Commonwealth v. Caetano

[esqappellate]

You mean the way Heller is "controlling authority" on whether or not individuals can be required to lock their firearms in such a way as to make them unavailable for immediate use when one is most vulnerable at home (Jackson)? Or how it is "controlling authority" as regards the ability to even acquire the "quintessential self-defense weapon" it calls out as being protected (NRA v BATFE, Pena v Lindley)? Or how it is "controlling authority" as regards "keep" of firearms that are "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" (Friedman v Highland Park)? Or how it is "controlling authority" as regards mere possession in one's second home (Osterweil v Bartlett)? Or how it is "controlling authority" as to even whether the right is to be treated with the same respect as other protected rights (all of the above, and much more)?

It looks to me like Heller, which you clearly claim here is "controlling authority", is such for jack squat. Like I said (in a different, less specific way), the right that Heller is a so-called "controlling authority" for is disappearing in front of our very eyes as a result of the actions of the very same courts Heller is supposed to be "controlling authority" over. Some "authority".

So: your message here is merely a reply to my claims. It is not an answer to them.

Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be controlling authority over the lower courts. But the difference between theory and practice is that in theory, theory and practice are the same while in practice, they are different. Here, we see the massive difference between legal theory and legal practice. In practice, the lower courts can do whatever they want until the Supreme Court or some other entity gives them real incentive to do otherwise. And we know this because we see this very thing right before our eyes. One would have to be blind to not see that now.

In theory, a Supreme Court denial of cert means absolutely nothing. In practice, strings of cert denials on the same subject establish patterns that will of course have an effect on the behavior of the lower courts. Even certain Supreme Court members say much the same as that (the Jackson dissent). And the recent decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert should make that absolutely crystal clear, as that proves that the First Amendment is getting very different treatment (at a minimum, as regards grants of cert) than the Second Amendment is. In that context, why shouldn't lower courts treat the Second Amendment as a bastard stepchild of the Constitution whenever they wish to, if the Supreme Court can't even see its way clear to take even one case to "clarify" things? What incentive whatsoever have the lower courts to treat it other than how they wish?


Nor am I claiming it means that. Knowing what to expect of the game does not necessarily change the decision to play. It does mean we'd better start looking at contingencies, because winning the right in the courts in any meaningful way has now become a low-probability play.

Way too facile and way too cynical. Yes, there has been judicial resistance to the logic of Heller and McDonald. But that hardly means that those decisions are without consequence. A SCT decision is binding on all other cases when that SCT decision is on point. For example, no court has suggested since Heller that a state is free to ban handguns and no court has held since McDonald that the 2A does not apply to the States. Those two holdings are huge. By the way, Osterweil was a win! The Second Circuit certified the case to the NY court of appeals which held that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance meant that the NY statute should be construed to include second homes. That result would not have been possible without Heller and McDonald.

On your larger point, yes it will take more SCT decisions to end the judicial resistance to Heller and McDonald. It took a lot more SCT decisions to end the resistance to Brown and the Court is still addressing such resistance with respect to Roe. Nothing unusual about that in constitutional law.

 

[kcbrown]

Way too facile

It is?? Which facts have I ignored that would change the conclusions?

and way too cynical.

How can it be too cynical if it's true?

Yes, there has been judicial resistance to the logic of Heller and McDonald.

And that has the logical consequence that those two decisions are, with respect to those courts that engage in that resistance, not "controlling authority", as those decisions fail to control what the courts end up doing.

But that hardly means that those decisions are without consequence. A SCT decision is binding on all other cases when that SCT decision is on point.

And since it is the court in question that decides whether or not the Supreme Court's decision is on point, the end result is identical. It merely needs to "decide" that the Supreme Court's decision is not on point, and it can then feel "free" to ignore the Supreme Court's decision.

For example, no court has suggested since Heller that a state is free to ban handguns

Really? Then what is Pena v Lindley in the context of the microstamping requirement?

and no court has held since McDonald that the 2A does not apply to the States.

True. But no court has needed to hold that, since the courts can generate exactly the same results without doing so.

Those two holdings are huge.

Because the practical difference between what we have now and what we would have in the absence of those holdings is ... ?

There is no practical difference between a right being "regulated" into nothingness, and the right not existing at all.

By the way, Osterweil was a win! The Second Circuit certified the case to the NY court of appeals which held that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance meant that the NY statute should be construed to include second homes. That result would not have been possible without Heller and McDonald.

