General Discussion

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)

98. Well, I count Nadin among my friends, but that post does suggest something.

Fri Sep 20, 2013, 04:59 PM

Sep 2013

And that is something about academia and academics.

Great people, professors. The best I've had, however, had careers in architecture, engineering, consulting, etc., and were not authors, speakers, etc., like Bogus.

Not always, but often, professors are not there for the money, they're there for their egos, because they're lazy, and/or because they have no creativity or anything to offer that would get them real work.

Often. Not always, not even mostly.

This type of academic, Bogus, reminds me of lifetime wonks like Manny Davis.

Self promoting hack, ready to jump on any topic that can draw attention.

His revisionist shit pile about the Second Amendment has become a cottage industry. Overview here: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

To hold someone like that in high esteem just because they are a professor is, IMHO, a foolish mistake.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

269 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

America will never solve its gun problem until it gets over its fetish for the Founding Fathers. [View all] coldmountain Sep 2013 OP

We do need a new constitution, but if we had a constitutional LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #1

All Blue states have a lot of repukes KamaAina Sep 2013 #62

actually the problem is that people are making money samsingh Sep 2013 #2

On your own. ThePushmataha Sep 2013 #90

I couldn't disagree more. As far as I am concerned respect for the constitution is our only defense dkf Sep 2013 #3

The Constitution has failed and we are verging toward a failed state coldmountain Sep 2013 #4

You can't blame the constitution, blame uninformed passive voters. dkf Sep 2013 #5

just one example questionseverything Sep 2013 #133

I can only go so far on the CT thing... dkf Sep 2013 #141

ct thing? questionseverything Sep 2013 #187

That is so untrue treestar Sep 2013 #226

Agree. But that pesky constitution gets in the way of certain short-sighted agendae. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #9

The hubris in thinking we will only get rid of one right and leave the rest untouched is amazing. dkf Sep 2013 #14

Details, details... sarisataka Sep 2013 #20

Hardly a day, indeed. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #36

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the same point in a NYT article a while back. CTyankee Sep 2013 #225

How would you protect rights DonCoquixote Sep 2013 #227

I'm not seeing a "retune" of the 1st A as much as the addition of women's rights and CTyankee Sep 2013 #234

Agreed... Decaffeinated Sep 2013 #43

I guess academics are low nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #50

Nadin: An element supporting 2A for suppression does not make the 2A all about slavery. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #81

Proof pintobean Sep 2013 #89

Well, I count Nadin among my friends, but that post does suggest something. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #98

Of course it's bunk nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #93

Could you provide a valid link to the debunking, please? Cerridwen Sep 2013 #189

I certainly will, if you don't mind the wait. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #194

Understood. Completely. Cerridwen Sep 2013 #201

keep us updated. some of us have marked our calendars. CTyankee Sep 2013 #239

It has glaring problems to it nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #38

The Constitution hasn't stopped them to this point! Why would it in the future? coldmountain Sep 2013 #66

They kept it secret so that it couldn't be reviewed. dkf Sep 2013 #75

Wait a minute. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #78

The Constitution built in an amendment process to keep up with the times... devils chaplain Sep 2013 #6

well, it certainly took us a long time to emancipate slaves and give full citizenship CTyankee Sep 2013 #231

But it was done... and it wasn't done earlier because sadly the people didn't want it at the time.nt devils chaplain Sep 2013 #233

Which people are you talking about? Women had been agitating for the vote since the CTyankee Sep 2013 #235

Until we get rid of the standing army we're not supposed to have. eom TransitJohn Sep 2013 #7

I've always wondered about that sarisataka Sep 2013 #10

We weren't ever supposed to have one, thus the 2nd and 3rd Amendments TransitJohn Sep 2013 #12

Constitutionally the army is mentioned twice sarisataka Sep 2013 #18

Far more than guns, I'm afraid. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #8

They should be jailed for writing such things. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #11

Besides just guns, there are serious problems with the way congress is apportioned. DanTex Sep 2013 #13

Then you would have two houses. You think that is better? dkf Sep 2013 #15

So you actually think 2 senators per state is a good allocation? DanTex Sep 2013 #16

And they are what? dkf Sep 2013 #19

For example, proportional representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #21

