Second Amendment rights.

[SergeGainsbourg]

I am not advocating in any way violence against police or any government entity, so I agree with that. The NRA can teach people how to defend themselves with legal firearms.

The NRA already does that. However, the NRA will only teach/train law abiding citizens who are willing to abide by the generally accepted laws and ways of doing things. As someone who was an NRA certified Pistol and Home Firearms Safety instructor for several years myself, I am familiar with the NRA's programs. A lot of the more "militant" factions out there won't come in for training with the NRA because we aren't going to go down the mental and intellectual roads they want, nevermind the physical ones.

In terms of police crime, I think we have had an epidemic in this country to the extent that police crime is part of our vocabulary....

.....Now do you really think there's hardly any police crime?

Yes I really do believe there's hardly any police crime. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I will suggest that in many cases what is called "police crime" is in reality qualified professionals doing the best job they can in a truly shitty situation. However, with the millions of LEOs out there on the street every single day, and the billions of interactions they have with the general public, the percentage of those that can even marginally be called "police crime" is so incredibly small as to be almost non-existant on a statistical basis.

I'll give you a good example.... I'm going to forget the gentleman's name, but some years back in Boston a man called the police claiming that an african american gentleman had shot this man's wife as they were sitting in their car on a Boston street in an attempted carjacking. He gave them a description and the police started a manhunt for the individual. Well, when it turned out that the man had actually shot his wife himself, the african american community in Boston went berserk, claiming racial profiling and all this other prejudicial garbage. My thought..... "Well, who the hell else do you think they're going to look for when that's the description the supposed victim gives to the police; and at that time most of the carjackings in Boston were being carried out by people who fit that description?" NOW, if they'd failed to do an investigation to find out the particulars of the shooting, and not determine that in fact the husband was lying, that would be one thing, and I'd be in agreement with the uproar. However, in the short term what the hell else were they supposed to do?

If you compare the US police with those of the European democracies, there is a big difference. I think there is a large group of people that find police chronic misbehavior not only acceptable, but also admirable.

My only point is that if ordinary citizens of the communities that have been disproportionately targeted by the police would fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, then perhaps the police would think twice about abusing their power. Now if you're right and the number of violent action by the police is very small, then these "good apples" have nothing to worry about, but meanwhile, the "bad apples" (see New Orleans police department for an example of a department of bad apples) will have to think twice. This was the founders goal of the Second Amendment, no?

 

[Abatis]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, . . .

They don't forget it they just read the 2nd as a permission slip for the citizen and then misread it again as only "giving" the right to arms to a collective of the people or as a provision to protect the states' militia powers from federal interference. Problem is, those interpretations were dead when they were hatched in the lower federal courts in 1942 but kept alive only because SCOTUS took such a long hiatus from definitive 2nd Amendment / citizen right to arms decision making.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

That is a tough question because the only constitutionally legitimate reason for the federal government to have any interest in any arms owned by a citizen is for commonality of arms in militia regulations. Problem is, in 1903 the Congress overrode the active Militia Act and federalized the militias and dispossessed the states of all militia powers. Most importantly for this discussion, Congress relieved the citizenry from any and all militia obligations. Since 1903 no entity is authorized to call upon the citizens, to train them and deploy them as militia as enumerated in Art I, § 8, cls. 15 & 16.

This created a conundrum for those who wanted gun control in the 20th Century. The first federal gun control law restricting guns from the citizenry was written in the tax code (National Firearms Act of 1934); subsequent Acts (i.e., Gun Control Act of 1968) were written under the commerce clause. NO gun control laws are written under the militia clauses which makes sense of course, given the fact that the militia clauses have been dead letter since 1903.

In a special type of disassociation federal gun control laws have been defended in federal courts by claiming a federal power to regulate the arms of the militia . . . Now why the AG and SG don't seem to know what Congress knows is a question for the left to answer because only they are capable of such mental gymnastics.

So, the real answer is since the federal government was never granted any power to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen NONE EXISTS. Through the actions of Congress dissolving the militia system of the USA they have extinguished the only legal reason Congress possessed to know about the one weapon a militia member intended to muster with, if called.

In this legal atmosphere, drastically altered from what the framers established, it is interesting to inspect how the the general militia principle the framers embraced and sought to preserve (through the 2nd Amendment) is applied by the courts to the 'smoke-and-mirrors' framework of federal (and state) gun control.

If anything, these modern developments demand a vigilant armed citizenry.

