Selling Loosies vs Stealing Swisher Sweets

About 4 years ago, I advocated something called "The Neighbor In A Cage Test" for new laws. 
In short, would you be willing to put your neighbor in a cage if he refused to obey (or fund) your proposed law?  Because that's exactly what happens when your neighbors don't obey laws, no matter how stupid the laws, no matter how few people voted for them, no matter how corrupt their origins.

We've had two good cases for this in the last few weeks.  Michael Brown and Eric Garner. 

We don't often think of Government this way, but....

1)  Government is force. 
2)  Government also writes laws. 
3)  Government uses force to ensure compliance with all of its laws, including the bad ones.   
4)  If you don't agree to obey the laws, or fund them, you will be locked up....
5)  In a cage. 

Here's how it works in theory.  This is from noted Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter:

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

BTW, a "loosie" is a single cigarette.  The New York Police Department had an "opportunity for official violence to get out of hand" (in Professor Carter's words), and supposedly choked Eric Garner to death.

Garner had been selling loosies.  (The rationale for selling these single cigarettes is that retailers have to charge an ungodly tax on packs of cigarettes.  Those who are willing to sell individual cigs usually don't send additional inflated cut to the IRS.  Hence the illegality, even though the tax was already paid by the first purchaser of the "broken" pack.) 

But that's the theoretical part of it.  Here's an interview with a NYC police officer, explaining the difficulty of enforcing bullshit laws:

What do you think about all this? I mean, honestly — that video. Eric Garner looked so scared.
Well, Garner was in bad health, and Pantaleo said it wasn’t a chokehold; he was just trying to take him down so they could arrest him. The thing that nobody hears about in the media is that Garner had been arrested for this before. The store owners, they had been … saying he was taking away their business. These people pay their taxes; they pay for tobacco licenses. They wanted him gone.

Right, but he wasn’t fighting the cops. He was just standing there with his hands up.
Yeah, but he’s a big guy. He could have been holding up his hands, or he could have been threatening them. All I’m saying is that cop needed to arrest him. Once that was decided on, they had to take him in one way or the other, and he didn’t want to go … but maybe there was excessive force used. I won’t say there wasn’t.

So you don’t think this is a race thing?
No, it’s not a race thing. It’s a Ray Kelly thing. (Ray Kelly was a veteran NYC Police Commissioner.)  That man singlehandedly ruined this department. When I came up as a rookie, you were assigned an older cop who had been around and knew what they were doing. We were taught that you catch more flies with honey. Basically, if you let the small things go — like the guy selling loosies or weed or whatever on the corner — then when the big shit happens, like homicide or burglary, those are the same guys who will tell you all about it. If they hate you, they won’t tell you shit.

But this is happening everywhere. I mean, Ferguson — there have been so many of these cases for so long.
All I know is New York City. Nowadays, since Kelly’s Operation Impact, rookies are taught one thing: Write tickets, do searches, make money. They’ll have a quota they have to fill. They’re not supposed to, but they do. They come up not knowing their asses from their elbows. These rookies don’t understand how to let the small stuff go. They'll be on your back for a bag of grass.  So when things happen they overreact.   

There you have it....
The theoretical problem from Yale's Stephen Carter. 
The practical problem from a NYC cop. 
Which leaves the rest of us with a problem. 
Would you be willing to have someone strangled to death for selling loosies?  If not, then don't ask someone else to do your dirty work.

How would that work out?  Where does one draw the line? 

Well, take the case of Michael Brown. 

(If you've been living under a rock, Michael Brown, a black teenager, supposedly did a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store, walked out with some Swisher Sweets, was stopped by a white cop, then something happened that we'll never, ever, ever figure out, and Michael Brown got shot.  Dead.) 

Here's a video supposedly showing some of the last moments of Brown's life.  If you're in a hurry, the last 20 seconds are the key moments. 



Would I be willing to shoot someone to keep Swisher Sweets from being stolen?  I don't know, and I hope I never have to find out. 

Would I be willing to outsource that job? 

I can only answer with a very reluctant.... Yes. 