That's actually a good point. So here we do have an example of a practical difference arising from the existence of Heller and McDonald. Such examples seem to be quite rare. Despite that, do you really doubt that the 2nd Circuit would have (or at least could have) found a way to hold against the plaintiffs had the NY Supreme Court decided that the secondary home didn't qualify as a "home" under the statute? On what basis would you have such a doubt, when the district court managed it?

Regardless, my point in raising that case was not with respect to the 2nd Circuit's decision, it was with respect to the district court's decision. Heller and McDonald are supposed to be just as binding on the district courts as they are on the circuit courts, are they not? And yet, despite that, the circuit court managed to find against the plaintiff. What kind of "authority" can Heller possibly be if a district court can get away with finding in that manner under those circumstances? And note that the 2nd Circuit did not overturn the district court's "reasoning". It simply avoided the Constitutional question altogether.

On your larger point, yes it will take more SCT decisions to end the judicial resistance to Heller and McDonald. It took a lot more SCT decisions to end the resistance to Brown and the Court is still addressing such resistance with respect to Roe. Nothing unusual about that in constitutional law.

Yes, but that reinforces my point. With respect to the other rights, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to reinforce its original recognition of the right with further decisions. It has refused to reinforce it here. This has never before, as far as I know, happened in the history of this country. And it's gotten so bad that a couple of justices even took the time to pen a dissent to the latest such denial (not that dissents to denial of cert are terribly uncommon, mind you, but when you combine that with what the justices in that dissent actually said, the end result serves to reinforce my point). For which other right has all of that happened? I know of none.

Were that a minor difference, there would be little reason for concern. But it's not a mere minor difference, it's a fundamental one. The lack of Supreme Court reinforcement for the right changes everything about the probable outcome in the courts. When there's a fundamental difference between the characteristics of the historical situation and those of the the current one, it is imprudent to trust history to inform of the likely outcome. That leaves logic to fill that role. And the logical conclusion that, absent Supreme Court reinforcement, the right will be extinguished by a judiciary intent on supporting its destruction, is inescapable.


So while it sounds like you may disagree with the tenor of my argument (it is a bit harsh, I'll give you that, but that reflects my incredible amount of frustration with the courts), you appear to not be raising anything upon which to base a disagreement with my conclusions.


Allow me to ask you a question, if I may. Under what circumstances will you be convinced that the Supreme Court has abandoned the 2nd Amendment? How many more denials of cert is it going to take?

 

[wolfwood]

I've litigated 7 Second Amendment cases in the past 4 years. Of those I am still litigating 6 of them. I have to believe that I haven't wasted the past 4 years of my life. But brother kc reading your posts makes me think I have sometimes. I would point out that Pena is just a ban on the sale of certain types of handguns so even if the Ninth upholds that decision that is a far cry from overturning Heller

 

[esqappellate]

It is?? Which facts have I ignored that would change the conclusions?


How can it be too cynical if it's true?


And that has the logical consequence that those two decisions are, with respect to those courts that engage in that resistance, not "controlling authority", as those decisions fail to control what the courts end up doing.


And since it is the court in question that decides whether or not the Supreme Court's decision is on point, the end result is identical. It merely needs to "decide" that the Supreme Court's decision is not on point, and it can then feel "free" to ignore the Supreme Court's decision.


Really? Then what is Pena v Lindley in the context of the microstamping requirement?


True. But no court has needed to hold that, since the courts can generate exactly the same results without doing so.


Because the practical difference between what we have now and what we would have in the absence of those holdings is ... ?

There is no practical difference between a right being "regulated" into nothingness, and the right not existing at all.


That's actually a good point. So here we do have an example of a practical difference arising from the existence of Heller and McDonald. Such examples seem to be quite rare. Despite that, do you really doubt that the 2nd Circuit would have (or at least could have) found a way to hold against the plaintiffs had the NY Supreme Court decided that the secondary home didn't qualify as a "home" under the statute? On what basis would you have such a doubt, when the district court managed it?

Regardless, my point in raising that case was not with respect to the 2nd Circuit's decision, it was with respect to the district court's decision. Heller and McDonald are supposed to be just as binding on the district courts as they are on the circuit courts, are they not? And yet, despite that, the circuit court managed to find against the plaintiff. What kind of "authority" can Heller possibly be if a district court can get away with finding in that manner under those circumstances? And note that the 2nd Circuit did not overturn the district court's "reasoning". It simply avoided the Constitutional question altogether.