 

[Abatis]

Ok, I can accept this. But do you support the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense for you and your family from immediate danger or as a guard against a government gone astray?

I personally believe, as I feel the Founders did, that it's BOTH a means of immediate self-defense AND a guard against the governmental enemies, foreign and domestic. Due to that, the general public needs access to pretty much anything that the US Military has and definitely anything that the LEOs have access to.

Any discussion framed in the context of what the 2nd Amendment permits or allows is wrong. This is precisely the mindset that the Federalists warned about and why they argued against adding a bill of rights.

The right to arms is not what can be squeezed from the words of the 2nd . . . The right is EVERYTHING not conferred to government. To learn what the scope and extent of your right to arms is, inspect the body of the Constitution for a grant of power to government to have any impact upon the personal arms of the private citizen.

You will find none.

And now you know what your right to arms is.

The government can not give us back a limited exercise of that which we never surrendered.

 

[Abatis]

If you're against the Second Amendment, then shouldn't you work to have it repealed instead of asking the courts to violate their oath and not defend it? I mean, you may have a good argument for repeal based on the country being different now from when it was started, but shouldn't this be an argument for the political arena?

An attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be the ultimate act de-legitimizing the federal government.

Since it is very well settled that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, what exactly would altering or repealing the words (upon which the right does not in any manner depend) do?

 

[Abatis]

The Court therefore had to put to rest the conflict inherent in the Second: individual right, or collective right? The Court ruled the former.

You mean the Court reaffirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right. The dissents even acknowledged this. The disagreement was really over standard of scrutiny to be applied, not whether the right secured by the 2nd was collective or individual. The dissents argued for lowered scrutiny and especially Stevens' interest balancing approach never had a chance. Accepting those ridiculous scrutiny standards was the only thing that would have affirmed the DC statutes in question . . .

To frame Heller as a decision hinging on the "conflict in the Second" of collective vs individual is not correct on just precedential grounds. That conflict has never existed in the Supreme Court -- all SCOTUS did in Heller is slap-down the Circuits and their collective right /state's right foolishness. Those theories were created in 1942 by the 1st and 3rd Circuits either misconstructing or directly dismissing and ignoring SCOTUS in Miller.

Consequently original intent wasn’t the basis for the ruling.

There is no doubt that the primary intent (object) of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the general militia concept the framers embraced . . . That the farmers and carpenters, the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers could, at a moment's notice when called to muster, present themselves with an appropriate weapon and ammunition, (supplied by themselves and of the type in common use), accessories and provisions to be in the field for a few days.

That object of the Amendment can not be realized without the means to achieve it, which are the personal arms of the private citizen (until called). The means is what the Amendment protects; the pre-existing right of the citizen to keep and bear arms so the object can be achieved.

Scalia had to balance all this:

A) The "original intent" of the Amendment which no longer has force of law to bring that object to fruition.
B) That the Amendment remains a claimable immunity for the individual citizen, securing a never surrendered right.
C) Trying to then decide the constitutionality of a law written under the commerce clause but defended by an appeal to the long dead powers once found in the militia clauses.

True, there is much to find fault with Scalia's opinion in Heller. For me it is his completely unnecessary inspection of the words and phrases of the 2nd Amendment. It would have been much better to just reaffirm SCOTUS precedent that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend in any manner of the words of the 2nd for its existence. Plain, simple, constitutionally correct and then he could turn to whether the power claimed was a legitimate exercise of the powers delegated to Congress (and in this case, its assigns). . .

In the end he got it right and there is enough right in the opinion to keep it as good law for quite a while.

I would be leery of citing Saul "Scribble Scrabble" Cornell. That guy does more costume changes than Lady Gaga. His law review articles read like an evolutionary history of failed "what the 2nd Amendment isn't" theories.

I'll read the other one and offer some comments.

 

[Sallow]

What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]


.

Constitutionally..you cannot take arms against the government. Did you skip out of history class when they were teaching about The Whiskey Rebellion? The Civil War?

Like I posted. It's unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against the Federal Government.

Have you read it?

If it is unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against his own government then that explains why the Jews preferred to be incinerated/gassed.

Thank you for the explanation. have a great day.

.

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

Not at all. A bullet from almost anything has the ability to kill. Handguns even have military applications and are used throughout combat zones for people that are not likely to be in the general ‘combat lines’ where rifles are much more effective. The fact is, an armed populous is FAR harder to cow than one that is disarmed.

