A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

[TU Curmudgeon]

At least Trump trusts me to own a gun. Many so called liberty-loving Democrats don’t. That makes them hypocrites.

I don't think that Mr Trump even knows that you exist.

Tell me how you use and care for your guns and explain how you handle them safely and how you know when and where to use them appropriately and how accurate you are when you use them and I'll let you know if I feel comfortable with you having guns anywhere in reasonable close proximity to me.

 

[Ahlevah]

The populace gets the government it is prepared to put up with.

Yeah, unless they decide to flee to the Land of Milk and Honey and call themselves “asylum seekers” after their government turns out to be something other than what they thought it was. Americans are getting fed up with being a safety valve for tyrants.

 

[Ahlevah]

I don't think that Mr Trump even knows that you exist.

I’m not worried about him.

Tell me how you use and care for your guns and explain how you handle them safely and how you know when and where to use them appropriately and how accurate you are when you use them and I'll let you know if I feel comfortable with you having guns anywhere in reasonable close proximity to me.

No, I don’t think so. Even whether I own a gun is none of your business. I’m not going to worry about my neighbors feeling “comfortable” about me exercising my constitutional rights, including my right to own a gun.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Not as I read the law. The FFC determines the amount to be collected (through payments from the local utilities) and the local utilities add that amount to their bills because the local utilities have to pay the FCC.

No, the private company determines the amount to be collected, and the FCC rubber-stamps it. The Fifth Circuit noted in its opinion that, not only has the FCC never challenged the amount the private company sets, there isn't even a mechanism within the agency to review or challenge the company's findings (see: bottom of page 6): "FCC never made a substantive revision to USAC's proposed contribution amount prior to this litigation, and it does not even have a documented process for checking USAC's work."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yeah, unless they decide to flee to the Land of Milk and Honey and call themselves “asylum seekers” after their government turns out to be something other than what they thought it was. Americans are getting fed up with being a safety valve for tyrants.

Maybe if the US government stopped enabling, supporting, and promoting those "tyrants" the situation would change, eh wot?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I’m not worried about him.



No, I don’t think so. Even whether I own a gun is none of your business. I’m not going to worry about my neighbors feeling “comfortable” about me exercising my constitutional rights, including my right to own a gun.

Indeed, and you also support the "constitutional right" to freedom of speech - provided it is in support of whatever Mr Trump wants you to support on any given day, right?

BTW, since the constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL Americans, AND to ALL people within the United States of America,

• do you support the "constitutional right" of a convicted and incarcerated mass murderer to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of a mentally deranged person to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of a six year old child to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of an 18 year old male person who entered the United States of America illegally and has declared that they intend to become a citizen of the United States of America (thereby making them a member of the militia)
• to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
  

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, the private company determines the amount to be collected, and the FCC rubber-stamps it. The Fifth Circuit noted in its opinion that, not only has the FCC never challenged the amount the private company sets, there isn't even a mechanism within the agency to review or challenge the company's findings (see: bottom of page 6): "FCC never made a substantive revision to USAC's proposed contribution amount prior to this litigation, and it does not even have a documented process for checking USAC's work."

OK, so the FCC simply establishes an office to determine rates, invites submissions from the power companies, tells the power companies that the rates are going to be economically ruinous if no submissions are made, and then has the one person who is employed in the office review the rates and either accept or reject the submissions. Provided that there is a minimum of one change in all of the submissions everything is now totally correct - right?

 

[Ahlevah]

Maybe if the US government stopped enabling, supporting, and promoting those "tyrants" the situation would change, eh wot?

We’re not supporting Cuba. We’re not supporting Venezuela. We’re not supporting Nicaragua. We’re not supporting Syria. Were not supporting Haiti (much). We’re not supporting Iran…. (Well, Joe was trying to support Venezuela and Iran by loosening sanctions or limiting their enforcement on their oil exports. He was hoping these autocrats would play nice and help keep the price of gas down for the folks at home, kind of like Trump with Russia.)

 

[Ahlevah]

Indeed, and you also support the "constitutional right" to freedom of speech - provided it is in support of whatever Mr Trump wants you to support on any given day, right?