I say increase the Senate to 200. 4 senators per state. Disband the House. randome Sep 2013 #24

That still doesn't resolve the Wyoming/California problem. DanTex Sep 2013 #25

I think the reason for 2 senators per state was to keep the bigger states, population wise, furious Sep 2013 #29

It (maybe) made sense in 1787 for that reason. DanTex Sep 2013 #30

More vulnerable in the sense of being run over by the more pop. states. furious Sep 2013 #35

Why should every state have an equal say? What is so sacred about the "state" as a unit. DanTex Sep 2013 #37

They're not more valuable because of 2 senators per state. furious Sep 2013 #39

Again, what is so important about the "state" as unit? DanTex Sep 2013 #41

They don't get more protection than Brooklyn because of the equal number of senator. furious Sep 2013 #45

But the people of Brooklyn are only a small part of NY. How is that fair. DanTex Sep 2013 #47

America was formed as a confederacy of states. We ARE Europe. randome Sep 2013 #46

To divide power. Consolidated power corrupts. Division isn't a bug, it's a feature. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #82

Power can be divided without giving some voters more representation than others. DanTex Sep 2013 #84

Do you really think those chuckleheads in CA know what's best for WY? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #86

You really don't get it, do you. DanTex Sep 2013 #88

You don't get it. Your life is not the sole standard by which all other lives are judged. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #92

"That's the way it is" is not a justification. DanTex Sep 2013 #95

I didn't say "that's the way it is" I said "That's why it's smart." Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #97

I get that you don't like CA, but that's not a reason to deny them equal representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #100

They don't deserve an equal say in how to run matters in my state. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #104

Sigh. I think each mid-westerner and each Californian should have *the same* representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #107

But there isn't "equal". CA's population overshadows mid-west states by orders of magnitude. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #111

Of course there is "equal". Each person gets the same amount of representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #114

OK, so let's bust up every large state into states with a pop. no greater than the Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #118

Or just give them equal representation in the senate. DanTex Sep 2013 #123

What's wrong with busting states into equal population groups with equal congressional votes? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #126

If states want to break up, I think they should. If not, they shouldn't. DanTex Sep 2013 #128

"If states want to break up" So, suddenly you consider states a homogenous entity. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #131

No, I don't. What I (obviously) meant is "if the people of the state want to break up". DanTex Sep 2013 #137

I understood your comment to mean exactly what you restated. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #140

How does the way CA manages its internal affairs affect the midwest? DanTex Sep 2013 #142

National policies always carry local consequences. If they didn't you Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #145

I agree. But whether CA breaks up into smaller states is not a national issue. DanTex Sep 2013 #147

It is a national issue because CA has more votes than WY in the House. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #148

That has nothing to do with it. DanTex Sep 2013 #149

No, because those new states would have their own self-interests. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #150

How would breaking CA into 20 states change that? It wouldn't. DanTex Sep 2013 #151

No expenditure bill is written on equal division of funds by default. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #152

And that's unfair to the people of Fresno, who can be ignored, because they don't have any senators. DanTex Sep 2013 #153

So split up CA. Let the other 19 states of former CA compete equally with mid-westerners. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #154

Again, how CA organizes it's local governance has no effect on mid-westerners. DanTex Sep 2013 #156

So you want CA to have more votes in deciding which states get the $$$. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #159

Again, I want each citizen to have the same number of votes. DanTex Sep 2013 #160

But if CA remains a single state it has more votes than the other states. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #166

You are making absolutely no sense... DanTex Sep 2013 #167

I posed a scenario to you based on every day legislative affairs. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #218

You continue to ignore the essential argument: every citizen deserves *equal* protection. DanTex Sep 2013 #219

You ignore the practical realities. As a single political entity CA gets more votes. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #220

Again ignoring the question about Fresno. Again with "that's just the way it is". DanTex Sep 2013 #221

You're comparing cities to states. We're talking political divisions. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #222

The political divisions are arbitrary. What matters is equal representation for citizens. DanTex Sep 2013 #223

Political divisions are a reality. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #224

Income inequality is also a reality. It doesn't make the status quo right. DanTex Sep 2013 #228

I'm aching to know how administrative divisions in government are analogous to poverty. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #237

