Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Shall we discuss Federalist Paper 29, by Alexander Hamilton?

Asked by Dutchess_III (47127points) April 7th, 2018

In it he nails down what a “well regulated militia” is, and it ain’t just any old redneck with a gun.

He also points out that it’s absurd to consider every man and woman in the entire country a “militia.”

He also says it’s absurd to live in fear that your own government is going to attack its citizens.

In other words, people do NOT have a “constitutional right” to own a gun. It’s not prohibited. It couldn’t be prohibited then because guns were absolutely necessary to feed and protect the family from wild critters. It didn’t even occur to the founding fathers to consider there could be a time when the vast majority of us wouldn’t have need for a gun. It was so assumed that it didn’t occur to them to even make mention of individual gun ownership.

*******************************

|| Federalist No. 29 ||
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “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.”
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes “Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire”; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d’ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

seawulf575's avatar

It is, of course, one of the views that was discussed when the Founding Fathers were trying to set up the 2nd Amendment. But in reality, what Hamilton was suggesting was the formation of a standing army that the government could use, outside of Posse Comitatus. Think of what he is suggesting…that the militia should be drilled and practiced like real army and that is at the disposal of Congress. He says as much in this paper. He tries to say that there is no fear from the government taking over, but we have seen time and time again throughout mankind’s history that is not even realistic. His own experiences should have taught him that. Didn’t we have to fight a war against a government that used troops to keep us in line? And we had to fight that war just to get out from under the thumb of a tyrannical government. If you give the military to the control of the federal government as well as the militias, then you have given all force to the control of the government.
It also would give the government the right to enlist anyone they want into service of the militia…in fact it would make all citizens duty-bound to support the officer in charge, whether they want to or not. I would suggest that following this ideal, especially in today’s world, would be extremely foolhardy. We have already seen attempts at squelching the 1st amendment. Here’s the 1st amendment:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

We have seen efforts at curbing religious beliefs, efforts at censoring free speech by calling it hate speech (which has no definition), efforts to silence any news outlet that doesn’t put out the news that the party in power doesn’t want to see. Imagine if you also have given the government the power to invoke military force to push their agenda? It would be complete tyranny. It isn’t far from that now, but we would have passed that point years ago.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He says having a military among civilians was impossible. They didn’t have the time they needed to train extensively to the point they could be considered military. They had other things to do.
It’s funny how people can stand on the Constitution as though the authors were Christ Himself, but when Christ Himself clarifies something in a way they don’t want to see they’re suddenly all fallible and mere mortal. If you offer up 9/11 or other acts of terrorism, those aren’t acts against Christians. They’re acts against entire populations.

We have seen efforts by “Christians” to curb religious beliefs of other religions.
We have seen efforts by “Christians” to insert their doctrine into government holdings.
If there is some other effort of curbing religious beliefs by groups other than by the “Christians,” I’d sure like to see some proof.

And yes. Trump is doing a bang up job of thumbing his nose at the 1st amendment, with his treatment of the press. Your president is doing that @seawulf575. None of mine ever did.

Dutchess_III's avatar

(Sorry. A sentence jumped out of order and kind of muddied the waters a bit.)

seawulf575's avatar

What he was suggesting is that militias undergo rigorous training to ensure they are useful when needed. He also suggested that all civilians were subject to support the officer in charge, regardless of if they are in the militia or not. He recognized that militias are made up of civilians and he wanted to put them under the authority of the military leadership of the militia. What he was trying to put together was a standing army for dealing with external threats. Posse Comitatus was put into place to ensure the government could not deploy troops on American soil against Americans. So to get around that, he was suggesting training civilians very similarly to military and putting them under the control of the government. Go back and read it again. It is all there.