Because Scalia focused his interpretation on ‘original public meaning,’ rather than ‘original intent,’ there is currently no definitive answer on whether or not the Framers intended the Amendment to be a safeguard against the new government becoming tyrannical.

Some argue it’s impossible to divine ‘original intent’:

As “new” originalist Lawrence Solum explains, because there were “multiple framers with various intentions, and the content of their intentions was not accessible to those who needed to comprehend the Constitution, . . . successful communication of framers’ meaning . . . is not possible . . . framers’ meaning simply does not exist.

Heller, McDonald and Originalism

Except that it was written all over the place and the amendment itself is rather clear on the subject. There is even a quote placed here with bold emphasis and everything. Why can the libs not accept realty on the second? Amend the constitution if you think it is that bad. Then again, there is zero facts that support harsh gun laws as they do nothing to improve any metric whatsoever.

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand? If you want to limit the second amendment, propose an amendment that removes the above phrase.

Good luck!

No need.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Disband the military. The citizen soldier was original intent.

Or. Lets get real about this.

I see that again you are completely ignoring the ‘right of the people’ part of the amendment because it is inconvenient for you position. So, if those words are meaningless like you claim they are, as you say people have no right to a weapon, then what are they there for?

Let’s do get real. The feds have no option to regulate weapons until they amend the constitution to deal with the fact that technology has changed. Simple. The framers set up a process for dealing with these situations and you do not get to circumvent them as a politically convenient way of regulating weapons.

 

[Ringel05]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

The first Amendment is outdated. You can have any vehicle for free speech as long as it was available at the time the Amendment was put in place. That means printing processes of the time and nothing else.

 

[Ringel05]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

What revisionist history have you been studying??!!

 

[Contumacious]

Constitutionally..you cannot take arms against the government. Did you skip out of history class when they were teaching about The Whiskey Rebellion? The Civil War?

Like I posted. It's unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against the Federal Government.

Have you read it?

If it is unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against his own government then that explains why the Jews preferred to be incinerated/gassed.

Thank you for the explanation. have a great day.

.

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

If it is unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against his own government then that explains why the Jews preferred to be incinerated/gassed.

Thank you for the explanation. have a great day.

.

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

Actually the most useful comparison to the NAZIs are the NJ State Police. New Jersey and the Nazis

 

[Sallow]

Think about it.

If it is true that the purpose of the Constitution and the 2A was to prevent government tyranny, WHY would you allow such government to determine who may or may not carry a defensive weapon?!?!?!?!?!?

.

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

What revisionist history have you been studying??!!

None.

You do know that the Continental Army was disbanded after the revolution. Right?

Oh wait.

 

[Sallow]

If it is unconstitutional for a citizen to take up arms against his own government then that explains why the Jews preferred to be incinerated/gassed.

Thank you for the explanation. have a great day.

.

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

How fucking asinine. Meds not kick in yet?

 

[Sallow]

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

Actually the most useful comparison to the NAZIs are the NJ State Police. New Jersey and the Nazis

So..you are sourcing a website that supports the Cuban government?

Cool. Comrade.

 

[Anachronism]

If you compare the US police with those of the European democracies, there is a big difference. I think there is a large group of people that find police chronic misbehavior not only acceptable, but also admirable.

I am probably one of the people that you would suggest the latter of, then.

My only point is that if ordinary citizens of the communities that have been disproportionately targeted by the police would fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, then perhaps the police would think twice about abusing their power. Now if you're right and the number of violent action by the police is very small, then these "good apples" have nothing to worry about, but meanwhile, the "bad apples" (see New Orleans police department for an example of a department of bad apples) will have to think twice. This was the founders goal of the Second Amendment, no?

No, what would happen is that "No Knock" warrants would become the standard. Every traffic stop would include a minimum of two officers, with guns drawn, and the number of citizens and officers injured or killed in confrontations will rise exponentially. I know that's not what I want, but it almost seems that's what you're looking for... a War between the Cops and the Citizenry.

 

[Anachronism]

Any discussion framed in the context of what the 2nd Amendment permits or allows is wrong. This is precisely the mindset that the Federalists warned about and why they argued against adding a bill of rights.

The right to arms is not what can be squeezed from the words of the 2nd . . . The right is EVERYTHING not conferred to government. To learn what the scope and extent of your right to arms is, inspect the body of the Constitution for a grant of power to government to have any impact upon the personal arms of the private citizen.