That's one of the Big 3 legitimate functions of the state.  (Protect the borders, provide a courts system, and protect property rights.)  Even if the property in question is a $40.00 box of cheap cigars. 

But would I willingly pay someone to shoot the people who sell loosies?  Heck no. 

Libertarianism in a nutshell is "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff."  Hitting people (except in defense) and taking their stuff is a job reserved for the state.  Michael Brown took a convenience store's stuff and hit the clerk. 

Eric Garner didn't take anyone's stuff, and it doesn't look like he hit anybody. 

Brown and Garner are both dead. 

Another Libertarian clutch-phrase is "If there is no victim, there was no crime". 

Who was the victim in these two cases?  Brown?  Garner?  The convenience store clerk?  The IRS? 

Please discuss. 

There's no way to rule innocent men

There's been a lot of rejoicing amongst my pot-smoking friends because of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision not to enforce some of the existing marijuana possession laws. 

I take an opposite view. 

The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce the hell out of them. Create some outrage.  Giving prosecutors the authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce gives them the authority to pick and choose which groups to favor, and that is a bad, bad thing. 

"Prosecutorial Discretion" works like this: You want to build a warehouse.  The government inspector in charge of plumbing finds that your contractor has violated some bullshit rule about plumbing.  The inspector agrees that it's a bullshit rule, and he ok's pouring a bunch of concrete on top of the pipes and drains that make up the plumbing system.  But he always, always, always makes a note that your plumbing broke the law. 

At that point, he owns you.  If you raise hell with City Hall about anything for the rest of your life, or if you contribute to the mayor's opponent, or if you want to simply fight some other ridiculous law,the plumbing inspector can waltz in and insist that your rip up the concrete in your warehouse and repair the plumbing that isn't up to code.

The same thing happens with those possessing marijuana.  They let you slide with small amounts, but they make note of it.  You have broken the law.  You think that you're ok with The Man, but you aren't.  Not even close.  The next time you try to fight a zoning ordinance, protest a war too loudly, or run for office, they've got you.  You were found to be in possession of an illegal amount of marijuana. 

They own you !! 

Here's one of Ayn Rand's villains in "Atlas Shrugged" explaining the concept:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 There's no way to rule innocent men. 

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

We've all heard it said hundreds of times.  Because of this basic legal principle, you can't claim that you didn't know it was illegal to kill, rob, or imprison your neighbor. 

That "Ignorance Of The Law" maxim probably came into being long before legislators were bought and sold like the branding rights on a NASCAR uniform. 

The Teleprompter Jesus administration has proposed more than 1,600 regulations in the last 30 days. 

Go here for the details on each one.  Each has a campaign contributor or a power-mad bureaucracy behind it.  Considerations of the health or well-being of the nation are secondary at best. 

If you violate any of these, you'll probably be fined or go to jail. 

Get busy.  Start reading. 

Pic came from here. 

My Unemployment Lawsuit

My family's Human Resources department warned me not to post this, but I'm doing it anyway. 

I haven't had time to post much this week because of an unemployment lawsuit.  One of the groups I hire has pressed charges against me for discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to document performance deficiencies, and everything else they can think of.  They've thrown a lot of stuff against the wall, just to see what will stick. 

It's exhausting.  Enough to make me wonder why people don't just give up and produce everything themselves with no employees. 

Here's the story....

Up until last week, I had food employment agreements in place with Kroger, Food King, and Wal-Mart.  I agreed that I would purchase fresh produce and dairy products from Kroger, meat from Food King, and everything else from Wal-Mart.  I believe that I treated all three of these groups of employees equally well. 

I gave them enough money to pay for my percentage of  their taxes, child support, and health insurance.  I think that I provided meaningful work for them at good wages at least twice a week. 