I will challenge you to show an example in modern days where Christians (acting per their religion) tried to curb anyone’s religions beliefs or rights.
I will challenge you to show examples of where Christians have tried to insert “their doctrines” into government holdings. And not the misconstrued efforts of liberals to dampen Christianity in public…actual efforts to push Christianity into government.
I would suggest that it is Christians that are mainly attacked in today’s America. Gay rights are put above religious convictions. A private prayer in a public place can cost a person their job.
Actually, I will challenge you to show one example of how Trump is thumbing his nose at the 1st amendment. He doesn’t let the liberal media get away with spewing whatever they want, but he certainly doesn’t push to stop them. He just refuses to help them. Meanwhile, take a look at this link:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-that-conservative-media-like-drudge-report-and-sean-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

Here’s one where the UN gets into the game:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/11/climate-change-political-media-ipcc-coverage

Here’s one where Obama is calling out Facebook to do something about what he calls fake news:

https://gizmodo.com/obama-calls-out-facebooks-fake-news-problem-1788665220

And here he is again, this time suggesting we pass laws that prevent “fake news”

https://egbertowillies.com/2016/11/17/obama-fake-news-threat-democracy/

The funny part about “fake news” is that it really isn’t defined well. There are things we all accept as fake news: When CNN edits video, that is fake news. When an ABC anchor makes up a story about himself and presents it on air as fact, that is fake news. The problem comes when someone disagrees with someone in power. Then the differing opinion can be labeled as fake news and that is where the tyranny comes in.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What he was saying is that it was not feasible for civilians to undergo rigorous training.

It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical.

Dutchess_III's avatar

As per your second question: Kim Davis. Westboro Baptist Church. George Tiller. The list is pretty endless of examples of Christians persecuting others.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Fake news is defined as news that isn’t true, but that it’s what some people want to hear so they accept it hook, line and sinker.

seawulf575's avatar

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. He is saying that the militia would be used to quell insurrection. In other words, it would be used in place of the standing military to support the government. Who decides what insurrection is? The government.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. He is saying that the militia needs to be trained to be effective and should be trained and drilled in the ways of the military to be more effective and that the regulation of the militia (the control over their training and use) would reside with the federal government. Not hard to see how we want to get around Posse Comitatus with this one.

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “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.” Here he is saying exactly what I have been stating…that he desires the control of the militia to be solely under the federal government. He is willing to let the states assign officers and to pay for the training, but it has to be done IAW the federal guidance.

This whole thing is written to establish what amounts to a standing army that can be used on American soil.

seawulf575's avatar

Interesting that you should bring up Kim Davis. That is a prime example of what I was talking about. Here is a Christian woman that saw the Obergefell decision and looked ahead to see how that would impact her. She saw that by Kentucky law, she, as Clerk of Courts, was required to personally sign all marriage licenses. She identified that as a violation of her faith in the example of a same-sex marriage. She did exactly what she should have done…identified to her employer the conflict and ask for a reasonable accommodation to avoid the conflict. In this case, it was a simple change to the form where another person in the Clerk’s office could sign the forms, if necessary. That reasonable accommodation was denied (which it shouldn’t have been) and she was left in a situation where she either had to violate her job or violate her religion. That is a situation no person should have to be in. There are laws to prevent that. The state violated her rights on this. Then, when a same-sex couple tried applying for a marriage license, she refused to sign it. She was not trying to force her views onto them, she was just trying to be true to her religious convictions. She was punished for it. Her 1st Amendment rights were violated in favor of gay marriage…the judge effectively told her that she had no right to refuse to sign their license allowing them the right to get married even though it violated her religious rights. He put gay marriage over religion. So the Christian was persecuted. At what point did she try forcing anyone to her beliefs? She didn’t. She just wanted to be true to her own beliefs. But because she was a Christian, she was persecuted.

As for Westboro Baptist Church, they were a group of whack-a-dos. They really weren’t even Christians and were certainly denounced by pretty much all major Christian outlets. From Wikipedia:
The WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination, although it describes itself as Primitive Baptist and following the five points of Calvinism.[1] Many other Baptist churches, Baptist-affiliated seminaries, and Baptist conventions, including the Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention (the two largest Baptist denominations), have denounced the WBC over the years.[20] In addition, other mainstream Christian denominations have condemned the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Additionally, they really weren’t trying to force their opinions on anyone…they were just spewing. Have you ever been to an actual Christian church? I mean a good one…not along the lines of WBC. Here’s how the topic of LGBT was addressed by our pastor. He said he had a lesbian woman show up in his church. He met with her after one service and she wanted to speak with him. She said she felt uneasy because she was homosexual and wasn’t sure she was allowed in church. He told her that according to scripture, he considered homosexuality a sin. But everyone at church, himself included, is a sinner. That’s why we go to church…to try to learn better what God wants from us. She was welcomed into the church. THAT is closer to what Christianity…good Christianity does.