Yes, but that reinforces my point. With respect to the other rights, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to reinforce its original recognition of the right with further decisions. It has refused to reinforce it here. This has never before, as far as I know, happened in the history of this country. And it's gotten so bad that a couple of justices even took the time to pen a dissent to the latest such denial (not that dissents to denial of cert are terribly uncommon, mind you, but when you combine that with what the justices in that dissent actually said, the end result serves to reinforce my point). For which other right has all of that happened? I know of none.

Were that a minor difference, there would be little reason for concern. But it's not a mere minor difference, it's a fundamental one. The lack of Supreme Court reinforcement for the right changes everything about the probable outcome in the courts. When there's a fundamental difference between the characteristics of the historical situation and those of the the current one, it is imprudent to trust history to inform of the likely outcome. That leaves logic to fill that role. And the logical conclusion that, absent Supreme Court reinforcement, the right will be extinguished by a judiciary intent on supporting its destruction, is inescapable.


So while it sounds like you may disagree with the tenor of my argument (it is a bit harsh, I'll give you that, but that reflects my incredible amount of frustration with the courts), you appear to not be raising anything upon which to base a disagreement with my conclusions.


Allow me to ask you a question, if I may. Under what circumstances will you be convinced that the Supreme Court has abandoned the 2nd Amendment? How many more denials of cert is it going to take?

Denials of cert mean exactly squat to me as evidence of "abandonment." Indeed, your premise is flawed, as you seem to assume that the SCT has some sort of propriety or familial interest in this particular subject matter ("abandoned the 2A" like a mother abandoning her child?). It does not, no matter how much we jump up and down. It's docket is enormous. The cases coming to it are fundamentally important. This is just a very small part of its legal universe. A speck, really. Heller and McDonald were landmark decisions and they have sparked a revolution in the states, including the state legislatures. They have created an entirely new conversation, different than what would have been even remotely possible under Miller, as previously construed. Is there resistance? Of course and there probably will be forever. Taking the whole picture, including state decisions and state legislatures, the legal progress has been enormous. Not as much as you and I would have liked, but enormous.

A word on "controlling authority" for non-lawyers. A decision is "controlling" precedent in this context when the holding is directly on point (same legal issue and same material facts) and the statements cited are not obiter dictum. Statements not essential to the holding are dictum and dictum is not controlling. You put two lawyers in a room and they will argue all day what statements are "essential to the holding." That's largely what we are seeing here and that is hardly unusual in the law. I do this exercise virtually every day. That's what litigators do. That's part of the reason everyone loves to hate lawyers because they can and do split hairs endlessly. Welcome to the American legal system. It is far from perfect or efficient or fast, but I still think it is the best in the world for the protection of individual rights.

I reiterate: No court has approved a flat ban of handguns, the district court decision in Pena included. And one court, the 7th Circuit in Moore, invalidated Illinois' flat ban on carry outside the home. In contrast to Moore, the Pena decision is just a dct decision that isn't binding precedent on any court, including other district courts in the same district. Pena upheld the microstamping requirement for new gun models in Cal. That holding may well be reversed on the pending appeal, but even if it is not, that still leaves hundreds of models of handguns for sale in California. Hardly a flat ban of the type at issue in Heller (splitting hairs, see?). We will see what happens on appeal. In the meantime, feel free to rend your garments and wail at the injustice of it all.

 

[kcbrown]

I've litigated 7 Second Amendment cases in the past 4 years. Of those I am still litigating 6 of them. I have to believe that I haven't wasted the past 4 years of my life. But brother kc reading your posts makes me think I have sometimes.

When you started those efforts, the trends weren't clear. We simply didn't know that SCOTUS would continuously deny cert to 2A cases. They can, of course, change that at any point, but the trend hadn't been built when you started.

So you shouldn't second guess yourself on that.

Moreover, even if you knew the trends in advance, there are some things worth fighting for no matter what. Liberty is one of them. That alone suggests that your choices were correct.

The only reasons I can think of for scaling back such efforts are the effects on precedent that the current efforts will have (such things may not matter to "progressive" judges, but they tend to matter to others, and as unlikely as I believe it to be, we might yet manage to get better judges on these courts than we currently have), and the expenditure of resources. The latter matters only if the resources in question can be better directed somewhere else. And the former may be worth the risk if there are other gains to be had, e.g. the galvanizing effects that the decisions may have that could eventually yield positive change.

