed", > we should ask? America doesn't have that many more people (and guns) than we > did in 1966. > > >Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to > >turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white > >genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading > >up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" > Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood by > people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody? "Fake hate > crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to simulate, > and if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she probably won't > get caught. ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the door, look around > to make sure nobody is looking and there are no security cameras, and then > drop the noose! Try not to leave any DNA!") > > thomas violence on Twitter > > Rr > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail > > > > > > >
