2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Went and checked
He didn’t actually
But I know that won’t stop you. Reality is tough for some
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Yeah, I hope he goes for it and Disney moves somewhere else. They can always get Bible World to come there.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
A lot of unused land that could be gotten for cheap between Macon and Valdosta.
sturg33
I
Wait are you now in support of corporations getting special treatment from the government?
Man, first phizer, then Walmart, now Disney.
Such a corporate shill these days
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
Its a fantastic metamorphosis and one that is not even known to the host.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Both well regulated and militia were terms meant to be vague so that they could get the approval of multiple groups. Just look at state constitutions of the time covering the same issue:
Virginia: That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Tennessee: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
Shays Rebellion had just occurred and a Revolutionary War officer called up a militia to put it down. The gentry liked that and wanted to ensure they had the right to call up cannon fodder to put down any further uprisings of uppity commoners. Others feared a standing army and wanted a militia to be the primary defense. Others saw militia as just being an armed populace. One word, meaning many different things to different groups. Well regulated was the same. It's easy to find it being used in writing of that era to mean bound by strict rules, or in good working order, or just typical or the norm.
That's why I always say the amendment should be altered, and there should be more specific details about both rights and restrictions. And there definitely should be restrictions. But interpreting it in restrictive ways sets a horrible precedent that no one should be in favor of.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The historical record indicates that the second amendment was meant to protect states' rights with respect to maintaining militia. Over the centuries many states have allowed their militia to atrophy. But that is their choice. There are vestigial remnants of these militia in the form of various state guards (distinct from National Guard units that governors have at their disposal).
An interesting discussion of these issues can be found here.
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-does-second-amendment-really-mean#3
A couple notable paragraphs:
In 1792, soon after the first ten amendments were ratified, Congress passed the Militia Act. It required every able-bodied white male citizen between the age of eighteen and forty-five to enroll in a state militia. It also required them to purchase a gun as well as a complete outfit of equipment essential to perform their military duties, thereby making gun ownership not an individual right but a legal obligation.
For those disposed to unpack the Second Amendment for the original meaning of “bear arms,” it has collective implications that lead not toward the right to own a gun, but toward mandatory national service. In that sense, both Madison and the critics he sought to appease were living in a world forever lost to us.
An interesting discussion of these issues can be found here.
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-does-second-amendment-really-mean#3
A couple notable paragraphs:
In 1792, soon after the first ten amendments were ratified, Congress passed the Militia Act. It required every able-bodied white male citizen between the age of eighteen and forty-five to enroll in a state militia. It also required them to purchase a gun as well as a complete outfit of equipment essential to perform their military duties, thereby making gun ownership not an individual right but a legal obligation.
For those disposed to unpack the Second Amendment for the original meaning of “bear arms,” it has collective implications that lead not toward the right to own a gun, but toward mandatory national service. In that sense, both Madison and the critics he sought to appease were living in a world forever lost to us.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Ha. I actually think states' rights are very important. It has become a dirty phrase because of the segs. But on an issue like abortion (or what books are allowed in school libraries) I think states (and local communities) should have the leeway to make their choices based upon their values.
Of course I reserve the right to mock choices that I think reflect an overly prudish or puritanical social culture. So it is with pleasure that I continue to advocate for Mario Vargas Llosa's underrated masterpiece:
But if a local community or state wants to protect its children from such "porn" that is their right and indeed their obligation.
Last edited:
sturg33
I
So do you want Disney to have special exemption status or not?
57Brave
Well-known member
Like it or not Disney has special exemption status.
Reasons ? They draw the most water in the state so to speak.
Pro sports players come to Florida, you know why ?
No state income tax. Take a second to think how Disney plays into that equation.
Desantis in all his political wisdom has picked a fight with the cash cow
Reasons ? They draw the most water in the state so to speak.
Pro sports players come to Florida, you know why ?
No state income tax. Take a second to think how Disney plays into that equation.
Desantis in all his political wisdom has picked a fight with the cash cow
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Orlando has a lot of reasons for Disney to stick around. The existing park and infrastructure is one, the surrounding tourist traps are another. I am confident that Florida could nix the exemption and not suffer for it in the least. Disney can then signal their virtue with increased prices or reduced profits.