No, I pretty much say what I want within the rules of this website. I’ve openly called Trump a moron. Biden and Kamala, too.

Can Donald Trump actually end the Ukraine war? Jeffrey Sachs thinks he can

The old view: The Ukraine war might be stopped, but Putin's imperial war would continue unless he is punished. The new view: We're imperialists now too. Correct except for "NOW". It's not "NOW". USA was , still is, and probably will remain imperialistic state forever.

debatepolitics.com

BTW, since the constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL Americans, AND to ALL people within the United States of America,

• do you support the "constitutional right" of a convicted and incarcerated mass murderer to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of a mentally deranged person to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of a six year old child to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?
• do you support the "constitutional right" of an 18 year old male person who entered the United States of America illegally and has declared that they intend to become a citizen of the United States of America (thereby making them a member of the militia)
• to "keep and bear arms". If not, why not? If there is a limit on how far a "constitutional right" extends, who sets that right, why, and how?

Mass murderer: I generally avoid making blanket statements, because there is usually an exception to every rule. BUT, generally speaking, I favor capital punishment for mass murderers. They won’t need a gun in hell.

Mentally deranged person: No, mentally deranged people should not have access to firearms, or knives, or clubs, or cars, or any other potential weapon. They won’t in an inpatient mental facility.

6-year-old: As long as he’s supervised by a competent adult, I have no problem with a 6-year-old learning to shoot a gun, assuming he’s not an idiot. I would leave that up to the discretion of the parents. Presumably, he won’t be living on his own, so he can “own” the gun under Mommy and Daddy’s roof.

Illegal 18-year-old male: No. Since someone who entered the country illegally isn’t supposed to be here in the first place, he doesn’t have a right under federal law to own or possess a firearm, and I support that aspect of the law. Not sure why stating an intent to become a citizen would be relevant. He can get the gun when his status changes.

“To keep and bear arms”: Yeah, I support that, and you’re probably asking the wrong guy, since I put the threshold pretty high and live in a state (Mississippi) where I could legally own a bazooka or a fully-automatic heavy machine gun such as a .50 cal. Browning. The thing is these weapons are expensive thanks to limited (legal) supply, and I simply have no desire to own one.

 

[weaver2]

........ the gigantic totalitarian progressive regulatory state could not exist. The left wants laws to be made and enforced by unelected bureaucrats, in order to cover every aspect of our lives.

You just described the Trump administration.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No, I pretty much say what I want within the rules of this website. I’ve openly called Trump a moron. Biden and Kamala, too.

Can Donald Trump actually end the Ukraine war? Jeffrey Sachs thinks he can

The old view: The Ukraine war might be stopped, but Putin's imperial war would continue unless he is punished. The new view: We're imperialists now too. Correct except for "NOW". It's not "NOW". USA was , still is, and probably will remain imperialistic state forever.

debatepolitics.com

I do so hope that you keep a small bag packed with "essentials" so that you won't be caught off guard when they arrive to take you away for "being an alleged member of a terrorist organization".

Mass murderer: I generally avoid making blanket statements, because there is usually an exception to every rule. BUT, generally speaking, I favor capital punishment for mass murderers. They won’t need a gun in hell.

Mentally deranged person: No, mentally deranged people should not have access to firearms, or knives, or clubs, or cars, or any other potential weapon. They won’t in an inpatient mental facility.

6-year-old: As long as he’s supervised by a competent adult, I have no problem with a 6-year-old learning to shoot a gun, assuming he’s not an idiot. I would leave that up to the discretion of the parents. Presumably, he won’t be living on his own, so he can “own” the gun under Mommy and Daddy’s roof.

Illegal 18-year-old male: No. Since someone who entered the country illegally isn’t supposed to be here in the first place, he doesn’t have a right under federal law to own or possess a firearm, and I support that aspect of the law. Not sure why stating an intent to become a citizen would be relevant. He can get the gun when his status changes.

“To keep and bear arms”: Yeah, I support that, and you’re probably asking the wrong guy, since I put the threshold pretty high and live in a state (Mississippi) where I could legally own a bazooka or a fully-automatic heavy machine gun such as a .50 cal. Browning. The thing is these weapons are expensive thanks to limited (legal) supply, and I simply have no desire to own one.

So you DO support "gun control" and DO NOT believe that the Second Amendment gives an absolute and unbridgeable right for anyo9ne to own guns. BTW, the "illegal" is, at law, a member of "The Militia" - check the law for yourself.

 

[Ahlevah]

I do so hope that you keep a small bag packed with "essentials" so that you won't be caught off guard when they arrive to take you away for "being an alleged member of a terrorist organization".

Marco Rubio is my spokesman on this matter:

So you DO support "gun control" and DO NOT believe that the Second Amendment gives an absolute and unbridgeable right for anyone to own guns. BTW, the "illegal" is, at law, a member of "The Militia" - check the law for yourself.

Do mass murderers and illegal aliens have a constitutional right to keep and bears arms? I don’t think so. Federal law explicitly excludes the right of certain classes of individuals to own or possess firearms. In the case of illegal aliens, it’s done under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). But your unorganized militia argument is an interesting constitutional twist, and I’m not sure it’s ever been properly litigated. It doesn’t appear so. They just might have to be in the militia in Venezuela or Guatemala.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Grizzly Adams]

OK, so the FCC simply establishes an office to determine rates, invites submissions from the power companies, tells the power companies that the rates are going to be economically ruinous if no submissions are made, and then has the one person who is employed in the office review the rates and either accept or reject the submissions. Provided that there is a minimum of one change in all of the submissions everything is now totally correct - right?

1: Phone companies.
2: I could imagine a court still finding a problem with that, but it's at least a start.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Marco Rubio is my spokesman on this matter:

Indeed, no one does.

On the other hand everyone DOES have a "constitutional right" to "due process" and that is what Mr Rubio want's you to forget was not provided. There IS a set process for revoking a visa and/or green card and that process is not "Because Mr Trump didn't like what was said.".

Of course, there is also a "constitutional right" to "free speech" and that is something that neither Mr Rubio nor Mr Trump want you to have. (Well, OK, there is no limit to how much you can heap adoration and praise on Mr Trump.)

Do mass murderers and illegal aliens have a constitutional right to keep and bears arms? I don’t think so.

The Constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL persons in the United States of America.

Federal law explicitly excludes the right of certain classes of individuals to own or possess firearms.

Contrary to the Second Amendment.

In the case of illegal aliens, it’s done under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).

Again, contrary to the Second Amendment.

But your unorganized militia argument is an interesting constitutional twist, and I’m not sure it’s ever been properly litigated.

The "unorganized militia" is "settled law" and has been since 1792. It was approved by President George Washington. Are you saying that Mr Washington was acting unconstitutionally?

It doesn’t appear so.

Until overturned, "The law is the law." Right now all that is required is for the "foreigner" to declare their intention to become an American citizen.

They just might have to be in the militia in Venezuela or Guatemala.

They might be both (or all three, for that matter).

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

Since when did you have to have a license in order to exercise a "constitutional right"? The purported imposition of a so-called "licence requirement" is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, "constitutional rights" are NOT absolute and then you get into the territory well described by the old joke where the punchline is "Oh, we've already established that. What we are doing now is negotiating price.".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

1: Phone companies.

Oops, my bad.

2: I could imagine a court still finding a problem with that, but it's at least a start.

It would actually bring the process within the ambit of the statute.

In fact, if the FCC were to publish a regulation to the effect of

"Unless a successful representation as to why it should be otherwise, the fee per telephone (either fixed or mobile) shall be $100 [calculated in 2025 dollars] (or such other amount not to exceed $1,000 [calculated in 2025 dollars] as may, from time to time, by regulation be set) per year."​

and then set up an office to review the representations from the phone companies (if the phone companies even bothered to make any), then all of the bases would be covered. Quite frankly the phone companies wouldn't give a damn what the rate was because they would simply pass the cost on to the customer.

[ASIDE - Possibly the fee could attach to the SIM card and possibly it could be made mandatory to register SIM cards (the registration to include fingerprints). Doing that would most certainly lower the prevalence of "burner phones" (as well as make using them considerably more expensive). It also might do a lot to assist in the tracking down of drug dealers.]