I would point out that Pena is just a ban on the sale of certain types of handguns so even if the Ninth upholds that decision that is a far cry from overturning Heller

That is true. For some reason, I thought the microstamping requirement applied to revolvers. It only applies to semiautomatic handguns. My apologies.

In any case, are we to conclude that it is good and proper for courts to limit Supreme Court decisions to their facts? Your point here, and Esqappellate's arguments, suggest that such a conclusion is sound.

Either it is proper for courts to limit Supreme Court decisions to their facts, in which case the entire treatment of the 2nd Amendment at the hands of the hostile judiciary is correct, or it is not proper to do so, in which case it is irrelevant that Pena is currently a ban on "merely" a large subset of handguns. Which is it?

 

[kcbrown]

Denials of cert mean exactly squat to me as evidence of "abandonment."

Then what would be meaningful to you as evidence of that?

Indeed, your premise is flawed, as you seem to assume that the SCT has some sort of propriety or familial interest in this particular subject matter ("abandoned the 2A" like a mother abandoning her child?). It does not, no matter how much we jump up and down.

No, I assume that it has a major interest in upholding and protecting the enumerated rights in the Constitution. Are you saying I'm wrong on that front?

It's docket is enormous. The cases coming to it are fundamentally important.

Are they now?

What is the fundamental "importance" of BG Group, PLC v Republic of Argentina, or US v Gary Woods, or Halliburton v Erica P. John Fund, or Alice Corporation v CLS Bank Intl, or Republic of Argentina v NML Capital, Inc., or United States v Clarke, or Fifth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ? I could go on and on.

This is just a very small part of its legal universe. A speck, really.

As is most of the Constitution, I'm sure.

Heller and McDonald were landmark decisions and they have sparked a revolution in the states, including the state legislatures. They have created an entirely new conversation, different than what would have been even remotely possible under Miller, as previously construed. Is there resistance? Of course and there probably will be forever. Taking the whole picture, including state decisions and state legislatures, the legal progress has been enormous. Not as much as you and I would have liked, but enormous.

That is most certainly true. I cannot deny the secondary effects of those decisions.

 

[kcbrown]

I reiterate: No court has approved a flat ban of handguns,

Has any case involving a flat ban of handguns come before the courts since McDonald?

If not, then the above statement is completely worthless for assessing the courts (it can, however, imply the importance of Heller and McDonald, as it's entirely possible that we'd have seen additional flat bans without them).

the district court decision in Pena included. And one court, the 7th Circuit in Moore, invalidated Illinois' flat ban on carry outside the home. In contrast to Moore, the Pena decision is just a dct decision that isn't binding precedent on any court, including other district courts in the same district. Pena upheld the microstamping requirement for new gun models in Cal.

No, it upheld that requirement for any new submissions. A semiautomatic pistol that "expires" from the roster and is subsequently resubmitted must meet the microstamping requirement.

That holding may well be reversed on the pending appeal,

That is, of course, always possible, but such a reversal is likely to be neutralized via en banc proceedings, just like what is almost certain to happen to Peruta.

but even if it is not, that still leaves hundreds of models of handguns for sale in California. Hardly a flat ban of the type at issue in Heller (splitting hairs, see?). We will see what happens on appeal. In the meantime, feel free to rend your garments and wail at the injustice of it all.

We will indeed see what happens on appeal.

As for railing at the injustice of it all, well, you've got me there.

My main point still stands. Unjust or not, the end result of all this is the destruction of the right to arms. Absent repeated Supreme Court intervention, such destruction is a foregone conclusion. And the last 5 years have given us no reason whatsoever to believe that the Court will intervene for a very long time.

The Supreme Court is the only judicial corrective mechanism in place against hostile appellate courts. Thus, it logically follows that the right will fall at the hands of those hostile courts in the absence of repeated Supreme Court intervention. I'm sorry, but that conclusion is simply inescapable. Even Congress is unable to correct that problem, as proven by the impotence of FOPA.

 

[Bob A]

Despite the doom and gloom on the part of the more angst-ridden legal personages above, I see a strong tide toward support for the right to arms in defense of self, taken over the last couple decades. Even Illinois is shall-issue, which no one would have foreseen five years ago.