The analogy is between inequality of political representation (which you are defending) and DanTex Sep 2013 #240

I'm defending income/politcal inequality? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #242

You are defending political inequality. You think people in Wyoming deserve 50x more representation DanTex Sep 2013 #246

OK, we get it already. You don't like the current system. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #248

It's not that I don't like it. It's that it is fundamentally unequal and undemocratic. DanTex Sep 2013 #250

Honest question. Do you think there should even be a Senate? oldhippie Sep 2013 #251

I'm not sure. DanTex Sep 2013 #252

Excellent answer ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #257

I agree entirely that the chances of enacting this kind of change are nil. DanTex Sep 2013 #259

I think the crux of DanTex's issue is ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #243

I've also observed exactly what you describe but I still lay the onus at his feet. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #247

And the constant refrain of "So, that's just the way it is?" ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #249

Because it's not about the cities within the states, furious Sep 2013 #122

Again, the whole concept of "states representation" is flawed. DanTex Sep 2013 #125

How would it be equal? furious Sep 2013 #129

One person, one vote is equal. Giving more weight to people in WY is unequal. DanTex Sep 2013 #132

Representation of citizens is handled by the House. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #161

State representation has nothing to do with minority rights. DanTex Sep 2013 #164

States rights via the Senate is one possible implementation of minority rights. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #169

But you keep repeating "that's the way it is". DanTex Sep 2013 #171

No, we keep repeating ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #175

Again, it has nothing to do with minority rights. DanTex Sep 2013 #177

That you don't like the reason does not invalidate the reason since the reason is valid. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #178

It's actually fascinating to watch. DanTex Sep 2013 #179

Whereas you choose not to acknowledge your priviledged position. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #180

My priviledged position? Wha....? DanTex Sep 2013 #183

And by virtue of having more representatives, ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #185

Sigh. But *per capita* the number of representatives is the same. DanTex Sep 2013 #188

Correct. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #191

Right, and the governing principle for the Senate is grossly undemocratic. DanTex Sep 2013 #196

"Undemocratic" depends on your point of view. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #198

No it doesn't. The essence of democracy is that every citizen has equal representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #199

You may think it is nonsense. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #203

Back to "that's the way it is". DanTex Sep 2013 #205

You were doing well until the third paragraph. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #209

"There are plenty of justifications". Then why all the mystery? DanTex Sep 2013 #211

That's one philosophy of democracy ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #204

Please, do tell. Explain why some people should have 50x more representation than others. DanTex Sep 2013 #206

Sigh. One more, then I'm going to bed ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #207

"That's the way it is". "The founders are always right". Etc. DanTex Sep 2013 #210

Objectively, it is already so LanternWaste Sep 2013 #138

Wrong. WY has 50x as many senators per capita as CA. DanTex Sep 2013 #139

They don't. treestar Sep 2013 #230

When it comes to expenditure (and other) bills in congress Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #241

You are right. The FFs recognized the problem, so gave each state two Senators SlimJimmy Sep 2013 #269

Because this is the United "States" of America. MicaelS Sep 2013 #49

"Because that's the way it is" is not a justification. Do you have a logical argument? DanTex Sep 2013 #51

It was part of the agreement when the nation was formed. beevul Sep 2013 #101

Again with "that's the way it is". DanTex Sep 2013 #102

No, not "the way it is". beevul Sep 2013 #108

In other words "that's the way it is".... DanTex Sep 2013 #110

Viewed through the lense of... beevul Sep 2013 #116

A lot of things people did and said 200 years ago are wrong. DanTex Sep 2013 #121

and when we see the need for change of the original agreement, we change it. CTyankee Sep 2013 #244

That's the way it was agreed to ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #182

I've proposed a solution to this on here before. krispos42 Sep 2013 #40

That's an interesting idea, but I still don't get this thing about "bullying" smaller states. DanTex Sep 2013 #44

Let's say California decides Wyoming would be a dandy place to store nuclear waste. krispos42 Sep 2013 #57

I still don't see why Wyoming needs/deserves more protection than Fresno or Staten Island. DanTex Sep 2013 #61

It might well be an outdated concept krispos42 Sep 2013 #65

It's tricky. I agree there needs to be a constitution to protect against tyranny of the majority. DanTex Sep 2013 #69