 

[Ahlevah]

Indeed, no one does.

On the other hand everyone DOES have a "constitutional right" to "due process" and that is what Mr Rubio want's you to forget was not provided. There IS a set process for revoking a visa and/or green card and that process is not "Because Mr Trump didn't like what was said.".

Mr. Khalil is being accorded due process, certainly more than his friends from Hamas accorded the Jews and non-Jews they kidnapped and murdered over the years.

Of course, there is also a "constitutional right" to "free speech" and that is something that neither Mr Rubio nor Mr Trump want you to have. (Well, OK, there is no limit to how much you can heap adoration and praise on Mr Trump.)

After the way the Biden Administration pressured social media companies to alter their narratives on particular topics, such as Hunter Biden’s laptop and Covid-19, Democrats really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States of America applies to ALL persons in the United States of America.

Right. But it doesn’t stop us from imprisoning mass murderers or deporting illegals aliens.

The "unorganized militia" is "settled law" and has been since 1792. It was approved by President George Washington. Are you saying that Mr Washington was acting unconstitutionally?

No, I’m saying there is a legal process for declaring your intention to become a U.S. citizen. Simply walking up to a Border Patrol agent saying, “Ola! My name is Juan. I want to be an American and a member of the militia. Where is my gun?” won’t cut it.

Since when did you have to have a license in order to exercise a "constitutional right"? The purported imposition of a so-called "licence requirement" is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, "constitutional rights" are NOT absolute and then you get into the territory well described by the old joke where the punchline is "Oh, we've already established that. What we are doing now is negotiating price.".

As I stated earlier, my state has minimal firearms regulations. It largely follows federal law. And under federal law, I don’t need a license to purchase or own a gun. I don’t even need a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon in this state. If I’m a gun dealer, then, yes, I need a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

So, yeah, I would agree that in civil society we agree to abide by certain rules and restrictions on our rights. For example, I have a right to travel, but I still need a license to drive a car or fly an airplane. I’m even restricted on where I can walk. I can’t walk on an Interstate Highway, for example.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The SCOTUS needs to avoid this. The time will come when the cabal that has polluted the SCOTUS will be held accountable.

I agree.

As soon as we can get rid of the Left-Leaning cabal of Justices appointed when "Democrats" (read SOCIALISTS) had the ability to appoint them, and are replaced with solid Conservative Justices, we will have the correct way to interpret the laws of the land.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I agree.

As soon as we can get rid of the Left-Leaning cabal of Justices appointed when "Democrats" (read SOCIALISTS) had the ability to appoint them, and are replaced with solid Conservative Justices, we will have the correct way to interpret the laws of the land.

Good try.

Trolling doesn't help.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Good try.

Trolling doesn't help.

Says the poster who rants about the "Catholic cabal" from beneath his tinfoil hat.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Oops, my bad.

No worries!

It would actually bring the process within the ambit of the statute.

In fact, if the FCC were to publish a regulation to the effect of

"Unless a successful representation as to why it should be otherwise, the fee per telephone (either fixed or mobile) shall be $100 [calculated in 2025 dollars] (or such other amount not to exceed $1,000 [calculated in 2025 dollars] as may, from time to time, by regulation be set) per year."​

I think that would be preferable, honestly.

(the registration to include fingerprints).

Oh, **** THAT.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Mr. Khalil is being accorded due process,

He is now that ICE is being forced to obey the laws of the United States of America (a move that Mr Trump is opposing).

certainly more than his friends from Hamas accorded the Jews and non-Jews they kidnapped and murdered over the years.

Indeed, and certainly more than the Palestinians that the Israelis are killing in their ethnic cleansing operations in Gaza.

After the way the Biden Administration pressured social media companies to alter their narratives on particular topics, such as Hunter Biden’s laptop and Covid-19, Democrats really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

Right, so let's just chuck the whole thing.

Right. But it doesn’t stop us from imprisoning mass murderers or deporting illegals aliens.

Now where did you see me say that it did? What the US constitution DOES stop (when followed) is the imprisonment and/or deportation of anyone UNLESS they proper forms have been followed.