You will find none.

And now you know what your right to arms is.

The government can not give us back a limited exercise of that which we never surrendered.

I am well aware of what my RTKBA is. I'm also well aware that I don't want every Tom, Dick, Harry or Rachel in this country owning a gun; for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

If you compare the US police with those of the European democracies, there is a big difference. I think there is a large group of people that find police chronic misbehavior not only acceptable, but also admirable.

I am probably one of the people that you would suggest the latter of, then.

My only point is that if ordinary citizens of the communities that have been disproportionately targeted by the police would fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, then perhaps the police would think twice about abusing their power. Now if you're right and the number of violent action by the police is very small, then these "good apples" have nothing to worry about, but meanwhile, the "bad apples" (see New Orleans police department for an example of a department of bad apples) will have to think twice. This was the founders goal of the Second Amendment, no?

No, what would happen is that "No Knock" warrants would become the standard. Every traffic stop would include a minimum of two officers, with guns drawn, and the number of citizens and officers injured or killed in confrontations will rise exponentially. I know that's not what I want, but it almost seems that's what you're looking for... a War between the Cops and the Citizenry.

It seems like you favor positions that are soft on police crime and the coddling of police criminals. Maybe they had a difficult childhood or a fight with their wife before work. I am tough on all crime, including police crime. Everyone should follow the law. We are a nation of laws, rather than men and I support this. Are you going soft on the Second Amendment? Are you saying that law abiding citizens should be prevented from legally arming themselves? Or would you limit the restrictions to particular groups that you feel shouldn't arm themselves? Are you going to continue your NRA membership? I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there doesn't seem to be much consistency in your argument when minorities are added into the mix. I would be happy for you to prove me wrong on this point.

When a cop rapes someone in custody with a plunger, there is no question I think in anyone's mind this cop should be put in jail. But when police lie to judges to cover up the illegal actions of other police, these officers belong in jail as well. When cops beat people up but don't charge them with a crime, this should not be tolerated by a civilized country, for by tolerating it, we destroy the fabric of our society.

 

[Ringel05]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

What revisionist history have you been studying??!!

None.

You do know that the Continental Army was disbanded after the revolution. Right?

Oh wait.

No, the:

That's it. Pure and simple.

revisionist part.

 

[Anachronism]

It seems like you favor positions that are soft on police crime and the coddling of police criminals. Maybe they had a difficult childhood or a fight with their wife before work. I am tough on all crime, including police crime. Everyone should follow the law. We are a nation of laws, rather than men and I support this.

We ask Police Officers to do a job that neither you nor I could probably do on our best day, Serge. They are asked to walk a tightrope between being perfect angels while dealing with some of the most disgusting demons our society has on a daily basis. For this they are routinely insulted, screamed at, threatened, abused, underpaid, overworked, undertrained, and inadequately supported. No SANE person in this country would volunteer to do that job. THEN, to top it all off, the system they're working within abuses the crap out of them. Some clerk mistypes the address on a warrant and now that drug dealer they busted walks out of court. Neither arresting officer speaks the proper dialect of Swahili to read Mr. Smith his "rights" so his blatant confession is thrown out of court. The officer takes a swing at the guy who just spit potentially AIDS infected blood in his face so that guy gets off as well. There's a word for that type of system.... HORSECRAP!!!!

When and where I grew up, I was taught that you had the utmost respect for cops, NO MATTER WHAT. You didn't resist. You didn't talk back. It was Yes, Sir; No, Ma'am; Have a nice day officer. REGARDLESS of why they were interacting with you. I don't see that these days. I haven't in years. So far as I'm concerned running from a cop or resisting arrest is an admission of guilt.

Are you going soft on the Second Amendment? Are you saying that law abiding citizens should be prevented from legally arming themselves? Or would you limit the restrictions to particular groups that you feel shouldn't arm themselves? Are you going to continue your NRA membership? I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there doesn't seem to be much consistency in your argument when minorities are added into the mix. I would be happy for you to prove me wrong on this point.

I'm a realist, Serge. While I have no problem with law-abiding citizens arming themselves, I have no interest in seeing criminals, the mentally unstable, foreigners, or others who cannot or will not live within the system armed. It's not a matter of minorities, it's a matter of CRIMINALS. I couldn't care any less what color the skin of the criminal is, I don't want a gun in their hands. Nor do I want guns in the hands of people who are likely to use them to attempt to stop law enforcement officials from carrying out their sworn duty. Never have and never will.

