discntnt_irny_srcsm
discntnt_irny_srcsm's JournalCamden residents, elected officials march against police brutality
Source: The Courier-Post
CAMDEN - Police officers who patrol this city followed a different path Saturday, joining residents in a march against racism.
Elected officials and religious leaders also took part in the peaceful demonstration, which followed the police-involved death of a Minneapolis man on Memorial Day.
...
Police Chief Joseph Wysocki, who previously described the video showing Floyd's death as "horrific," walked at the front of the march. He helped hold a banner that read "Standing in solidarity."
"We're proud to stand together with the residents we serve!" the police department said in retweeting a video taken during the march.
Read more: https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/2020/05/30/camden-police-administration-building-protest-george-floyd/5293075002/
This article was updated 10:08 a.m. ET May 31, 2020.
Hosts: I'm not sure if this meets the 12 hours standard.
Please let me know.
I promise to elaborate but also please check out #92
I did cover other issues there.
I left work at 7:45PM ET and I'm waiting for dinner right now so this will be short and to the point.
Excepting possibly certain small towns, this country is not a democracy. All levels of current government that I am aware of operate as a representative republic. Certain officials are elected in democratic election is the only democratic thing about the US.
I will indeed address changing culture and, to a degree, address your own duty to help. Clearly a charismatic and articulate person with knowledge and discernment could come on the political scene and relieve us of some of our difficulties by his/her leadership in the updating of our laws. I don't know what subjects you teach but every teacher has the opportunity to not only relay facts on the topics but to also inspire the class by relating material about the trailblazers in that area of study. Maybe science, maybe law, maybe writing or art. Today's students need to be inspired. Most all the Republicans I know (I used to be one) are not friends of change.
This man has an inspiring story:
Albert P. Blaustein was professor of law at Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) School of Law. He authored numerous scholarly works on the subject of constitutionalism including a six—volume work on the U.S. Constitution entitled Constitution of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties. Blaustein helped draft more than 40 constitutions worldwide and visited many of those countries. In 1991, he helped to write the constitution for the Russian Republic. Professor Blaustein died in 1994.
In all areas of work and study there are inspiring stories to tell of those passionate about their work. Just because one is not paid as a professional does not make his efforts less admirable. I remember a quote from John Houseman: "What Mrs. Burns and many others are wrong about is the meaning of the word, which has to do with motivation, not quality. Remember "amo, amat, amas", the Latin verb "to love". The meaning of "amateur" is "he or she who does a thing for the love of it". There is no higher reason for singing than the love of doing it. In that respect, you do qualify as amateurs. And I salute you for it."
In high school I came loath history and I avoided it altogether in college. Today I eagerly read about history and those passionate enough to achieve historic significance.
You seem like a decent dude--I would appreciate a response to more than one of my points-(not all of them-nobody is perfect!)
I'm now going back to kitchen for some seconds and desert. Butter pecan ice cream...
By the way, what do you teach? Subject(s), grades...
The assault weapons controversy
At issue is a Maryland ban passed in 2013. In 2014 a US district judge upheld the ban saying:
...
To explain this, she noted the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that military grade M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual, then went on to write "Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s — and arguably more effective — the same reasoning would seem to apply here."
Blake also found in her ruling that rounds fired from assault weapons have enhanced penetrating capabilities and therefore pose a higher risk to both law enforcement than the bullets fired from other types of firearms. Nevertheless, when plaintiffs questioned the practice under the ban of allowing retired law enforcement officers to receive and keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines, she dismissed the objection saying, "they are better equipped than the general public to handle and store firearms safely."
I personally believe that states have certain sovereign powers that do and should allow the regulation of guns within the limits of US SC precedence. The question at issue here for me is that IMHO facts accepted by the court in the original case before Judge Blake were limited and inaccurate.
My issue with any AWB is that a law regulating firearms:
>> Must, without reliance on a brand, model or manufacturer, functionally identify the target weapon.
>> Must not contain language such as "similar to". A weapon meets the criteria or not.
>> Must not contain simply appearance based non-functional criteria.
In your opinion, is there a case where ban on a type of firearm could/should be acceptable?
Please explain your criteria if you answer yes.
If you believe no classes or types of weapons should be more tightly regulated, please explain your reason(s).
Thanks
Have a great day.
No one seeks to find tyrannical governments
It is when such governments find you that some decisions become necessary. I note from history that the US revolution in the 18th century did not begin until a protracted sequence of abuses and abrogations of colonist's rights had occurred. It is always that way with tyranny. It's only when common folks recognize that they have not much future in continuing under the existing system that revolution is accepted.
There will always be a balance to be struck between the general degree of freedom and the burden of government needed to help those who can't help themselves. In recognizing, the basic need of medical help everyone, the ACA brings an aspect of safety those who've fallen on hard times. As many members have noted here on DU, this system is not perfect and is mostly just a first step but it's a good one.
JFK said: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
One of the keys to government respect for the individual is that its armed agents view themselves as fellow citizens. The RKBA places the average person on the same level (of armament) with a soldier or a murderer. The type of weapon is not as important as equality the right delivers.
There will not be an engagement (or at least maybe only a very few) between our current government's military and our people. The equalizing factor of the RKBA is a foundation for that equality. It is not so much the prospect of tactical success as it is the premise for the current serviceman to view himself as a common citizen.
