Send a Message
to Krulick

Comments

263

Joined

Apr 11, 2010

Krulick Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Ellenville, NY

Flood Watch for Ulster County starting March 12 at 4:16AM...

Why?  (Dec 19, 2013 | post #4)

Ellenville, NY

Odds rising for casino gaming at Nevele Hotel

When have I ever attacked free enterprise per se? I have been successful IN free enterprise; it's the abuse of free enterprise that is the problem, usually when it actually USES the power of the state to unlevel the playing field to give advantage to those who have the money and clout to bend the law in their favor. And I am hardly a "statist " but that doesn't stop this deluded person from attacking me with such blatant assertion ad hominems. I wonder what particular bug got up his rectum that he comes out of the woodwork every month or so to lob these silly grenades at me?  (Nov 30, 2013 | post #5)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Ah, more ad hominem fallacies instead of actual refutation! I suppose James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Storey, James Wilson, Luther Martin, Elbridge Gerry, and ALL my PRIMARY SOURCES from the late 18th and early 19th century were "Joyce Foundation shills"!!! LOL! Once you use the absolutist claim "all" you are easily refuted by showing ANY sources that don't meet your claim. Again, I ask anyone to point to SPECIFIC points I made, or the ORIGINAL sources I cited, and show where I am using inaccurate or irrelevant material.  (Jun 20, 2013 | post #33)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Further, ALL the debates in the first Congress over this amendment, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, was about ONLY the militia and who would serve. PERIOD! NOTHING about individual gun rights or ownership. NOTHING. The details of that debate, as well, is covered in detail in my essays, and again prove that the purpose of the amendment was about the make-up and control of the militia.  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #31)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

The last bit, which I just squeezed in and had no room to explain about, is Madison's original draft, which proves that "bear arms" was SOLELY about having to "render military service in person" and NOT simply "carrying guns"! In the last clause of this version (the conscientious objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence.  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #30)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

The "challenge " site is a joke as I can't post to it! But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest: Jefferson’s seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at: http://www.constit ution.org/tj/jeff. htm: "One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, ‘and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it’ i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution. " Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard! According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand." Here’s what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792: "Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamilton’s was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords." Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO! FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there! The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence! And that is why one can’t ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage " in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CAN’T or WON’T accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY! IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT, they could have simply left OUT the first half! Even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment! "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #29)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

I am trying to respond to the "challenge " post but this forum is not letting me post. The site is a joke as there's no way to post to it! I have the answers, but I will keep trying to put them here  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #28)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

The site is a joke as I can't post to it! But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest: Jefferson’s seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at: http://www.constit ution.org/tj/jeff. htm: "One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, ‘and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it’ i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution. " Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard! According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand." Here’s what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792: "Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamilton’s was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords." Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO! FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there! The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence! And that is why one can’t ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage " in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CAN’T or WON’T accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY! IF they were not writing a narrowly focussed MILITIA AMENDMENT, they could have simply left OUT the first half! Even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment! "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #26)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

The site is a joke as I can't post to it! But I have plenty of material in my essays that proves my claim; here is one of the simplest: Jefferson’s seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at: http://www.constit ution.org/tj/jeff. htm: "One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, ‘and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it’ i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution. " Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard! According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand." Here’s what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792: "Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamilton’s was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords." Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO! FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights, which, clearly included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights are simply not to be found there! The 2nd Amen is unique... the ONLY BoR amendment that SPELLS OUT the reason for its existence! And that is why one can’t ignore it! In LAW, specifically in Constitutional interpretation, there ARE NO subordinate clauses! Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that there IS NO "surplusage " in the Constitution! This "debate" is ONLY being promulgated by those who CAN’T or WON’T accept that the 2nd Amen MUST be read and understood IN ITS ENTIRETY! Yet even so, based on what Madison MEANT by "bear arms," even the ABSENCE of the first half leaves no doubt that it is strictly a militia amendment! "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #25)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Clearly you can't read for comprehension. I've also dispatched all this in my essay, which would take too much time to repost here. The "People" part of the 1st Amendment ONLY deals with the "assembly " part, NOT with speech, religion or press. See the difference? THOSE, not being restricted by the "people" phrase, are clearly individual rights; the latter part, because OF the PEOPLE mention, includes both COLLECTIVE and INDIVIDUAL rights FOR the members of the People Class, the Freemen who were adult white males in 1789 ONLY. Again, all this is spelled out in great detail in my essays. Same with the distinction of the other amendments using the term the PEOPLE and how it's used there and elsewhere in the Constitution. Amar is hardly a charlatan, but a well-respected and CONSERVATIVE scholar; your mere ad hominem doesn't refute him or me. Again, the details are in the comprehensive essays which you have YET to point out a SINGLE error in!  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #24)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means by Akhil Reed Amar (http://www.consti tution.org/2ll/2nd schol/103wha.htm) The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively rather than a right of "persons " individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase "bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the "militia " and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of "soldiers " in times of "war" and "peace." Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other. ... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho, rather than the citizenry acting collectively. But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than "persons, " the collective connotation is primary. "We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and political, not private and individualistic. Every two years, "the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House. To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in 1787 had the rights of "persons " (such as freedom to worship and protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment. The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment’s assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble " in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. " I cite many, many authoritative scholars and primary sources in my essays, so to pick on any one single point MISSES the entirety of the argument, which is incredibly consistent over the entire range of what I cover: language, history, court rulings, grammar, etc.  (Jun 3, 2013 | post #20)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