California has 53 Seats in the House. Wyoming has 1. You keep leaving that part out. Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #130

Why should there be one grossly undemocratic and unequal chamber? DanTex Sep 2013 #135

True, however, Moses2SandyKoufax Sep 2013 #165

You seem to be unaware that your argument was both given and argued, and then ultimately rejected LanternWaste Sep 2013 #143

I'm aware. My whole point is that decisions made 200+ years ago when the world and DanTex Sep 2013 #144

I think your whole point is ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #184

Wrong. My point is that it was a bad decision. DanTex Sep 2013 #186

And a lot of other people think it wasn't. oldhippie Sep 2013 #193

The irony is the supposedly proportional split doesn't reflect the overall vote anyway. dkf Sep 2013 #31

Why not? A proportional split along the lines of what I proposed would DanTex Sep 2013 #32

Yes, because the Senators don't represent the people in a state, they represent the SlimJimmy Sep 2013 #267

Fuck that. It might seem a good idea for California and Texas to split everthing between them... lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #76

So you think it's right that people in Wyoming have 50x more representation than those in CA? DanTex Sep 2013 #77

I think it's right that the small states get to veto the shitty ideas the house comes up with. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2013 #79

The fact that you like the outcome doesn't make it fair or democratic. DanTex Sep 2013 #83

You keep saying that the people of Wyoming have 50x more representation than those in CA, furious Sep 2013 #87

That's because it's true. DanTex Sep 2013 #91

And I have a hard time understanding why you think that WY has more power than CA, furious Sep 2013 #94

A citizen of WY has far more power than a citizen of CA. This is obvious. DanTex Sep 2013 #96

And what you're suggesting would be equally undemocratic furious Sep 2013 #106

No it wouldn't. I'm suggesting each citizen should have the same representation. DanTex Sep 2013 #109

Wrong. furious Sep 2013 #112

I know how it was set up. But just because "that's the way it is" doesn't make it right. DanTex Sep 2013 #115

And neither would what you seem to suggest. furious Sep 2013 #120

A "state" is just a political entity. It's not a person. DanTex Sep 2013 #124

In a way, the Senate does represent the State as a whole while the House represents people and Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #134

I get that. I'm saying that's undemocratic. DanTex Sep 2013 #136

I disagree. The system you suggest gives all the power to larger States which could then Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #212

I guess that you and I won't agree on what constitutes fair representation. furious Sep 2013 #155

OK. I enjoyed the discussion. Welcome to DU. DanTex Sep 2013 #157

Same here, and thanks. furious Sep 2013 #158

I think that is the crux of your whole problem .... oldhippie Sep 2013 #190

IOW "that's the way it is". And I'm saying the way it is is undemocratic and wrong... DanTex Sep 2013 #192

No, "That's the way it was agreed to." oldhippie Sep 2013 #195

LOL. So now we're on to "you gonna do something about it?". DanTex Sep 2013 #197

You keep trying to change minds, and it isn't going to happen ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #200

I don't harbor any illusions of changing your mind. DanTex Sep 2013 #202

what would prevent DonCoquixote Sep 2013 #229

What makes you think California would "steamroll" the rest of the nation. DanTex Sep 2013 #238

They don't. The House of representatives represents the people in the state, and SlimJimmy Sep 2013 #268

Serfing USA seveneyes Sep 2013 #17

Many Americans are also aware of its shortcomings. DanTex Sep 2013 #22

We no more need the Constitution to 'tell' us what to do than we do the Bible. randome Sep 2013 #23

This argument could be used sarisataka Sep 2013 #26

It's already been used multiple times. Dash87 Sep 2013 #33

This is a specious argument Bunnahabhain Sep 2013 #27

I agree gopiscrap Sep 2013 #28

There's also the problem of the 275 millions guns already owned by citizens. krispos42 Sep 2013 #34

I'm glad we have a constitution and respect for the FF LittleBlue Sep 2013 #42

We can have laws that respect free speech. randome Sep 2013 #48

It can be changed LittleBlue Sep 2013 #52

Isn't the constitution the reason we preserve free speech Jesus Malverde Sep 2013 #55