Given the glacial pace at which things pass through the constipated legal system, full as it is of, well, never mind that . . . you guys need to take six months off, sit on a beach with plenty of ethanolic refreshment, and stay there until you can spend several days without a thought of a court entering your awareness. You'll live longer, and return refreshed and ready for battle. At the very least, the flat part of your forehead will finally heal as you refrain from banging it against the wall.

I hate to see you suffer so. Honest.

 

[esqappellate]

Despite the doom and gloom on the part of the more angst-ridden legal personages above, I see a strong tide toward support for the right to arms in defense of self, taken over the last couple decades. Even Illinois is shall-issue, which no one would have foreseen five years ago.

Given the glacial pace at which things pass through the constipated legal system, full as it is of, well, never mind that . . . you guys need to take six months off, sit on a beach with plenty of ethanolic refreshment, and stay there until you can spend several days without a thought of a court entering your awareness. You'll live longer, and return refreshed and ready for battle. At the very least, the flat part of your forehead will finally heal as you refrain from banging it against the wall.

I hate to see you suffer so. Honest.

That is hilarious!! Six months!! Wow. Probably hopeless in my case. Thinking like a lawyer is now enmeshed in my bones after 40 of practicing law. Someone will have to put me out of my misery.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I don't think they can be happy unless they are splitting hairs and contemplating the number of angels on the head of a pin.

 

[kcbrown]

Despite the doom and gloom on the part of the more angst-ridden legal personages above, I see a strong tide toward support for the right to arms in defense of self, taken over the last couple decades. Even Illinois is shall-issue, which no one would have foreseen five years ago.

No argument against that. But ask yourself this: if it requires the assent of a majority, is it really a right? If it requires the assent of a majority, then what's the use of the Constitutional enumeration of it?

Given the glacial pace at which things pass through the constipated legal system, full as it is of, well, never mind that . . . you guys need to take six months off, sit on a beach with plenty of ethanolic refreshment, and stay there until you can spend several days without a thought of a court entering your awareness. You'll live longer, and return refreshed and ready for battle. At the very least, the flat part of your forehead will finally heal as you refrain from banging it against the wall.

We'd probably wind up talking about the legal system over tasty drinks while relaxing at the beach!

I hate to see you suffer so. Honest.

The Supreme Court could end my suffering very easily...

 

[Bob A]

No argument against that. But ask yourself this: if it requires the assent of a majority, is it really a right? If it requires the assent of a majority, then what's the use of the Constitutional enumeration of it?


The Supreme Court could end my suffering very easily...

Oh, I agree with the concept of enumerated rights; in fact, I agree with almost everything I learned in Civics class. Worse than that, I am passionate enough about these things that I am unable to present a reasonable argument in their favor to the vast majority of media-mind-flushed, supposedly educated individuals. Nothing would please me more than to have our elected representatives hew to the legal line defined in our foundation document.

After a couple hundred years' worth of manipulating the Constitution, however, to bring it into line with the needs of the political and fiscally powerful, I'm afraid we will have to be pragmatic, rather than idealistic, if we are to retain any semblance of the qualities that made this country what it once was.

 

[Brooklyn]

I see the kcbrown show is still on the air

 

[Brooklyn]

Despite the doom and gloom on the part of the more angst-ridden legal personages above, I see a strong tide toward support for the right to arms in defense of self, taken over the last couple decades. Even Illinois is shall-issue, which no one would have foreseen five years ago.

Given the glacial pace at which things pass through the constipated legal system, full as it is of, well, never mind that . . . you guys need to take six months off, sit on a beach with plenty of ethanolic refreshment, and stay there until you can spend several days without a thought of a court entering your awareness. You'll live longer, and return refreshed and ready for battle. At the very least, the flat part of your forehead will finally heal as you refrain from banging it against the wall.

I hate to see you suffer so. Honest.

I personally am enjoying all the noise..,
I guess that makes me evil..

 

[win296]

Question.

Would we really SCOTUS, or any court, ruling that a stun gun satisfies the 2nd amendment? Would the gun banners then argue that handguns could be banned in place of stun guns?

 

[Peaceful John]

Question.

Would we really SCOTUS, or any court, ruling that a stun gun satisfies the 2nd amendment? Would the gun banners then argue that handguns could be banned in place of stun guns?

