Slashdot Mirror
Man Orders TV On Amazon, Gets Shipped Assault Rifle
First time accepted submitter InfernoApple writes "Seth Horvitz, a Northeast D.C. resident, thought he had ordered a new high-definition television a few days ago through Amazon.com from a third-party merchant. When the package arrived yesterday, however, Horvitz opened the oddly shaped box to find something completely different. Instead of the flat-panel TV he had bought to enjoy with his wife, who is pregnant, Horvitz opened the long packaging to discover a Sig Sauer SIG716, a high-caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle capable of mowing down, well, just about anything."
How is his wife's pregnancy relevant?
I want to know what kind of retailer carries HDTVs and assault rifles?
Wal-Mart.
i defy anyone to "mow down" anything with a semiautomatic rifle. get a grip
You misunderstood. According to the summary, the weapon is capable of mowing down pretty much anything all by itself. This is similar to news reporting of SUVs causing horrible accidents.
Cars don't cause accidents. Guns don't kill people. IDEs don't write bugs.
> Wouldn't the somewhat recent SCOTUS ruling for citizens to own guns in DC, kind of put this to rest as to gun ownership in the city?
Not exactly. When the SCOTUS makes a ruling progressives like, especially if it legislates a whole new legal superstructure from the bench they could never dream of enacting through the legislative procress, then the SUPREME COURT has spoken. The ruling may as well be delivered on engraved stone tablets brought forth by Moses himself (ok, scratch the heeb.. don't like those anymore, brought forth by the Lightworker himself) and are unquestionable. To even ask questions is to bring your patriotism into question instead.
On the other hand, when it is a ruling they don't like, not so much. DC has pretty much ignored the Heller decision. Last I heard there is still no licensed dealer in the city and it is still illegal to import one from elsewhere. So good luck exercising your newly reinstated 2nd Amendment RTKBA and it won't change until we get a different Senate and POTUS.
Democrat delenda est
If you read TFA, it looks like it was a mistake by UPS, so why even mention Amazon? (And Amazon doesn't allow listing of guns anyway.) The article says the box was addressed to a gun dealer in PA ... not an error by Amazon or the vendor, but by the shipper.
Though I do wonder what was in the other box. The photo shows a big shipping box with the rifle box on top of it, there's still another box in the shipping box ...
I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd have led with Brown v. Board of Education as your poster child for "bad bad liberal bad socialist bad bad judicial activism - only bad bad liberals and bad bad socialists do it"; but then, I don't suppose you have that much intellectual honesty. So, as you suggest, we'll take Roe v. Wade as "Data Point 1". You say:
Actually, as the 9th Amendment states:
In other words, It doesn't "have to be there" (enumerated) to exist. That would be YOU, being 100% completely wrong. Simply because "privacy" (whatever that might mean) is not explicitly stated as a (specific, named) Right under the Constitution, does not mean that it does not exist, nor should it be disparaged simply because it is not named by name. That's what the 9th Amendment says. Get it? Get it? It's the same kind of "just because we didn't mention it by name..." language as used in the 10th Amendment. I won't go into the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the argument because I know how much the "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." part enrages the "hold my breath until I turn blue" Congressional conservative crowd. Besides, that's Reconstruction, not actual Bill of Rights. Point is, you're wrong: it don't have to be stated, and it don't need an Amendment for "privacy" (non-interference by government in people's private lives) to exist and be enforceable.
What really makes me laugh is how worked up conservatives get about Roe, especially when the (stated) gist of the Court's decision was "It's none of the Government's goddamn business, let the individual person decide". To me, it's the height of hypocrisy (and howlingly funny) how loudly conservatives want the Government to stay out of everybody's business, except when they want the Government to dictate things (usually legislated morality) they (the conservatives) want to shove down everybody's throat. It's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.
On to Citizen's United and Heller.
In the first place, I'll let you have Heller, simply because I know (and acknowledge as being a Good Thing) that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) in general, pretty much explicitly state that the government of this country (which was founded on armed revolution) shall rule at the consent of an armed populace. Again, I think that's a Good Thing. I like to reserve that right on principle, besides, the way things are going, I might have to exercise it. Besides, just because YOU brought it up doesn't mean I have to champion it. If Heller makes you thump your chest in victory, you go right ahead.
Citizen's United
Um, no. It (Citizen's) goes a damn sight farther than that. In the first place, it declares that MONEY is SPEECH. Which it ain't. Obviously.