So you continue to blatantly assert. Why don't you link to Kopel's dispatching of Yassky so we can decide for ourselves if what you say is so; your mere say-so isn't good enough. The same NRA hack Halbrook that Garry Wills showed to be a joke? "Take the case of Stephen P. Halbrook, one of the central figures in this new literature. His imaginative manipulation of evidence runs to arguments like this, from his 1989 book, A Right to Bear Arms: the Second Amendment cannot be referring only to military weapons, since a Federal-period dictionary (Noah Webster's), under "bear," lists "to bear arms in a coat" as one usage, and only a handgun could be carried in a coat pocket. Mr. Halbrook does not recognize the term "coat of arms," a decidedly military form of heraldry presided over by the College of Arms (by Mr. Halbrook's interpretative standards, a medical institution specializing in the brachium)... We are told that arms, all the equipage of war, can be borne in a coat pocket. Heraldry is mixed with haberdashery, humbug with history, and scholarly looking footnotes with simple-minded literalism. By the methods used in the Standard Model, we could argue that a good eighteenth-century meaning for "quarter " shows that the Third Amendment was intended to prevent soldiers from having their limbs lopped off in private homes... (Garry Wills) Dershowitz is simply wrong, and uses the same blatant assertion approach; nowhere does he go into the depth I did to prove his claim; and Tribe has backtracked, because he was pissed how the hoplophiles misrepresented him and used him as a poster boy. Better to go with Akhil Amar, a conservative constitutional scholar who I quote extensively to support MY argument (see next post), or Robert Bork or Warren Burger. But simple quotes by themselves are not the point; MY essays are so detailed and comprehensive, that one would have to take apart the entire body of evidence, and NOBODY has done that!  (Jun 3, 2013 | post #19)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Do you want to know how one shows that someone is a "hoot" and "laugh out loud stupid"? You show how the person's specific claims are moot or irrelevant and don't hold up under scrutiny. That is what Professor David Yassky did by ripping Kopel a new one: http://www.saf.org /LawReviews/Yassky 2.htm Kopel has called cases "second amendment cases" that aren't, and said they support an individual rights interpretation when nothing even close can be found, except in HIS idiosyncratic criteria! As it was, I dealt with this particular nonsense a long time back, almost a decade ago, with the help of some convenient legal scholars who analyzed his work and tore it apart! Yep, NRA hack Kopel just called ANY case that had even the most remote mention of the 2nd Amen, with NO actual comment on it, and no ruling that turned on it, and no ruling or even dicta that dealt with it (that is, they were NOT by any conventional definition "2nd Amen cases") a "2nd Amen Case"! And then, he just made blatant assertions that they indeed supported an individual rights interpretation based on HIS idiosyncratic and subjective criteria! When some particular cases were studied in depth, it was clear Kopel was blowing smoke about their relevance, and overstating the "individual " nature of any mention. "Yep, that's an individual rights support. Yep, that one too, oh and that one, AND that one..." Here's from ONE of the replies: David Yassky, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. http://www.saf.org /LawReviews/Yassky 2.htm "... For example, the very first case Kopel discusses is Spencer v. Kemna, [22] in which Justice Stevens, in dissent, notes that "An official determination that a person has committed a crime may . . . result in tangible harms such as imprisonment [or] loss of the right to vote or to bear arms." [23] (Like most of the cases Kopel discusses, Spencer v. Kemna has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or with restrictions on firearms. The case decides whether a habeas corpus petition is mooted by the prisoner's release. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Justice Stevens was referring to the constitutional right to bear arms... In fact, Spencer and Poe are quite typical of almost all the cases canvassed by Professor Kopel. Most of these cases mention the Second Amendment in passing, usually along with other Bill of Rights provisions. Some refer to the "liberty " protected by the Amendment, providing an excuse for speculation about what that liberty must entail. But on close analysis, these cases are no more enlightening than Spencer or Poe. [Page 197]..." --- I don't have room to post the full argument and detailed logic and evidence that Yassky used to show Kopel to be a shallow hack blowing smoke, so go to the link and read the WHOLE essay. After reading it, I "laughed out loud at the stupidity (Ol' Klueless Kopel) tried to use to stitch his thoery (sic) together"!  (May 31, 2013 | post #17)

Pine Bush, NY

Gun Laws - Pine Bush, NY

Ad hominem name calling refutes nothing. Dave Kopel has his own biases and has been shown to be flawed in his own blatant assertion claims. Just blatantly asserting Kopel "laughed " (any first hand confirmation?) or that it was declared "stupid" doesn't prove it so; I'm still waiting for SPECIFIC examples of ANY inaccurate or flawed data or refutation of the logic used to "stitch the theory together." You guys are still batting zero.  (May 31, 2013 | post #16)

Q & A with Krulick

Headline:

Just the FACTS!

Hometown:

Ellenville, NY

Neighborhood:

Ellenville, NY

Local Favorites:

Aroma Thyme Bistro, Tavern at the Gunks

I Belong To:

Humanity

When I'm Not on Topix:

I'm usually in Cyberia

Read My Forum Posts Because:

I care about my community

I'm Listening To:

Mike Malloy, Gerald Celente

Read This Book:

Deep Economy by Bill McKibben

Favorite Things:

Green Smoothies

On My Mind:

Peak Oil, Peak Resources, Sustainable Communities

Blog / Website / Homepage:

www.krulick.com

I Believe In:

Gandhian non-violence, Madisonian republican democracy, "small g" green politics