No. The reason we preserve free speech is because we WANT to preserve free speech. randome Sep 2013 #63

USA, USA, USA, nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #56

Wow, a new national anthem for us. Fuck yeah! LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #58

The movie is just one bad stereotype after another nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #59

I follow Europe quite closely LittleBlue Sep 2013 #60

And if you are honest, which you are not, nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #64

Where did I say we were perfect? LittleBlue Sep 2013 #68

Winner takes all has led to one civil war nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #72

India is a parliament LittleBlue Sep 2013 #73

And it can be greatly improved nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #74

Rec'd; nothing is invoked more often to defend the indefensible than our ancient Constitution BeyondGeography Sep 2013 #53

Silliness. Pure silliness. Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #54

But that's "hard work" and it's a lot easier to destroy than to build. Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #70

A frightening one to be sure. nt Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #71

Thr Constitution already failed, we couldn't hurt it any more! coldmountain Sep 2013 #162

Don't make the mistake of selling the mega-corporations, oligarchs, their corporate media Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #168

I hope your spoon came with a good warranty. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #67

Did you see the slavery map thread? What Lincoln inherited from the Founding Fathers coldmountain Sep 2013 #181

Agree. FF talked of liberty as they denied women vote, killed Native Americans, raped/beat slaves. Hoyt Sep 2013 #80

And FF were brilliant enough to craft a document allowing us to fix those conditions. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #146

Hopefully the day will come where decent people will keep gunz hidden. Hoyt Sep 2013 #172

To be sure, Open Carry while you're out and about is like wearing a Badge of Stupid. nt NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #173

Our Constitution is the worst, TheDeputy Sep 2013 #85

It's filled with fail, it sucks, it's like the WORST CONSTITUTION EVER!!!! NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #99

you're absolutely right backwoodsbob Sep 2013 #103

The Founding Fathers passed their own gun control laws. Agnosticsherbet Sep 2013 #105

It's the constant misinterpretation of the Constitution Jeneral2885 Sep 2013 #113

that's about as likely as replacing the stars and stripes with the peace symbol as our national flag Douglas Carpenter Sep 2013 #117

the fact that many habits of the founders are illegal today and the rights arely staircase Sep 2013 #119

We need a new Constitution Mellow Drama Sep 2013 #127

You will get a chance to try out the free speech part! Best of luck! coldmountain Sep 2013 #163

In the case of the RKBA it is not a fetish, it's expedience. truebluegreen Sep 2013 #170

thats "well equipped" Duckhunter935 Sep 2013 #174

Even if that is true, what about the rest of it? truebluegreen Sep 2013 #176

The Constitution is not going away. Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 #208

The Constitution has a BUILT IN self-destruct mechanism. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #213

Wow, if you hadn't added the italics and all caps, I might not have understood you. Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 #215

I didn't mean to disrespect your post. I know it's not going away. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #216

I think we're saying the same thing. Sorry, having people respond to stuff I didn't actually say Warren DeMontague Sep 2013 #217

Actually, it takes a bit more than a majority ...... oldhippie Sep 2013 #236

lulz Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2013 #214

The Constitution has weathered very well except for one or two things treestar Sep 2013 #232

Repealing the second amendment would not make the right go away. X_Digger Sep 2013 #253

But that right could then be infringed somewhat treestar Sep 2013 #254

And each infringement has to be balanced, just like other fundamental rights. X_Digger Sep 2013 #255

Well if the existence of the Second Amendment makes no difference treestar Sep 2013 #261

It's the current federal protection. It is not the source of the right. X_Digger Sep 2013 #262

The Bill of Rights other than the 9th presumably mean something treestar Sep 2013 #264

The states recognize the right (see state constitutions).. X_Digger Sep 2013 #265

I already has been Duckhunter935 Sep 2013 #258

Some group, maybe the Third Way, is working very hard to disseminate anti-democracy Zorra Sep 2013 #245

well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the notion of some king or noble throwing you in CTyankee Sep 2013 #256

some facts to consider: Britain abolished slavery in 1833. British women won right to vote CTyankee Sep 2013 #266

Conservatives are so selfish ... JEFF9K Sep 2013 #260

So, what would you replace it with? n/c oneshooter Sep 2013 #263