US flag

[Ping]

I dont understand the use of the Term "SHACK"
Can someone explain it to this dumb communist Canuck?

[Toad]

"shack" = "direct hit"

Supposedly from bombing range slang, where a small wooden shack might be the target and pilots were given their hit location by reference to the "shack", as in "6 o'clock, 100" which would be 100 feet low of target. "Shack" means... you hit the shack.

That's the way I heard it anyway.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's simple...

How do you properly dispose of a flag? You burn it.

The only difference between this and burning it on the courthouse steps is the state of mind of the person doing the burning.

So... if the only difference between the two events is attitude, we're looking at a first amendment issue.

Attitude and midset do matter when it comes to legal issues, otherwise there would not be stiffer penalties towards "hate crimes".  Same goes to every other crime, motive is taken into account.  So your argument is false.

[Silat]

Most states have laws against flag burning.  But Texas V Johnson (a 1989 Supreme Court decision) ruled that those laws are unconstitutional.  Now, the states haven't taken them off the books, so I guess it's still "illegal."  After the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was also overturned in a Supreme Court ruling (US vs Eichman).  It, as well, is still on the books.  But prosecuting attorneys aren't likely to enforce those laws, so police probably won't arrest you for flag burning.  But -- cops still might harass you and hold you in jail for 24 hours for being an Anti-American person.  That ought not to happen, but it does.

[Ping]

Thank you Sir Toad

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
SHACK!

Iron.

(Oed, that's not a "gun control" thread hijack argument, it's a highlighting of hypocrisy.)

Never once advocated the overthrow of the 2nd. And legal minds seem to find plenty of gray area as to the "clearly spelled out" rights in the 2nd.

So who exactly is the hypocrit? The 2nd advocate that wants to outlaw political speech, or the 1st advocate that wants gun control?

Hello Pot?

[Toad]

MT,

Check the thread thouroughly and see if I called anyone in particular a hypocrite.

What I said was, Iron is quite right. "many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms".

I feel I've seen that attitude in this BBS more than once. But I did not mention any names.

If you feel it applies to YOU, well, then that would be your judgement.

As far as flag burning, I did not mention my personal views. You are making assumptions based on........ no evidence whatsoever. Which, unfortunately, does not suprise me in the least.

Toodle-pip, old chap-person.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
MT,

Check the thread thouroughly and see if I called anyone in particular a hypocrite.

What I said was, Iron is quite right. "many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms".

IMHO... the 2nd isn't clear... It probably would be except for the "well regulated militia" part.

[Toad]

It's every bit as clear as the first and there's the historical writings of the Founder's to back it up.

But hey, that's how come lawyers drive BMW's and Benz's. They make a living twisting the meaning of words into something entirely different.

[midnight Target]

. Which, unfortunately, does not suprise me in the least.

And here I used to think you were even handed and non judgemental..

I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion again.

Funny Toad how you felt the need to point out you were not the one against a flag burning law..... I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote:
 

So who exactly is the hypocrit? The 2nd advocate that wants to outlaw political speech, or the 1st advocate that wants gun control?

It was really just a rhetorical question.

BTW, what exactly leads you to believe that I jump to conclusions without evidence or merit?

[Toad]

I believe the "hello, pot" would be it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
It's every bit as clear as the first and there's the historical writings of the Founder's to back it up.
 

That may be true of history... where is the well regulated militia today?

[Toad]

Glad you asked. However, this is the last 2nd post here. I'll gladly participate in one you start but it's not fair to deny flag burners their place to proclaim their right to flame the flag.

US CODE
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

        --- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

(From Guncite.com)

There ya go!

Now.. that IS the last 2nd stuff I'll deal with here. But I'll play in another ballpark, if ya like. Not like we haven't done this before though.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by midnight Target
And here I used to think you were even handed and non judgemental..

I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion again.

Funny Toad how you felt the need to point out you were not the one against a flag burning law..... I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote:
 
 

It was really just a rhetorical question.

BTW, what exactly leads you to believe that I jump to conclusions without evidence or merit?

Suppose you meant me MT? No need to beat around the bush about it. I prefer plain speaking even if it means you calling me an ignorant moron. We're more likely learn something from someone when we are honest and say what we think/believe even at the risk of being thought stupid.

Thanks for the support Toad

[midnight Target]

Iron - When I said it was just a rhetorical question I meant it.

In the future I promise to take what you say at face value, if you will do the same.




And Toad, if 2 little words caused you to jump to the conclusion that I continually post without valid backup or thought than my writing skills must be incredible.

Imagine what 3 words would have accomplished?