No, I’m saying there is a legal process for declaring your intention to become a U.S. citizen.

Actually there isn't. There is, however, a legal process for putting that intention into effect.

Simply walking up to a Border Patrol agent saying, “Ola! My name is Juan. I want to be an American and a member of the militia. Where is my gun?” won’t cut it.

Sorry, but that isn't what the law says. The law simply says "declares their intent".

As I stated earlier, my state has minimal firearms regulations. It largely follows federal law. And under federal law, I don’t need a license to purchase or own a gun. I don’t even need a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon in this state. If I’m a gun dealer, then, yes, I need a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

I am all in favor of "open carry" under much the same restrictions as apply to drivers' licences (i.e. you have to demonstrate that you can do it safely and more or less in accord with the actual laws [I say "more or less" because around here the "posted speed limits" are regarded by everyone {including the police} as "suggested consumer guidelines". The police are more likely to tag you for unsafe driving than they are for speeding.]). Personally I think that personal hand guns should be limited to "black powder, non-cartridge" types and do so on the theory that "If you can't put 'em down with six shots, you shouldn't be shooting." but I'm not totally wedded to that point. On the other hand, I do note that the number of school shooting and mass shootings that have been conducted by a shooter armed with black powder, non-cartridge handguns in the past 20 years closely approximates ZERO.

So, yeah, I would agree that in civil society we agree to abide by certain rules and restrictions on our rights.

Unless, of course, it is your own personal right to do something that you want to do and, if that is the case then the "right" is "absolute" - right?

For example, I have a right to travel, but I still need a license to drive a car or fly an airplane.

Yep, that's for the safety of others. The same applies to anything or activity which could adversely impact the safety of others.

I’m even restricted on where I can walk. I can’t walk on an Interstate Highway, for example.

Walking on any highway is not an activity that is likely to be "life enhancing", but why someone should be restricted from walking anywhere near any roadway is totally beyond me. Interstate highways have LARGE expanses of clear ground around them for most of their lengths. The only place where foot traffic should be prohibited/restricted is where it is necessary to actually travel on the paved roadway and/or shoulder (because, then, the pedestrian poses an actual safety hazard to others).

You might find "Look Both Ways" to be a short, but amusing, read concerning the "freedom of the King's Highway" - a freedom that doesn't exist in the United States of America.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I agree.

As soon as we can get rid of the Left-Leaning cabal of Justices appointed when "Democrats" (read SOCIALISTS) had the ability to appoint them, and are replaced with solid Conservative Justices, we will have the correct way to interpret the laws of the land.

1. The US does NOT have any (significant) number of "socialists. The American polity is divided almost equally between
2. "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Republican Party’)";
3. "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (DBA ‘The Democratic Party’)";
4. "The I Really Don't Give a Damn Who Is Running the Country - But I'm Going to Kvetch About It Regardless of Who It Is" folks; and
5. those who don't have the intelligence to decide between the three above groups.

The country, of course, is actually being run by the group that has the most amount of money with which to purchase politicians who will run the country for the benefit of those with the largest amount of money.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No worries!


I think that would be preferable, honestly.


Oh, **** THAT.

Sorry, but the US constitution does NOT say "a well regulated telephone system being essential to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear telephones shall not be abridged.".

<SARC>Now, possibly you could explain why you are supporting criminals who want to abuse their telephones in order to commit crimes against all Americans INCLUDING CHILDREN.

ALTERNATIVELY

The vast majority of telephone users do NOT use their telephones to commit crimes, so any requirement for the registration of telephones is a massive violation of their constitutional rights.

ALTERNATIVELY

Telephones are needed in order to protect law abiding citizens from criminals who are about to invade their homes and murder them because they allow the law abiding citizens to defend themselves by contacting the police.

ALTERNATIVELY

Telephones are a means of effectuating everyone's constitional right to freedom of expression and to "regulate" telephones is a violation of that constitutional right.</SARC>

 

[Ahlevah]

Indeed, and certainly more than the Palestinians that the Israelis are killing in their ethnic cleansing operations in Gaza.