We know the Second Amendment covers lethal weapons (Heller). I'm pretty sure the Caetano issue is whether or not the Second Amendment extends to less-lethal weapons like stun-guns, bludgeons, perhaps knives.

 

[win296]

We know the Second Amendment covers lethal weapons (Heller). I'm pretty sure the Caetano issue is whether or not the Second Amendment extends to less-lethal weapons like stun-guns, bludgeons, perhaps knives.

We also *know* that Heller protects a semi auto (non microstamping) handgun with a 15 round mag. The counts are looking for any opportunity to reverse Heller.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Has any case involving a flat ban of handguns come before the courts since McDonald?

If not, then the above statement is completely worthless for assessing the courts (it can, however, imply the importance of Heller and McDonald, as it's entirely possible that we'd have seen additional flat bans without them).

I may be a glass-half-full guy, but MAYBE no one has brought such a case BECAUSE of the decision in McDonald.

Some of us are glass-half-full types, some glass-half-empty, and some think the glass has a leak and will NEVER hold any water.

 

[kcbrown]

I may be a glass-half-full guy, but MAYBE no one has brought such a case BECAUSE of the decision in McDonald.

Right. That's exactly what I was attempting to say. It's entirely possible that Heller (with McDonald clearing the way for applying it against the states) has wrought such a fundamental change that no government is going to attempt an outright ban on handguns.

But how long that lasts depends entirely on the judiciary's willingness to enforce Heller. We are already seeing that willingness erode. How much longer will it be before the lower courts are bold enough to uphold flat bans against handguns on the basis of something inconsequential, such as that the fact pattern is minutely different from that in Heller?

Clearly, though, for that to happen, some government entity will have to be bold enough to enact such a ban. That won't happen until it is reasonably sure that the chance of it surviving is at least there, if not substantial. But that is the direction things are headed.

Some of us are glass-half-full types, some glass-half-empty, and some think the glass has a leak and will NEVER hold any water.

It's not mere happenstance that I tend to look for the ways things can fail. The real world has taught me to do that, and that has been reinforced by the very laws of physics. Entropy is a hard law of the universe, and causes the universe to substantially favor destruction and malfunction over order and harmony. The easier something is, the more likely it is that it will happen. And destruction is very, very easy. My thinking is a direct reflection of that.

We're attempting to buck the historical trend towards tyranny. It's the right thing to do. That we've done as well as we have is a testament to the skill, fortitude, and stoic resolve of those involved. But make no mistake: the universe is arrayed against us. That should, if anything, make us even more determined to prevail.

But as an absolute realist, I cannot change my outlook merely on the basis of what I want. The universe is very good at ensuring that I will lose unless I account for everything. It has forced me into the worldview that I hold, because I always fail when I do not adhere to it.

 

[Brooklyn]

Right. That's exactly what I was attempting to say. It's entirely possible that Heller (with McDonald clearing the way for applying it against the states) has wrought such a fundamental change that no government is going to attempt an outright ban on handguns.

But how long that lasts depends entirely on the judiciary's willingness to enforce Heller. We are already seeing that willingness erode. How much longer will it be before the lower courts are bold enough to uphold flat bans against handguns on the basis of something inconsequential, such as that the fact pattern is minutely different from that in Heller?

Clearly, though, for that to happen, some government entity will have to be bold enough to enact such a ban. That won't happen until it is reasonably sure that the chance of it surviving is at least there, if not substantial. But that is the direction things are headed.


It's not mere happenstance that I tend to look for the ways things can fail. The real world has taught me to do that, and that has been reinforced by the very laws of physics. Entropy is a hard law of the universe, and causes the universe to substantially favor destruction and malfunction over order and harmony. The easier something is, the more likely it is that it will happen. And destruction is very, very easy. My thinking is a direct reflection of that.

We're attempting to buck the historical trend towards tyranny. It's the right thing to do. That we've done as well as we have is a testament to the skill, fortitude, and stoic resolve of those involved. But make no mistake: the universe is arrayed against us. That should, if anything, make us even more determined to prevail.

But as an absolute realist, I cannot change my outlook merely on the basis of what I want. The universe is very good at ensuring that I will lose unless I account for everything. It has forced me into the worldview that I hold, because I always fail when I do not adhere to it.

Entropy? The whole universe is against you? Here I thought it was just me..

You are a very special case kcbrown.. But I can't compete with the universe.however.I am sure the universe will keep you in check..and we can go on tilting at windmills..