An infantryman will take a station because of his commitment to do his duty. But, more than his duty or his country, an infantryman will fight for his own life and lives of his brothers around him.
Everyone who serves in the military has accepted that his country may place him in harm's way. I can't see myself taking aim at such a fellow countrymen nor can I accept the idea that a fellow countryman, so prepared to chance his safety for the rest of us, will ever take aim at me.
5 Carry Mistakes: Responsible Carrying
This really got me thinking.
https://www.sofmag.com/carry-life-5-carry-mistakes/
...
1. Abandonment; The necessity of a firearm for which you are responsible leaving your control...
2. One Firearm; We appreciate that it’s a serious and potentially expensive business to select that perfect carry arm, only to have us assert there’s no such thing. We do so nevertheless. There are many, many reasons why this can be so, so we’ll pick just one, and generalize...wardrobe...
3. One Carry Method; To an extent, we understand that our number two implies this: A second defensive firearm will almost certainly call for a second carry method...
4. Abandonment, Part II; Have you considered that your carry firearm is “abandoned” at home, too, at least in the sense we previously reviewed?...
5. “My Skill Is Better Than Your Skill”; The key here is an out-of-fashion character trait—humility—and the surest cure is to get it through your head that nobody with any real sense is ever done learning. And especially not about something as consequential as armed self-defense...
ETA: The gracious alert and learned jury votes are much appreciated. Thanks one and all.
52% of Americans favor firearms...
...as their means of suicide:
In 2013, a gun was used in 21,175 of 41,149 total suicides.
A bit over half. Those are what I call a self-validated opinions.
>> http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html <<
Opinions are only useful if they've been validated. My wife spent the last 40 years avoiding crushed red peppers on her pizza. Her opinion was that they would be too spicy for her. She finally tried them. She'd been wrong for 40 years.
In 2011 in the US according to the FBI UCR...
...there were 751,131 aggravated assaults; an aggravated assault is a perpetrator causes or attempts to cause serious injury.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
Of those 21.2% involved a firearm. That's a bit over 159,000 incidents.
Such incidents may be cases where one person involved in an altercation draws a gun and fires whether the bullet strikes someone or not. Also included in that number are crimes such as kidnapping and rape where the gun was used as a threat to subdue the victim.
About 73,883 firearm injuries due to all intents are recorded for 2011. Those would include attempted suicide, criminal assault, law enforcement shootings, negligence, accidents, etc.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Countering the Heller dissent
In his dissent in Heller, Justice Stevens applied from Marbury v. Madison that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The argument expressed from this point names as the sole purpose for the 2A, the protection of a Militia purposed RKBA only. That, while the use of a gun in self-defense would certainly be legal, the 2A does not innately protect possession for that purpose.
The Heller case was about: "We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment."
In my view, there were several known, established, accepted and respected behaviors common among the citizens of our young nation. They were:
- the ownership of long guns for the purpose of hunting
- the carry of smaller firearms such as pistols for personal protection
- the use of guns in general for practice
- the use of a gun during service as a law enforcement officer
and, of course...
- possession for use relating to militia service.
I argue that the 2A was written with the militia clause to include in its protection, the specific possession of militia appropriate weapons. That if, weapons not solely purposed for the first four uses, above, would be restricted from the people, the militia would be impaired. That the possession of militia appropriate weapons would be protected. After all a militia armed with Olympic target pistols of .22 caliber or 18th century muskets is hardly well matched against another force armed with even 19th century lever action rifles.
Through history, certain upper classes have prohibited the possession of state of the art arms to those outside their own group. Take for example Japan's Samuri who forbid general ownership of the katana. Laws that would burden the people in same manner as the British attempted to burden the colonies concerning firearms were to be excluded from possibility. The 3A was in line with that same end. It was a standard procedure among the British to house their soldiers in the homes of colonists and burden the quartering family with their feeding and sheltering.
In reading Federalist #46 one can determine that Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, intended to protect a militia of just about every free white adult male in the country. That the existence of arms in the hands of everyone rather than a select few (maybe 1% of the population) was entirely proper.
There have always been 1%ers that sought to be "above" the rest of us. It is that same special interest end that the 2A was enacted to protect against.
In the US we've enacted and, later, corrected laws that forbid certain types of folks from owning firearms. There were laws against selling or giving guns to Black folks and Native Americans, because it was said 'they aren't really people'.
I further contest inferring that the RKBA has no individual protection based upon the founders not expressing that aspect conflicts with the nature of the Bill of Rights. A fundamental principle of interpretation is...
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
The effect of this principle is to apply the 2A in the way as the other rights in the Bill of Rights are applied. The 1A covers newspapers with hundreds of employees as well as an individual blogger. The 2A protects everyone's RKBA not just those who belong to a militia.
The 2A mainly expresses and protects a right, a common right of everyone, not an institution, not the militia. The very idea that a right exists but only for a certain few is insulting to the founders... and to us all.
Rights
As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In this context, a right is an innate attribute of a person. A right serves as a guide for behavior in that it names good, correct and righteous pursuits. Actions, having as a goal sustaining one's life are congruent with this guide. Enacting legislation providing for such behavior as legal is also congruent with this guide.
Suggesting that a only a group of people rather than an individual have the right to life is just plain bizarre.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Philly
Home country: USA
Current location: NJ
Member since: Thu Apr 21, 2011, 10:48 AM
Number of posts: 18,479