No offense, but that’s complete horseshit. Ethnic cleaning is the province of Hamas and Friends.

Now where did you see me say that it did?

You were asking me about rights being absolute. It’s obvious to me that they’re not, at least when it comes to how people conduct themselves in civil society.

What the US constitution DOES stop (when followed) is the imprisonment and/or deportation of anyone UNLESS they proper forms have been followed.

Yes, I agree that everyone is entitled to due process of law.

Actually there isn't. There is, however, a legal process for putting that intention into effect.

The “unorganized militia” is defined by statute, specifically 10 U.S. Code § 246. Also, Congress can regulate who can become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and it has through the Immigration and Nationality Act. Anyone can say they want to be an American citizen. They can also be led to a detention facility and deported: “As-salamu alaykum! My name is Abdul. I’m from Hamas, and I came to America to join the militia! Where is my gun?”

Sorry, but that isn't what the law says. The law simply says "declares their intent".

Yeah, wish Abdul luck at the border with that plan.

I am all in favor of "open carry" under much the same restrictions as apply to drivers' licences (i.e. you have to demonstrate that you can do it safely and more or less in accord with the actual laws [I say "more or less" because around here the "posted speed limits" are regarded by everyone {including the police} as "suggested consumer guidelines". The police are more likely to tag you for unsafe driving than they are for speeding.]). Personally I think that personal hand guns should be limited to "black powder, non-cartridge" types and do so on the theory that "If you can't put 'em down with six shots, you shouldn't be shooting." but I'm not totally wedded to that point. On the other hand, I do note that the number of school shooting and mass shootings that have been conducted by a shooter armed with black powder, non-cartridge handguns in the past 20 years closely approximates ZERO.

Personally, I would not attempt to open-carry a firearm in a place like a city where people would tend to freak out if they saw it. If I carry a gun, it will be concealed simply because I don’t want anyone, including a potential assailant, to know that I’m armed. And I would want to be on a level playing field with him. That’s why law enforcement agencies ditched revolvers as primary sidearms decades ago.

Unless, of course, it is your own personal right to do something that you want to do and, if that is the case then the "right" is "absolute" - right?

I like walking. I have a natural right to walk. It is “absolute” in the sense that it is an inalienable, natural right. However, in civil society I don’t have an “absolute right” to walk wherever I want. I can’t, for example, stroll into the Oval Office and give Trump a piece of my mind on issues of importance to me, such as U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO and his tariff orgasm.

Walking on any highway is not an activity that is likely to be "life enhancing", but why someone should be restricted from walking anywhere near any roadway is totally beyond me. Interstate highways have LARGE expanses of clear ground around them for most of their lengths. The only place where foot traffic should be prohibited/restricted is where it is necessary to actually travel on the paved roadway and/or shoulder (because, then, the pedestrian poses an actual safety hazard to others).

Normally, if a road or highway is controlled-access there will be a sign indicting that pedestrians are prohibited. If a cop ever tried to tell me that I can’t walk next to a highway without a sidewalk or sign and issue me a citation, he would see me in court.

You might find "Look Both Ways" to be a short, but amusing, read concerning the "freedom of the King's Highway" - a freedom that doesn't exist in the United States of America.

Care to elaborate? What freedom is that?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No offense, but that’s complete horseshit. Ethnic cleaning is the province of Hamas and Friends.

You, obviously aren't paying attention and/or don't know what "ethnic cleansing" consists of. Of course, Mr Trump is in favor of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, but his motives are purely financial so that's OK - right?

You were asking me about rights being absolute. It’s obvious to me that they’re not, at least when it comes to how people conduct themselves in civil society.

It also depends on how "civil society" defines "proper behaviour".

Yes, I agree that everyone is entitled to due process of law.

Except when Mr Trump says that they aren't - as your posts indicate you believe.

The “unorganized militia” is defined by statute, specifically 10 U.S. Code § 246.

Yep

Also, Congress can regulate who can become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and it has through the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Yep.

Anyone can say they want to be an American citizen.

Yep and simply saying it automatically makes any male between the lower and upper age limits for "the militia" a member of "the militia"