About a week ago, I went to Food King for some ground beef.  The slacker behind the counter didn't want to get off his cell phone long enough to help me.  When he finally did, he acted like I was doing HIM a favor by purchasing his time.  The meat looked ok through the clear wrap, but when I got it home it was a dark brown on the bottom.  To make matters worse, and I can't prove this, but I'm reasonably sure that the cashier short-changed me.  Please don't get me started on the Food King cashiers.  I've never met a ruder, slower, more incompetent bunch of victims in my life

This isn't the first problem I've had with Food King.  Three weeks ago, I got some steaks from them that had metal fragments from the cutting saw embedded in the meat.  My daughter chipped a tooth!  I filed some paperwork on the incident with my Human Resources department, of course. 

Back to the story....As I was leaving Food King last week, and this was before I discovered that the meat was bad, I made a huge mistake.  I told my daughter that "I'm gonna break this contract and start buying all of my meat from Kroger's." 

Huge mistake.  Three of the Food King employees heard what I said. 

When I got home, I started filling out the required forms to document the poor performance at Food King.  I took photos of the brown meat.  I called my Human Resources department, and told them I wanted to start purchasing meat from Kroger.  They were nervous about the decision, but told me to go forward if I felt strongly about the need for a change, and that it would probably take about 6 months. 

But hell, can you blame me?  I DON'T WANT TO EMPLOY THOSE PEOPLE ANY MORE !!!!  I don't want to purchase what they're selling.  Should I be punished for giving them a chance at a job? 

Anyway (sorry for the digression) I filled out the paperwork, completed all the written warning forms, and filed them with H.R., the State of Texas, and with Food King. 

That's when the storm began.  Good Lord in heaven.  The Food King cashier who wouldn't get off his cell phone long enough to sell me some rancid meat?  He happens to be Hispanic.  He claimed that I have a "thing" against Hispanics, and was able to show how, back in 2009, I filed papers to change my membership from a majority Hispanic Starbucks to a majority White Starbucks.  That was a totally different situation, plus the government wouldn't allow me to switch Starbucks locations because it would've meant moving from a majority female to a majority male coffee bar.  I should've known better than to even try during an election year. 

I swear to Jesus, I had NO idea that the kid was Hispanic.

Food King is also saying I have unreasonable performance expectations.  IMHO, all I'm expecting is decent cuts of meat at a reasonable price from a prompt butcher and a cashier who knows how to make change.  If I'm not getting that, how much hell should I have to go through before I can start purchasing meat elsewhere? 

But dang it, they have me on tape telling my daughter that I want to start buying meat from Kroger instead of Food King.  Therefore, I've created a hostile work environment for the Food King employees.  I can't believe I did something that stupid.  Neither can my Human Resources department.  There's a chance that this will turn into a huge lawsuit.  Even if I win the lawsuit and get to start buying meat from Kroger, I'll still have to pay unemployment compensation to the idiots at Food King. 

As you know, almost 1/3rd of our lives as employers is now consumed with documenting performance issues.  It exhausts me. 

If I hire someone to provide a service in exchange for money, that's all the transaction should involve.  If I give Food King some money in exchange for some hamburger meat, that should be the end of it.  I don't want to be responsible for Food King's taxes, their child support, their healthcare, their insurance, their emotional well-being, or their childcare.

I want to purchase hamburger meat, not be the overseer at an 1840's plantation.  I don't want to be a Feudal Lord & Master. 

Can you imagine how much it would help the economy if customers/employers could simply spend their money without worrying about lawsuits like this one?  I think jobs would start popping up everywhere. 

Enough of my fantasies about a free market employment system.  I won't be posting as much in the future.  This is going to get ugly. 

On Privatized Prisons

One of the few legitimate uses of government power is for initiating the use of force. 
The government is supposed to have a monopoly on police, military action, courts and prisons. 

So, of course, that's what the government has been trying to outsource. 

(They want to educate our kids, control our lightbulb purchases, correct our diets, takeover the medical field, subsidize their campaign contributors, dominate insurance, regulate oil drilling, protect manufacturers from overseas competitors, prohibit recreational drug use, prevent me from purchasing some awesome fireworks, monopolize college education, prevent gays from marrying, hamstring the auto industry, inflate the money supply, rape the economy, run up our debts, and shoehorn their way into hundreds of thousands of other situations where they are totally incompetent.) 

But prisons?  One of the few things that really is their job?  That's what they're willing outsource. 

