Re: connected lights

On 9/14/2024 3:24 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:24:38 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 12:47:23 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 11:34:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 9/13/2024 10:50 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 9/13/2024 11:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/13/2024 9:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 9/13/2024 9:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/13/2024 3:10 AM, John B. wrote:

>
Since I believe that Frankie brought up 9-11.

>
I did not. John's "memory" is on the fritz again.
>

Had any passenger been
armed at least one of the flights - Flight 93 - would
likely not have
crashed.
>
And possibly even one or more of the other 3, although
the time would
have been very close.
>
AND I believe that armed Sky Marshals are still flying.
A whole bunch
of cowards according to Frankie's theories.

>
The first death was a passenger, unarmed former IDF
Israeli American.
>
https://forward.com/israel/349423/the-life-and-loss-of-
daniel-lewin-web- genius-and-9-11s-first-victim/
>
More than competent and yet unarmed and dead, according
to The Rules which make no sense in the real world.

>
So you folks are now lobbying for free carrying of loaded
handguns on airlines? Seriously?
>
Don't airlines already have enough hassles and delays
with drunk and rowdy passengers?
>
Or are handguns too wimpy? Should passengers be allowed
to carry AR-style rifles?
>
State your positions clearly, please, for all to see.
>

>
Here's my take.  Whenever I see reports of some event with
a 'free speech area' I am incensed.  The actual 'free
speech area' is Point Barrow to Key West and all points in
between.
>
In the same vein, what part of 'shall not be infringed'
was not clear to you?
>

>
Probably the same part of "well-orderd militia" that isn't
clear to you.
>
>

Speaking of airlines:
https://www.newsweek.com/air-marshals-us-border-flight-
safety-tsa-1926636
>

>

>
It is clear.  As with Henry's practiced yeomen, recently
discussed, it's a general population equipped and skilled at
arms.

>
James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as
follows:
>
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
>
Note the semicolon after "infringed." Two independent thoughts.
>
Even the final version, there is nothing that says the RKBA is
specifically limited to the those in the militia. I think if they
intended that, they would have put in print.

>
>
Reading state's laws of the time illustrates the intent even more
clearly
Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:
    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace
are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up....
and
Massachusetts's Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
    The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the
legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact
subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 The militia was one of the reasons for the RKBA, not the only reason.
 

To the extent that the militia is the entire able bodied male populace it makes perfect sense. In any other meaning it's pointless.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971