Posts by JeffT

19

A New Watchtower trade name: Hudson Valley

by Gorbatchov in

jw
friends

watchtower and trading business is a never ending combination, now under the new name of hudson valley, selling their building machines online: .

http://used-tools-equipment.com.

JeffT

As I understand it, they were acting as their own general contractor on the Warwick project. (This, in my opinion as a former real estate developer is a bad idea but they didn't ask me). So they need a lot of tools and equipment for a long time. Renting the stuff you need for a project that size doesn't make sense, you need to much of it for too long a time. So they bought it, they shouldn't have trouble reselling it to recover some cost.

I'm trying to work out in my head if they could keep some of it and rent it out to congregations building new halls. It might make sense, but they'd have to truck it all over the country, building the cost of that into the rental rate may make it so expensive that even Elder Dumbjon could figure out he was paying too much.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

Article I section 8 (powers of Congress)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Under this authority the Militia Act of 1903 created the Reserve Militia which consists of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45; and the Organized Militia, which are all the state militias. Per RCW 38.04.030 I'm a member of the Washington State Militia even though I'm about to turn 65, Our unorganized militia has no upper age limit (and no reference to gender :) )

Edited to add: the English laws are relevant because most of the legal systems and laws set up in the colonial states were based on English law, since that's what we'd been living under.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

Who exactly should determine what it should be now *now*? Isn't that the supreme court?

No.

I think Berengaria posted a very interesting and comprehensive history to it.

Interesting yes, comprehensive no. It discusses one aspect of the militia history in the United States, but ignores (among other things) the history of the militia in English Common Law, which was very familiar to the framers of the Constitution.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

I see no one bothered to find out what the militia is supposed to be.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

The problem is, they are not around to ask so all you get are interpretations.

Not really true. They left very extensive notes on what they meant by what they wrote. If you want to debate the US constitution read "The Federalist Papers." For that matter you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers." Its harder to find but sheds some light on what the losing side thought.

Edited to add. The National Guard was founded in 1903.

Berengaria, that's true, but I will note that at least some gun control efforts started as attempts to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans.

http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html

http://monderno.com/monderno/if-youre-anti-gun-youre-a-racist/

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

Simon,

If you want an honest debate about this you should do some research on what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia." Its at least as relevant as what they meant by "firearms."

And to answer your question, we have accepted some reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms for quite some time. Military grade weapons, such as fully automatic rifles and machine guns are highly regulated, and I've never seen a weapon that fires explosive shells for sale to private citizens.

There may be some nuts around advocating a right to own tanks or whatever, few serious people take such a position. Asserting an argument from an absurd position is what's inane.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

JeffT

Now, tell me again how you need your guns and the lame reasons you think justify them.

Why should I bother? You've made it clear you don't want to hear a different opinion.

16

The Watchtower Corporation gets to legally keep all the money and property assets, even if it does fail or reduce in numbers

by Finkelstein in

i think its vitally important to realized that the wts now has as of this year probably close to 2 billion in overall assets worldwide that it can live off for a very long time.

i get this gut feeling that the wts heads are positioning themselves and the organization in tentative survival mode for the long run.. so many cut backs, the selling off of many branches, the down sizing of much of its operations, are all tell tale hints that even the heads of this organization are preparing for the eventful devolving of this organization.

the wts gb leaders say that jah's chariot is moving along at a faster pace but in reflection of how this organization been conducting itself as of late, that wouldn't necessarily be the real truth of the matter.

JeffT

I think the money is probably already in the safest country they can find. The US government is VERY reluctant to tread on the 1st amendment protection of churches. Unless they are doing something like outright criminal (think the Mormon renegades marrying thirteen year old girls) they aren't going to pursue a religion. That isn't true in a lot of other places.

21

Caitlyn Jenner has cognitive Dissonance

by sherrie11 in

i have just finished watching the latest episode of i am cait!

lol yes i watch it!!!

they were discussing politics.

JeffT

macys: people are allowed to not like Jenner, her driving record, her political opinions or her constant reality-show self promotion and saying so is not "hate".

True. And I disagree with her self-promotion and stupid reality show (for the record, I dislike all "reality" shows). Her politics are her business and I don't know beans about her driving record. But in my mind saying her expressed opinions must be the result of cognitive dissonance reminds me too much of being called mentally diseased. Disagree to your heart's content, but leave out the personal attacks.

I also think there is too much emphasis in our public climate on the idea that all people with shared skin color or genitalia should think in a particular way.

Edited to add: my daughter self-describes as "gender fluid" or some such. She's married to a transgender queer woman. Both are welcome members of my family.

26

Lady drives car into Kingdom Hall

by Sugar Shane in

right smack into (what looks like) the front entry!.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/78yo-female-driver-crash-jehovahs-witnesses-church/7243268.

this was in australia, but the khs i've seen (in the us) are designed so that you'd have to almost intentionally want to ram a building to cause this kind of damage.

JeffT

After many years in property management I've lost track of the number of times I've seen cars hit buildings. Older drivers are frequently, but not always, the driver involved. My favorite was the adult newly arrived immigrant who literally drove her car into the DMV office when returning from failing her driving exam. Turned out she didn't have insurance after stating on the forms that she did.