Posts Made By: James Brown

You guys have all probably seen this, but if you have not, it is on-topic and pretty cool.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

Excellent news!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html
Check out that fine for owning one...

Gentlemen:

An assault weapons ban might be perfectly constitutional. Here is a quote from a 2015 DC Circuit Court of Appeals opinion upholding Maryland's assault weapons ban. This case is known as "Heller II" because the plaintiff is the same chap who brought the Supreme Court Heller case, Dick Heller. In November 2017 The Supreme Court denied review of this case.

Money quote from the DC Circuit:

[COLOR="Blue"]We conclude — contrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are "like" "M-16 rifles" — "weapons that are most useful in military service" — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at 627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards "M-16 rifles and the like"). Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage."[/COLOR]

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/46AD1BE68518069B85257EC400534ABB/$file/14-7071-1573768.pdf

Interesting how the Supreme's Heller opinion is cited to support the constitutionality of the AW ban. So why did the Supreme Court choose not to review this case? https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112717zor_f204.pdf We can only speculate of course, but maybe they are waiting for a Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down an Assault weapons ban - The Supremes are mandated to resolve disputes between the Circuits. So far, no Circuit Court has ever stricken down a ban. A handful of states have them. Maybe the Supremes felt that the DC Circuit got it right. That should give those who think that an assault weapons ban is undeniably unconstitutional under Heller something to think about.

Jim

Originally Posted by FurryAvocado

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-151358843.html<br><br><b>https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-151358843.html</b><br><br><blockquote class="blockquote"><div class="italic"><br>BOSTON (AP) — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.<br><br>U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."<br><br>Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.<br><br>"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."<br><br>State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."<br><br>"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."<br></div></blockquote>

Who is FurryAvocado?  (Oh, I see that it is James) 

One of the things I really liked about "old" Astromart, circa last Friday, is that we used real names, at least in the politics forum.  Passions would flare now and then.  Names would be called, even though we participants were not hiding behind screen names.  Imagine what this forum will devolve into with anonymous trolls free to roam? Also, the use of real names enhanced our sense of community.  I've met a few of you politics forum folks in real life and that would never have happened if we were all anonymous...

Is there a way to replicate the threaded view from the old days?  I don't want to wade through the entire text of every post.  Being able to scan the titles and authors in a threaded outline was really handy.

Jim

Originally Posted by dmarriott2014

Unfortunately the old astromart website was running on windows 2008 R2 which is no longer being supported by Microsoft.  The old astromart was using "classic" ASP coding, and unfortunately there was no way of making changes efficiently so the old site had to be retired.

That is the main reason for the switch as outdated software and the inability to make updates.

We are here to help you. We have already fixed most issues that have been reported on the new website here.  Please continue to report issues and we will fix them immediately.  We want to improve your experience and all feedback posted here is highly valuable.

Thank you.

Hi Donald:

Is there a setting that will permit a threaded "outline" type view in the forums?  

Thanks, Jim

Originally Posted by lesshare814

Gregg it does not matter anyway on this thread according to Jim B we are going to lose our gun rights anyway!

That was your take-away from my posts?  

Jim

Originally Posted by lesshare814

Jim I think that might of been Furry Avacado that took over my forum post.   Sorry, the thread was really quiet after the "change".

Less furry Steve

I'm worried that it was a fatal shock to Richard's system, when he saw the forum format changes... 

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

“Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.”

Hi Greg:

Who wrote that long quote?  I disagree with his/her legal interpretation, but agree with the practical conclusion, at least as I understand the practical conclusion to be interpreted by you.

Let me know if I have overstated anything:

(A) In my view, the fact that we have made the private ownership of some arms illegal, demonstrates that the Second Amendment is not absolute.  The 2A is subject to reasonable limitations, just like the rest of the Amendments.  The issue is where do we draw any line limiting the scope of the Second Amendment without defeating it's purpose.  

(B) In your view, the 2nd Amendment is absolute.  But, you have acknowledged in the past that we can outlaw the private ownership of certain arms for safety and sanity purposes.   I personally can't square the observation that we can outlaw certain arms with an "absolute" amendment, but this distinction doesn't matter, with respect to the practical issue.  The issue is still where do we draw the line outlawing some and sanctioning other arms for safety and sanity purposes.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Yeah, and there was another guy on the forum who would post the debt clock with "Can You Hear Me Now!"

Do you remember Ed Moreno and "peak oil"?  We should be getting around on bicycles only by about now...

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel M

Is most of the politics history gone? Each thread shows only a couple replies? Maybe I'm not doing it right. The old forum was  more user friendly.

Shoot, under my avatar, it only shows 1100 posts or so remaining - that means something like 10,000 individual nuggets of wisdom, poof - gone to the ether.  The written history of mankind is diminished.  Oh well.

J

Originally Posted by FurryAvocado

One of my favorite blasts from the past is Jim Babcock. If I recall correctly, he has passed on, but he was a real champion for the conservative cause. He could promote conservative ideology tirelessly.

Yes, I assume that he has passed.  Jim Babcock really walked the conservative walk.  He was defense contractor and was severely injured by an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't remember which.  During his recovery, he had a stroke and I assume passed away shortly afterwards.  I exchanged some notes with his wife at the time, through Jim's Astromart PM account.  

One of my proudest accomplishments on this forum was changing Jim's mind and convincing him that civil gay marriage was constitutionally mandated under the equal protection clause.  This was before Obama, Clinton, the Supreme Court or pretty much any politician other than the activists were supporting gay marriage.  Although I am sure that Jim disapproved of gay marriage, he was a pure libertarian and could not stomach denying valuable governmental benefits to one class of people based upon sexual orientation.  

Jim