Revised Agenda And Addendum: Fill & Download for Free

I have no interest in politics but even a cursory overview of the current situation suggests strongly that Mr Corbyn would have a tough time organising a beer drinking party in a brewery.Labour is faced with the most incompetent, most obviously mendacious, most fractured UK government in the last 2 centuries and he still can't figure a way to overthrow the Tories after 2 1/2 years. He can't even play the adult in a room of squabbling children, instead resorting to acting like a panicky teenage au pair trying to find a TV cartoon channel that can please everyone when all the kids are way past caring and have started throwing the furniture around the room.I have known a lot of real leaders over the years who would easily be able to control and take over in such fractious circumstances. It's called leadership and heads of political parties need to be real leaders. But a distracted lonely deer like Mr Corbyn standing at night in the middle of a motorway transfixed by the headlights of a fast-approaching juggernaut isn't one. In our future annals of history, whenever Mr Corbyn’s role in the debacle of Brexit is reviewed, it will be in the context of roadkill.AddendumDavid Spence has suggested that a kinder view of Mr Corbyn would be as an “useful idiot” who has done more than anyone to enable the ERG’s rabid No Deal agenda in Parliament by his “active inability to act”.As such, I will revise the future’s assessment to: Mr Corbyn acted as an useful idiot for the ERG and eventually ended up as roadkill.I can agree with that.

I think that was an addendum to the New Testament added by the later editors of the text with, so to speak, an axe to grind: co-religionists and others with whom they disagreed and whom they wished their god would smite to bits, thank you very much. But of course everything in the Bible is subject to this sort of analysis, since the texts were rewritten, copied, revised, edited with agendas in mind, and reinterpreted to a fare-thee-well through two millennia now.When you come right down it it, it’s just a book — like all “holy” books: when the prophet can no longer be asked questions about his utterances, all the recorded versions of what he (or she) said become just literature like any literature — a mute and passive “source” of various conflicting and utilitarian interpretations.

Do you support the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, or should it be repealed as some people advocate?Thank you for the A2A Judy.This is a very broad question and I was struggling with how to approach it since it has been asked and answered so many times.Then, while reading the other answers for some inspiration, I ran across two answers that I thought required a spirited rebuttal.I refer you to the answers of:Russell McGorman, Owner and Designer at Our House Graphics Inc.and Jeff Redman, Lifetime studying US late colonial, Founding, & War of Southern InsurrectionThere is not much original thought in my remarks, but as a strict Constitutional constructionist, I prefer to rely on the thoughts and words of the folks who wrote the darned thing. Too many people spend way too much time trying to wring from it whatever meaning suits their own agenda.Addendum,I was so perplexed by the thoughts presented in answers to this question that I did a survey (admittedly short) on some of the modern commentary in the popular media on the 2nd Amendment.I was amazed that the canard that the purpose of 2A was to enforce and perpetuate slavery has been adopted. How can this be when some the most ardent and vocal proponents were from Pennsylvania (Franklin, Coxe), New York (Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine), Connecticut (Noah Webster), Massachusetts (Samuel Adams, John Adams), and New Hampshire (Daniel Webster)?Professor Carl T. Bogus, a professor of law at Roger Williams University lays claim to this canard. It originated in an article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment" - 31 U.C. Davis Law Review 309 (1998). He has continued to push his view in various scholarly and popular articles, the latest being Opinion | Was Slavery a Factor in the Second Amendment? - The New ... May 24, 2018.His work relies, principally on the debates between James Madison and George Mason and Patrick Henry at the Constitutional Ratifying Convention in Richmond, Virginia in June 1788. There was discussion over the issue of the militia and slavery and it might be considered salient if there were not so many other discussions of “the right to bear arms” available for consideration. His conclusions have been refuted by at least as many historians as support it. Nevertheless, it continues to be used as leverage against the validity of the 2nd Amendment.Yes, there was slavery. It is a blight on our history that can never be erased. I cannot find words strong enough to decry it. Yet, slavery, and I mean the brutal deprivation of everything which makes us human, exists in the world today, and if slavery is so abhorred, why aren’t we doing everything we can to eradicate it from the face of the planet. I will join any movement with that goal. But, that is another topic.However, slavery WAS legal, and recognized by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment would have left its prosecution to the states.Yes, there were “Slave Patrols,” but to conflate them with “militia” is erroneous in any but the loosest terms. They would, more aptly, be described (certainly by the slave states at the time) as a constabulary, engaged in the prosecution of a civil matter to wit, “the recovery of lost property.” (Yes, it makes me sick too.)The states would have argued that the “slave patrols” were beyond the control of the federal government under any militia statute.In broader terms, the popular discussions of the 2nd Amendment and, the Constitution, in general largely avoid the reflections of the Founders, except when they find a quotation that can be twisted or misconstrued to support their existing view.When evidence is presented that conflicts with their views, the authors are shouted down without debate and subjected to the usual ad hominem attacks.District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) are landmark cases because they clearly and and unequivocally confirm the right to arms for personal and family defense. Their effects can be seen in other cases before the various appellate courts, most notably the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR v. Hawaii.Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who wrote the majority opinion, scoured history from Geoffrey Chaucer's England to the American antebellum period to trace the history of gun rights. He ruled that there is little doubt the authors of the Second Amendment were comfortable with Americans openly carrying weapons for self-defense, and until the Constitution is changed, that remains the standard.The Washington Times July 24, 2018The effect of that ruling is that states must institute reasonable access to concealed carry permits, or allow open carry. (or both).Many have assumed that since the 2nd Amendment has received so little attention from the courts in the past that it simply wasn’t important to the character of the nation. I think rather the reverse is true 2A is so important to Americans, it has never before been dared to be challenged.(Hope this is a little more satisfying Judy)Addendum 2I debated with myself on adding this here, but I feel it is too important in the context of this question not to bring up.Of course I am familiar with Heller and McDonald, and I had heard of GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR v. Hawaii in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.As I was doing my “popular media survey” mentioned above, I ran across the Washington Times and the the link to Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion in GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR v. Hawaii. I included a blurb from the Washington Times and links to both the article and the opinion.Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain (Wikipedia) was appointed to the 9th Circuit by President Reagan, and has served for 32 years.I spent the afternoon studying his (relatively) easy to read opinion. It not only establishes a precedent for “open carry,” it provides a complete historical review of the 2nd Amendment back to the origin of the idea in the 14th century, English Bill of Rights through its adoption in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. He then dissects pertinent case law from, not only the 18th and 19th centuries, but also early English Common Law. It reinforces the strong platform for the personal protections provided by 2A provided by Heller and McDonald.In addition, it presented an established, Constitutionally acceptable framework that could be applied to the mounting (perhaps justifiable) demand for “Red Flag” Laws.“Many states during the nineteenth century required people who carried weapons in a disruptive fashion to post a bond (or a “surety”) to ensure their good behavior. See, e.g., The Revised Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 750 § 16 (Boston, Theron Metcalf & Horace Mann 1836) 33 (hereinafter Mass. Acts). And to enforce the surety requirement, such states commonly relied on a citizen complaint mechanism. That is, if an arms carrier gave any observer “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace,” the observer could complain to his local magistrate, who might then require the disruptive carrier “to find sureties for keeping the peace,” generally “for a term not exceeding six months.” See id. But if the disruptive carrier also had “reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury,” such person could be excused from posting sureties despite the complaint.”-YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAIIIt surely seems to me that some form of this procedure could be used to provide due process in temporarily enjoining questionable people from securing or bearing arms.Anyone wishing to debate the 2nd Amendment will need to be familiar with this opinion.Laws cannot guarantee liberty, only limit it.