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'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.