When a cop rapes someone in custody with a plunger, there is no question I think in anyone's mind this cop should be put in jail. But when police lie to judges to cover up the illegal actions of other police, these officers belong in jail as well. When cops beat people up but don't charge them with a crime, this should not be tolerated by a civilized country, for by tolerating it, we destroy the fabric of our society.

The fabric of our society is already dead and gone, Serge. It's been gone for the better part of a century. These officers are merely trying to contain the devestation while being attacked from all sides by the criminals and their own system. We've become so damn concerned with the rights of the criminal (a stupid concept to begin with) that we have given up on the idea of JUSTICE in this country.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

It seems like you favor positions that are soft on police crime and the coddling of police criminals. Maybe they had a difficult childhood or a fight with their wife before work. I am tough on all crime, including police crime. Everyone should follow the law. We are a nation of laws, rather than men and I support this.

We ask Police Officers to do a job that neither you nor I could probably do on our best day, Serge. They are asked to walk a tightrope between being perfect angels while dealing with some of the most disgusting demons our society has on a daily basis. For this they are routinely insulted, screamed at, threatened, abused, underpaid, overworked, undertrained, and inadequately supported. No SANE person in this country would volunteer to do that job. THEN, to top it all off, the system they're working within abuses the crap out of them. Some clerk mistypes the address on a warrant and now that drug dealer they busted walks out of court. Neither arresting officer speaks the proper dialect of Swahili to read Mr. Smith his "rights" so his blatant confession is thrown out of court. The officer takes a swing at the guy who just spit potentially AIDS infected blood in his face so that guy gets off as well. There's a word for that type of system.... HORSECRAP!!!!

When and where I grew up, I was taught that you had the utmost respect for cops, NO MATTER WHAT. You didn't resist. You didn't talk back. It was Yes, Sir; No, Ma'am; Have a nice day officer. REGARDLESS of why they were interacting with you. I don't see that these days. I haven't in years. So far as I'm concerned running from a cop or resisting arrest is an admission of guilt.

Are you going soft on the Second Amendment? Are you saying that law abiding citizens should be prevented from legally arming themselves? Or would you limit the restrictions to particular groups that you feel shouldn't arm themselves? Are you going to continue your NRA membership? I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there doesn't seem to be much consistency in your argument when minorities are added into the mix. I would be happy for you to prove me wrong on this point.

I'm a realist, Serge. While I have no problem with law-abiding citizens arming themselves, I have no interest in seeing criminals, the mentally unstable, foreigners, or others who cannot or will not live within the system armed. It's not a matter of minorities, it's a matter of CRIMINALS. I couldn't care any less what color the skin of the criminal is, I don't want a gun in their hands. Nor do I want guns in the hands of people who are likely to use them to attempt to stop law enforcement officials from carrying out their sworn duty. Never have and never will.

When a cop rapes someone in custody with a plunger, there is no question I think in anyone's mind this cop should be put in jail. But when police lie to judges to cover up the illegal actions of other police, these officers belong in jail as well. When cops beat people up but don't charge them with a crime, this should not be tolerated by a civilized country, for by tolerating it, we destroy the fabric of our society.

The fabric of our society is already dead and gone, Serge. It's been gone for the better part of a century. These officers are merely trying to contain the devestation while being attacked from all sides by the criminals and their own system. We've become so damn concerned with the rights of the criminal (a stupid concept to begin with) that we have given up on the idea of JUSTICE in this country.

Should there be a punishment to those who talk back to police? What should it be? Would you be in favor of a system like in the former Soviet Union? or today in Iran? Should people have any rights in the face of the police? How can you say you are for freedom with views like these?

I never said anything about foreigners mentally ill or any of the other characters you mention owning guns. Only law abiding citizens, but in enough quantity that they become a credible deterrent to governmental malfeasance. But it sounds like you are on the side of malfeasance. Is this a conservative position? It sounds more Orwellian, with thought police and limits on free speech. It sounds like you don't support the First Amendment in terms of individuals speech to police officers. It also sounds like you want to put dangerous limits on the Second Amendment. I assume you continue to support the 3rd Amendment. Sounds like you are wholeheartedly against the Fourth Amendment and maybe the Fifth (Miranda rights? Except perhaps if its used by Ollie North, Eliot Abrams or one of the Bush era criminals). I tell you what, this conversation has made me an ever more staunch defender of the bill of rights.