Subdeacon Joe
-
Posts
58,198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
684
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Subdeacon Joe
-
-
-
But this is good:
Pretty good breakdown of why so many gun laws are in place now - we have been teaching the absolute wrong idea when it comes to the 2nd AM in our law schools - have been since the 30s-40s era.
Why do so many believe that the 2nd amendment is reserved for a militia, when it clearly states the right is that of the people? Why are no other rights in the bill of rights reserved for specific groups?
To answer the actual question asked: “Why do so many believe that the 2nd amendment is reserved for a militia, when it clearly states the right is that of the people? Why are no other rights in the bill of rights reserved for specific groups?”
Because that’s what they want it to mean, and how it was interpreted and taught in law schools from 1940 until the Heller decision in 2008.
In 1934, Congress, understanding that they did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate firearms outright, did an end-run around the Constitution by camouflaging their restrictions on machine guns and other “exceptionally dangerous” weapons, as a tax. This was the National Firearms Act.
A few years later, a carefully constructed case was brought through the courts involving a pair of bank robbers who were charged with transporting an unregistered (didn’t pay the tax), short-barreled shotgun across state lines, in violation of the NFA. Their conviction was challenged on Second Amendment grounds and the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court and is known as the Miller decision.
In Miller, the Court did some cursory review of the Second Amendment, and in their analysis, they commented that the purpose and meaning of the amendment must be viewed with the prefatory clause — “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” — in mind. They went on to conclude that since no one had presented any evidence that a short-barreled shotgun was a type of weapon that was common for use in a militia, that the weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment.
This was a pretty weird case and a strange ruling by the Court, in that they focused on the weapon, not the people, and there was no one arguing for Miller and his associate. The only arguments heard were from the government side. The Court remanded the case back down to the lower courts where it was never taken up because there was no one to argue it.
Two important points need to be noted about the actual Miller decision:
1. The government argued for a “collective” rather than an “individual” right theory, and that argument was rejected by the court.
2. The conclusion of the Court strongly suggested that weapons that are commonly used by military forces are the types of weapons the Second Amendment protects.
Shortly after the Court’s decision in Miller, a lower court hearing a Second Amendment challenge, took that little piece of introductory dicta from the Miller decision about it being viewed with the militia clause in mind, and twisted that to mean that militia service was a prerequisite to protections of the Second Amendment. That court used that bit of dicta to resurrect the “collective right” theory that the Court had actually dismissed in Miller.
Subsequent courts used that “collective right” interpretation as their basis for rulings for the next 60+ years, while the Supreme Court just let the blatant misconstruction of the Miller decision slide, refusing to hear any Second Amendment challenges.
The “collective right” interpretation became the standard interpretation, and that’s how it was taught in law schools and discussed in academia for decades. Then in the mid-1970s, a young law student named David Hardy was tasked with writing an article on a tertiary subject, and he got tangled up in the details of Second Amendment jurisprudence. He noticed that the record did not comport with what he was being taught, so he dug deeper, and documented the long-suppressed history and facts of the matter. He wrote down his findings in an article for his school’s law review and got it published. That article, being in a small, not particularly well-regarded law journal, went widely unnoticed, but caught the attention of Professors Don Kates and Joyce Lee Malcolm, who delved into deeper legal and historical research, and eventually led to Kates writing an article for the Michigan Law Review. That article caught more attention and prompted wider discussions in the halls of academia. Then noted legal scholar, Professor Sanford Levinson decided that he was going to put a nail in the coffin of this crazy “individual right” theory of the Second Amendment, so he dug into the subject. His conclusion took the form of a detailed article in the Yale Law Journal titled The Embarrassing Second Amendment, and to his credit, his conclusion was that the Second Amendment did indeed mean exactly what it said, and protected an individual right to arms. As evidenced in his title, he was not particularly happy with that conclusion, but he had the integrity to admit that he and virtually all of legal academia and the courts had gotten it wrong for decades.
Fast forward to 2008 when the Supreme Court, for the first time since 1939, took an in-depth look at the Second Amendment in the case of DC v. Heller. In that 5–4 decision, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, and even the 4 dissenting justices agreed that the “collective right” theory was untenable, though they still argued that some connection to militia service should be attached to the right, and Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the framers must have intended the operative clause — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” — to include an unspoken “unreasonably” in it subtext.
Since the Heller decision, lower courts have again, just as they did with Miller, taken bits and pieces of the dicta from that opinion, and distorted it to justify all manner of bad rulings, and just as with Miller, the SCOTUS has refused to review these cases, allowing the distortions to stand and more bad precedents to be set.
I’ll also note that virtually every SCOTUS notice of the Second Amendment prior to the Miller decision, clearly understood the right to belong to every individual citizen. Even in the notorious Dred Scott decision, Justice Taney used the Second Amendment to argue against recognizing “those of the African race” as being citizens, because that would mean that they would then have the right to own and carry weapons wherever they went — clearly not a militia-dependent interpretation.
So now you know why so many people don’t think the Second Amendment really means what it clearly says — because they don’t want it to mean that, and they’re willing to bend over backwards to try and make it say something else.
-
5
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:
No!
So..you would rather have an EOD man lose his hands, or his life, than have a robot do the job.
You'd prefer that a firefighter die attempting a rescue than have a robot actually rescue people.
Got it.
-
-
16 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:
WHY?
Because IT MAKES IT TECHNICALLY NOT A FIREARM.