One of my employees has been recommending a blog called Grits For Breakfast.  Mr. Grits specializes in the failures of our justice system, and Lord Have Mercy, outsourced prisons have been one of failures.  There really are good reasons why the government should have a monopoly on initiating force. 

Here's Mr. Grits on an outfit called GEO, which runs some prisons in Mississippi:

In Mississippi, "the state's corrections commissioner on Friday said that [the GEO Group] would no longer operate three [private prison] facilities in the state, which held 4,000 inmates," NPR reported recently. Regrettably, Mississippi is seeking another contractor instead of taking their management in-house or downsizing youth facilities, as Texas has done.

Now to be clear, a state that, in the 21st century, voted 2-1 to keep the Confederate battle logo as part of its state flag (you don't really see it flying much in any of the come-to-Mississippi tourism commercials, do you?) doesn't really care what us Texans, DOJ, or anybody else thinks about them. They ousted Geo out of their own self interest, so as another of GEO's customers, Texas should naturally consider why.

The decision comes in the wake of legal setbacks for the company in federal court involving abuse allegations at a juvenile facility, though GEO insisted their departure is unrelated and adamantly denied the charges. Even so, "the judge's [March settlement] order ... said an investigation by the plaintiff's counsel 'uncovered pervasive violations of state and federal civil and criminal law and a wholesale lack of accountability by prison officials. For example, staff of the [facility] and those responsible for overseeing and supervising the youth engaged in sexual relationships with the youth; they exploited them by selling drugs in the facility; and the youth, 'handcuffed and defenseless[,] have been kicked, punched, and beaten all over their bodies.''"

To make matters worse,"Staff at the center failed consistently to report and investigate claims about excessive use of force, even though they witnessed many of the acts, the judge wrote. 'Given that the facility employs correctional staffers affiliated with gangs, no more can be expected.'" Finally, "The judge also noted a Justice Department report, which confirmed many of the allegations and said the state of Mississippi was 'deliberately indifferent' to the constitutional rights of the young inmates."

Whatever proximate cause anyone wants to attribute it to, when federal judges start saying things  like that about your government contract, it's understandable one might decide it's time to pack up and leave town!

Texas has closed many of its juvenile facilities and may soon end up closing the rest of them, shifting juvenile supervision wholly to the counties and more aggressive community-based programming. It's too bad Mississippi looks like it will continue  contracting management of these facilities instead of taking the opportuntiy to pull them in-house or, better, downsize. I'm not sure  just finding another profit-driven management contractor will solve the problems the judge chastised them over.

Related posts: From Texas Prison Bidness, "GEO Group subject of lawsuit in prison death at Central Texas detention center." Also, "GEO guard indicted for contraband at Val Verde Correctional Center."

The cartoon of a contractor whispering in the Mississippi governor's ear came from here.  The cartoon of the Statue Of Non-Liberty came from here.   The chart showing the prison population increasing, partly because of lobbying on the part of the prison industry, came from here.  The cartoon of the vicious cycle came from here. 

Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. 

One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war.  If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days. 

We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days.  If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.   

John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval.  Here's what he got back:

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

Where to begin, where to begin.....

Let's start with this:  We are NATO.  Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis.  Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League.  If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting.  Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting. 

Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up.  In the words of the Beatles....

"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."

The United States is 75% of NATO.  It wouldn't exist without us.   

Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support.  If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support.  We wouldn't think twice about it.

If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans.  We would consider them as hostile combatants. 

Okay, about that "no-fly zone"....  If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action. 

Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles"....  If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin.  The result is the same.  We're dropping bombs on Libya. 

Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya. 

Congress needs to man up and demand it.  Then vote it up or down.  That's how it is supposed to work. 

Speaking of  "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus". 

California - fighting fitted bed sheets !!!

California, whose debt is so great that I fear it will soon sink into the Pacific, just can't find enough evils to legislate against:


BILL NUMBER: SB 432 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Senator De León

                        FEBRUARY 16, 2011

   An act to add Section 6714 to the Labor Code, relating to
workplace safety.
 
