http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142 Ockham's Razor - Since October 2001 - by Scott Kirwin Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:37:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142&cpage=1#comment-84805 Dr. Ruger Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:55:12 +0000 http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142#comment-84805 Justice Stevens' dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens' premise is that the 2nd states that the 'right' extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a 'right not to be infringed' declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the 'right' to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let's ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can 'keep' their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2's? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the 'right not to be infringed' to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for......perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned......perhaps a women's right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the 'rights' of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of 'hate speech' and the implementation of the 'fairness doctrine'. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he's a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can't do anything about it. Justice Stevens’ dissent is severely flawed and it is scary to think that one more dissenter would have effectively repealed the second amendment. Stevens’ premise is that the 2nd states that the ‘right’ extends to only bone fide miltia members to store the weapons of war within their homes to to engage in armed conflict on behalf of the state/federal government in defense of what those governments dictate. The absurdity of a ‘right not to be infringed’ declared in the Constitution to apply to service in a bone fide military organization is hard to comprehend. Why would the Framers need to guarantee the right of someone in a combat miltia the ‘right’ to be in a combat militia fighting? Does that then mean that you have a right to be in a militia if you so want that cannot be infringed? First let’s ask who was the militia? At the time it was ordinary, able citizens who voluntarily formed defensive units. They provided their own weapons. Yet Stevens equates them to State National Guards under the direction of the governor. Would this then mean that Guardsmen can ‘keep’ their weapons of war at their homes? Would this then include mortars, TOWs, Bradleys & M60-A2’s? Or, if it truly only applies to militias, then folks in the Michigan and other militias should have the right to keep & bear all manner of offensive & defensive weapons including Stingers, Tomahawks & MRVs. If only Guardsmen have the ‘right not to be infringed’ to store war weaponry at their homes and to fight in active combat for their country, what about the NAVY, ARMY, AF & Marines? What would these guardsman be allowed to fight for…...perhaps only things that Justice Stevens sanctioned…...perhaps a women’s right to choose (abortion on demand)? The militias could shoot abortion protesters. Maybe the ‘rights’ of the enemy combatants to go before a US judge? How about forced school busing? Or better yet, enforce the elimination of ‘hate speech’ and the implementation of the ‘fairness doctrine’. But Stevens does not have to worry about being patently ridiculous, he’s a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life so he can be as dumb as a box of hammers and we can’t do anything about it.

]]> http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142&cpage=1#comment-84796 curtismo Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:22:07 +0000 http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142#comment-84796 two words jury nullification , if you dont like a law ,or don't believe in the case you are sitting thru jury duty on ,vote not guilty ,this is your greatest power and you do not have to explain yourself to no one for the way you vote two words jury nullification , if you dont like a law ,or don’t believe in the case you are sitting thru jury duty on ,vote not guilty ,this is your greatest power and you do not have to explain yourself to no one for the way you vote

]]> http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142&cpage=1#comment-84792 Pirates! Man Your Women! » Blog Archive » Finally A Good Decision Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:20:31 +0000 http://www.therazor.org/?p=1142#comment-84792 [...] Tons of the sites I like to read are covering this, including Michelle Malkin, the Castle, BlackFive, Ahab, Irons in the Fire.  And of course Kim.  And his lovely sentiment towards that bitch ho, I mean, Feinstein.  And The Razor. [...] [...] Tons of the sites I like to read are covering this, including Michelle Malkin, the Castle, BlackFive, Ahab, Irons in the Fire.  And of course Kim.  And his lovely sentiment towards that bitch ho, I mean, Feinstein.  And The Razor. [...]

]]>