So it's not subject to the same restrictions.
-
2
-
-
Nice tribute:
-
3
-
-
-
"We have it, might as well use it!"
-
1
-
-
Found on X
Yeah sweetie, I need a 5.56-liter High-Output Gas-Actuated Reciprocating Freedom Transmission Assembly with Integrated Cartridge Feed Control, Rotating Bolt Coupler, Spent-Brass Exhaust Management, and Carbon-Lubricated High-Mileage Performance Package.
-
1
-
4
-
-
Sitting up as a CT scan is in progress.
.jpeg.21fd32daf94a363108083af36ac4a836.jpeg)
-
2
-
-
On 8/23/2026 at 4:34 PM, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:
One more loss of anything human. Video games, communications, automated vehicles, cooking, manufacturing, delivery systems, architecture, art, music, etc., and now athletics and other entertainment.....and not a single human feature in any of it.
Human personality is vanishing, imagination is turned over to machines to finish it, etc.
Sad! So very, very, very, SAD!
Or, these events are just test bed. Image these developed to the point where they can be used for EOD.
Rushing into toxic environments created by chemical spills to rescue people
Or charging into a fire to haul people to safety.
Maybe hostage rescue.
Wouldn't you rather risk a machine instead of a person?
-
1
-
-
Dolly Parton Skips Dollywood Ride Opening Amid Ongoing Health Problems https://variety.com/2026/music/news/dolly-parton-skips-dollywood-opening-health-issues-1236835632/
-
Dolly Parton Dead: Country Music Legend and Actress Was 80 https://share.google/m90qs0RMmMwkxK6Xn
One heck of a Lady.
Generous, kind, heckuvan entertainer with a wicked sense of humor.
She will be sorely missed.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, J-BAR #18287 said:
I'm missing something.
The shooter appears to be using brass cases along with a percussion cap in the second video. How does the fire from the cap get to the powder charge?
The original percussion Sharps used paper cartridges. The back end of the paper tube was cut when the breech block returned to firing position, which exposed the powder to the fire from the percussion cap. So how does the combination of brass case and percussion cap work?
The "primer" on the brass is a clever little ball valve. Powder pushes on the ball so it seals and Powder doesn't trickle out. Pressure from the percussion cap pushes the valve open and allows the cap to set off the Powder. I thought, at first, that it was just bored through.
ADDED:
Basically, it's going back to the paper cartridge design, where the breach block cut the back end off the paper to expose the power.
ADDED: Watch this on your television or desktop. Enable captions, and set to translate to English.
36 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:I wanna know why they don't have hearing protection where he's at?
Poland. I've noticed that a lot of other countries don't pay as much attention to what we consider normal firearm safety as we do.
Apparently this is not technically a firearm in some, maybe most, of Europe. Nice way to work around some of the restrictions.
-
2
-
-
-
1 hour ago, watab kid said:
that looks tasty , im not sure what that meat was , but what the heck ill adjust to my own concoction and make that work ,
It's called in Romanian "Parizer." Basically "Parisiab White Sausage," which is "Parisian Bologna" for all practical purposes.
I suspect that any of the emulsified cooked sausages would do
-
4 hours ago, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:
What is the dish called? I would try it.
"Deep Fried Pork Belly with Garlic Chili Dipping Sauce"
From what I've been able to find, it's more common to parboil the pork, then fry at about 350°F. Starting raw, cook at about 300°F so it cooks through.
Basically, Cambodian Chicharones con Carne with a Cambodian Dipping Sauce.
A version of the sauce;
-
1
-
-
On 8/23/2026 at 6:42 PM, Sedalia Dave said:
They may run fast but they are not stable. If you watch them closely you can see them fight to stay upright.
“The wonder is not that the dancing bear dances well, it is that the bear dances at all.”
How long has this technology been around and considered seriously by industry? 20 years? And the serious biped versions, what 5 5 years?
Sure there were a few outliers 50 years ago, but what we see on the OP is very recent.
-
-
-
7 hours ago, Calamity Kris said:
As for the napalm, I thought I saw her put garlic, onion, chili peppers and some other root into the blender. Once blended and scooped into the bowl, she added ground horseradish, some other ground substance, sugar and soy sauce?? Does that seem right? Napalm is an understatement.
Yep. Cousin to the Thai chili. 100,000+ Scovill units.
-
Garlic and Green Onion Hushpuppies.
I made these using P.A.N. Precooked White Cornmeal like you would use for tortillas or tamales.
measurements are approximate
1/2 cup PAN Cornmeal
1/2 cup AP Flour
1/2 tsp Kosher Salt
2 or 3 tsp Baking Powder
2 or 3 finely chopped Green Onions
2 minced Garlic Cloves
1 large Egg
3/4 cup Milk
Oil for cooking.
Mix dry ingredients. Add Garlic and Green Onions, mix well.
Add Egg and Milk (if you use Buttermilk you will need maybe a full cup). Mix well. Let sit for about 5 minutes to hydrate.
Pour about 2" of neutral oil into a heavy pot over medium-high heat. Heat to 350°F.
Batter should be thick, almost a dough. Drop by scant tsp...more like 1/2 to 3/4 tsp into hot oil. Don't crowd the pot. Stir and turn gently to a dark golden brown. Remove with slotted spoon or spider. Drain on paper towels. Lightly salt while hot.
-
Dolly Parton
in SASS Wire Saloon
Posted