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 432, as introduced, De León. Workplace safety: lodging
establishments: housekeeping.
   Existing law establishes the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations and
requires the standards board to adopt and enforce all occupational
safety and health standards. Under existing law, a knowing or
negligent violation of any standard is a misdemeanor.
   This bill would require the standards board to adopt a standard
relating to housekeeping in lodging establishments, as specified.
   Because this bill would create a new crime, it would impose a
state-mandated local program.   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 6714 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
   6714.  (a) The standards board shall, no later than September 1,
2012, adopt an occupational safety and health standard for lodging
establishment housekeeping. The standard shall apply to all hotels,
motels, and other lodging establishments in California. The standard
shall require all of the following:
   (1) The use of a fitted sheet, instead of a flat sheet, as the
bottom sheet on all beds within the lodging establishment. For the
purpose of this section, a "fitted sheet" means a bed sheet
containing elastic or similar material sewn into each of the four
corners that allows the sheet to stay in place over the mattress.
   (2) The use of long-handled tools such as mops or similar devices
in order to eliminate the practice by housekeepers of working in a
stooped, kneeling, or squatting position in order to clean bathroom
floors, walls, tubs, toilets, and other bathroom surfaces.
   (b) The standard established pursuant to this section is not
subject to a permanent variance pursuant to Section 143.
  SEC. 2.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution. 

I found this at Overlawyered. 





 

How to interpret the 2nd Amendment

There's usually a lot of noise and confusion surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the section in our Bill Of Rights which, in my opinion, gives me the right to own guns. 

The amendment reads as follows:

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.


There it is, sitting in the second seat of the bus, with all the other restrictions on government power. 
Every other bullet point in the Bill Of Rights is designed to limit the power of government in relation to the governed, and we drift off into silliness when we try to see Amendment #2 through any other lens.   The 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights. 

Unfortunately, after years of court cases brought by the Nanny State, this is how many of us now see the original intent of the amendment:

Since our government needs an army to preserve freedom and ward off foreign invaders, we grudgingly admit that members of our primitive Citizen Militias should be allowed to own weapons. 

And since we no longer have a Citizen Militia that has to get out of bed in the middle of the night to fight the Redcoats, we no longer have a need for guns in our homes.  Or so they would have us believe. 

The guys who composed the Bill Of Rights wanted to put some severe limits on government power.  They knew that if left unchecked, without ironclad protections, the governing class would try to restrict freedom.  I don't understand the mindset of nannies and busybodies, but the last 10 years have seen an alarming rise in those pesky species of political varmints.   Most libertarians share that concern with The Founders.  Mostly because they believe that the 2nd Amendment, just like all the others, is meant to protect us from government, just like the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights !!

Go here and browse through the complete Bill Of Rights.  Look at how they're worded.  Many of them have a little disclaimer that grudgingly admit that, dammit, some level of government is necessary.  But look at the phrases used:

....but in a manner prescribed by law.
....but upon probable cause....
....unless on a presenment or indictment....
....shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In these amendments, The Founders are saying that because of the necessary evils of courts, trials, responses to emergencies, and the occasional need to search a house, there are going to be certain rules in place to ensure that government doesn't go too far. 

In Amendment #2, The Founders agree that the government needs a militia.  The militia is a necessary evil, no more, no less. 
But because the government gets to have a militia, and government always needs to be held in check, guess what?  Well, the right of everyone else to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Here's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that I believe is much closer to the original intent:

Since a government militia is an unfortunate necessity, and we have a distrust of government in all its forms, the citizens who are not members of the militia have a duty to keep and bear arms.  Just in case the government's militia starts getting uppity. 

If you read that version in the context of the other nine government restraints in the Bill Of Rights, the wording makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? 

The 2nd Amendment cartoon came from here. 

Quote of The Day

Stolen from R. Lee Wright's Facebook page:

"In order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more." - Stuart K. Hayashi

The pic of the wolf in sheep's clothing came from here.      It doesn't matter how nice the words Democracy, Majority Rule, or Nation Of Laws sound.  If Democracy interferes with anyone's rights, it becomes Tyranny.