As for George Tiller, he was an elder at the church. The church welcomed him. Some nut job decided to play God. That wasn’t someone pushing religious doctrine onto anyone else…it was just being evil.

seawulf575's avatar

Fake news should be defined as something that wasn’t true, but is instead used as a brand for things you don’t want aired for everyone to hear. That will go with Dems and Repubs. Obama tried calling Fox news “fake news” because they were calling out things that seemed suspicious in government as well as with candidates. Example was during Hillary’s last campaign. Fox news was calling out all sorts of scandals that surrounded her and had never fully been investigated. Obama called that fake news. But now, isn’t that exactly what every liberal news outlet is doing to Trump? The problem with “fake news” is that it is a bogus ideal. If someone is lying about you, you have laws to protect you, if you need them. “Fake news” has been used as a term for news that doesn’t agree with the party in power. That isn’t necessarily fake news…it is questioning attitude. Trump calls out fake news and sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I think it is just a question that needs to be answered. But the whole “Russia collusion” narrative is bogus from the start. “Collusion” isn’t a crime. And the only “evidence” they had to start with was a dossier that was created by colluding with Russians and was paid for by Trump’s political opponents. Now it is starting to look like some of the DC insiders have indeed broken the law…but not the way the narrative intended. Yep, some of Trumps folks lied about things. Not good, but not really dealing with the President. They lied about things that happened a decade ago. Meanwhile it looks more and more like the FBI lied to the FISC to get permission to go after Trump associates…something they couldn’t have done without the lies. That SHOULD bother everyone, but for some reason it doesn’t. Maybe you can explain that one to me?

Dutchess_III's avatar

We HAVE a standing army. He says it’s ridiculous to think that the army needs help from civilians! “It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical.”

seawulf575's avatar

Then the real question becomes, why have a well regulated militia if not to help or supplant the military?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think in this context militia is the military.

I also think that in this case POSSE COMITATUS is used to refer to civilians.

I would have to defer to a constitutional lawyer on that, though.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Wait wait. I have to correct some of this. A militia IS “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” So our militia is the National Guard. They are, indeed, called up on a regular basis for training and drills, unlike the general population.
So, the second amendment still doesn’t give anyone the “right” to own a gun. We can create laws to help contain the insanity without infringing on most people’s feelings. They can keep their toys.

seawulf575's avatar

Posse Comitatus was the understanding that civilians could automatically help the local law to chase down and apprehend criminals. It came from Old English law where it was the duty of all citizens to “sound the alarm” when something threatened the peace of the village/town.
It also meant that the sheriff could automatically enlist the help of all men over the age of 15 to help when desired. However, it has changed since the Federalist Papers. With the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, it became an answer to the use of the federal military on American soil. So at the time, Hamilton was indeed talking about a civilian military force that could be called upon at the whim and total control of the federal government. So Hamilton’s response: “It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical.”_“It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical.” is wrong. The idea that the feds would have a private military force is exactly what it would be. He even leaves the opening to increase the training to whatever the government wants it to be. So yes, it could easily be adapted to supporting a despotic government.

As for the National Guard being the militia…it is indeed close to what Hamilton was talking about. However, there are some differences. The NG is not under the command of the Feds. It can be used on American soil, but falls under the control of the state governors. So it isn’t the same thing and doesn’t violate the PC act of 1878.
However the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that only a militia can own weapons. It says specifically that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because Hamilton wasn’t the only thought on this topic. Many of the others recognized that any government can become corrupt and attempt to subjugate the populace and the populace needs to be able to defend themselves. It is harder to overcome armed citizens than it is to overcome unarmed citizens.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m going to parse this:

”... [To assume] a want (lack) of power [that would] require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color…. its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther