Yea, it is kinda scary. We only hear about 1 to 10% of it.. So.. there are probably quite a few more then we realize running about out there... and a quarter of the ones we do know about are missing.



Yea..but without making 'thought' a crime... That probably won't work out too well.

What I am bringing into the conversation actually involves an act. An act that in many places is not a prosecutable crime.



Thanks.. But apparently some of our less observant posters have mistaken me for lilith.. and I've had some errr.. 'interesting' overtures as a result.

"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.

Acquaintance perpetrators are the most common abusers, constituting approximately 70-90% of all reported perpetrators.

Recidivism rates range from 18-45%. The more violent the crime the more likelihood of repeating.

3 in 10 child victimizers reported that they had committed their crimes against multiple victims: they were more likely than those who victimized adults to have had multiple victims.

Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes: only 1-10% are ever disclosed.

The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment."


I had helped a few investigators trying to find a known pedophile released on bail.. We don't have bondsmen or bounty hunting here. While looking for evidence of this guys activities on the internet, I ran into an astonishing amount of footage of children on beaches, in or around bathrooms, in playgrounds and shopping centers...etc... It was usually found in the same places that you would find 'hidden camera' footage... involving youth who had a reasonable expectation of privacy while changing in a locker room or using a toilet. From what I observed? While not actually a crime..It certainly would seem to be a pastime for pedophiles to behave voyeuristically. It also could be a place where they either find their next acquaintance, or just fantasize and warm up to the thought of molesting the current ones.
As a private citizen? I would surely be talking to someone if I noticed them behaving in a strange manor in these settings.

Considering we only hear about 1 in 10 of every case? It is hard to say if we know all we could know about these peoples habits.

While I do believe that this proposed law is probably not a good idea and very possibly, a violation of Civil rights in the waiting...
I am wondering why we only have a 'video voyeurism law' in our federal criminal code (Which is punishable by up to a S100,000 fine and 1 year in prison, if you are caught on Federal Property.) that has absolutely no special provisions for footage of a minor.
Many States do not have any sort of measure against this activity at all... Whether it involves a minor or not.

In my opinion.. The law makers would be making better use of their time if they took a deeper look into this phenomena.

I never said you would.

But I need to get my but to an account for a few hours.. So we can take this up later.

OK.. So no gun control at all.

By the way.. You can thank Reagen and his Administration for the lack of State run Mental Health Institution bed space. They thought a better place to keep them was homeless and on the street.

Also.. The first police forces and jails in cities were developed while the Federalist Government was in control. Before that? We had posses and hanging trees. So.. again.. Conservatism got the ball roling in the direction of our current law enforcement system.

I agree.. it is very tragic.

To borrow a term you used though. We can't be expected to 'nerf' the world.

So.. free in the literal sense?
That would include all people not incarcerated, paroled, on probation or remanded to some sort of State Institution?

Oh look! I can see lex's head getting bigger from here in Oregon!

Staple a pelt from a road kill racoon to your head.

I think I'm gonna need some surgical enhancement.

As defined by who?

We have two alternative churches up in Portland.. One has something to do with people from outer space.. The other is the Church of Elvis.
http://www.24hourchurchofelvis.com/

We can get hitched there?

Please... Don't remind me.

But what is 300 or 400 posts ~ measured in inches anyway?

Nope.. I keep those in my bra.

It's OK.. At least you didn't start tryin to get in my pants.

I think you are mistaken. I'm not lilith... and her picture..as far as I know, has been the same all morning.

I knew this was gonna happen when we posted these pictures. I had two guys trying to pick me up in the threads last night too.

Yea.. New Englanders don't make me nervous at all...

The only one here that really matters to me... has been confirmed to be a woman. The rest of ya? Can be whatever you want to be.

That's assuming I don't end up with my head mounted to the pointy end of a pike, stuck in the sand on a Rode Island beach somewhere.

Another document of the day that has gone overlooked in this debate. 'The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' Which was proposed in 1777 and ratified in 1781.. Written by the same men that drafted the Constitution.

In article I under subsection VI, VII and VIII:

ARTICLE VI
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

ARTICLE VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

ARTICLE VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.


One could be lead to believe that the Federalists were kind of concerned about who controled what in regards to the armed people of the colonies, huh?

.... and rambill.. You keep bringing up one half of the amendment, as if it is the whole. Just as you keep bringing up one half of the argument without considering the whole. As if you figure that all the people of the time were of a Federalist influence and single minded.
That would be like saying all valid government of today is conservative. Which by how you write... is probably not an unreasonable conclusion to make in trying to figure out where you are coming from.
You say things like.. if you have not read the Federalist papers you can't possibly know. Leaving out the fact that there was another faction called the Anti-Federalists in our government of the time. Have you given any consideration to them? Or the Anti- Federalist papers? Or do you just dismiss them as liberal commie bastards as you do with your contemporary Democrat?

This is an excerpt from one of the Anti-Federalist Papers published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal of New York, and republished as a pamphlet titled:
'Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations to it, In a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican. Written under Pseudonym... But thought to be penned by Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress and Melancton Smith of New York.

'The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops — the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic,.....'

Then these words were written in New Yorks Debates on the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

'He then observed upon the necessity of adding to the powers of Congress, that of regulating the militia, referring to the article in the proposed plan, which he said he would not anticipate. He urged the common consent of America as a proof of the necessity of adding the power of regulating commerce to those Congress already possessed, which, he said, not only included those of forming laws, but of deciding upon those laws, and carrying them into effect; that this power could never be trusted to the individual states, whose interests might, in many instances, clash with that of the Union.'

Then a counter argument by Patrick Henry...

'I shall consider several other parts which are much objected to. As to the regulation of the militia, I feel myself doubly interested. Having a numerous offspring, I am careful to prevent the establishment of any regulation that might entail oppression on them. When gentlemen of high abilities in this house, and whom I respect, tell us that the militia may be subjected to martial law in time of peace, and whensoever Congress may please, I am much astonished. My judgment is astray, and exceedingly undiscerning, if it can bear such a construction. Congress has only the power of arming and disciplining them. The states have the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. When called into the actual service of the United States, they shall be subject to the marching orders of the United States. Then, and then only, it ought to be so. When we advert to the plain and obvious meaning of the words, without twisting and torturing their natural signification, we must be satisfied that this objection is groundless. Had we adverted to the true meaning, and not gone farther, we should not be here to-day, but should have come to a decision long ago. We are also told that religion is not secured; that religious tests are not required. You will find that the exclusion of tests will strongly tend to establish religious freedom. If tests were required, and if the Church of England, or any other, were established, I might be excluded from any office under the government, because my conscience might not permit me to take the test required. The diversity of opinions and variety of sects in the United States have justly been reckoned a great security with respect to religious liberty. The difficulty of establishing a uniformity of religion in this country is immense. The extent of the country is very great. The multiplicity of sects is very great {646} likewise. The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. The government is administered by the representatives of the people, voluntarily and freely chosen.'

It certainly seems like they were struggling back then.. with the formation of the 2nd amendment. However.. Do you notice that they both use the term regulated Militia in the same way? Even though one of them desired to have the Continental Congress govern the militia.. and the other wanted the States to have it

The day before.. Patrick Henry says 'His amendment respecting the militia is unnecessary. The same powers rest in the states by the Constitution. Gentlemen were repeatedly called upon to show where the power of the states over the militia was taken away, but they could not point it out.'


Patrick Henry was the guy who coined the phrase 'Give me liberty or give me death' He seems to detest the idea of the Continental Congress having power over the regulated militias.. But is a proponent of the States having that power of regulation as an assurance against Federal tyranny.

Either way? Both men speak of the militia as a regulated or governed force. They are just conflicted about who governs it.

Even George Washington, confronting two separate rebellions as a Federalist and our President, fought for a more unified government. In the Shays Rebellion (1786-87) of Massachusetts, The Boston and Springfield 4000 man militia was called up to fight off a private army raised by Danial Shay, made up of small farmers... All over taxation.

Then in 1791, The Whiskey Rebellion.. again, an insurrection over unreasonable taxation of the commoner.. was starting. By 1794 it was an armed conflict. Washington called martial law and the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia and other States under Federal authority. Clearly demonstrating the Federalist Governments ability to quell civil unrest through the threat of violence.
This can lead a person to believe that the primarily Federalist power of the day was not in the least interested in an unregulated force laying in wait amongst the small farmers of the time. That they were much more interested in maintaining their power.

Since the 2nd amendment is two parts only separated by a comma... The possibility of those two parts being a whole is likely. Just as there were differing factions in our government then and now. Ignoring one faction or the other is not a sound form of debate.

So.. bringing up journals and papers that only agree with your side? Is a reasonable thing to do. However...completely omitting the opposing papers, speeches and historic occurrences as invalid simply because they do not agree with your desires? Can seem like an inability and inflexibility to debate the topic at hand, at all.