Slashdot Mirror
Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
CanHasDIY (1672858) writes "In his yet-to-be-released book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, John Paul Stevens, who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court for 35 years, believes he has the key to stopping the seeming recent spate of mass killings — amend the Constitution to exclude private citizens from armament ownership. Specifically, he recommends adding 5 words to the 2nd Amendment, so that it would read as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.'
What I find interesting is how Stevens maintains that the Amendment only protects armament ownership for those actively serving in a state or federal military unit, in spite of the fact that the Amendment specifically names 'the People' as a benefactor (just like the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth) and of course, ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia. I'm personally curious about his other 5 suggested changes, but I guess we'll have to wait until the end of April to find out."
What I find interesting is how Stevens maintains that the Amendment only protects armament ownership for those actively serving in a state or federal military unit, in spite of the fact that the Amendment specifically names 'the People' as a benefactor (just like the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth) and of course, ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia. I'm personally curious about his other 5 suggested changes, but I guess we'll have to wait until the end of April to find out."
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I predict nothing but good things from this "discussion." (John Paul Stevens - professional troll.)
This is the same view the ACLU has, and it's why they don't dive into 2nd Amendment cases because it's basically a radical view in today's world.
All a state would have to do is amend their constitution to proclaim that all their able bodied citizens are members of the state militia for defense of their lives, property, and the state if mustered into action. What can the feds do then?
No. Fuck you. As a supreme court judge, your job is (was) to defend the constitution, not undermine it. Don't you think we've had enough of our constitutional rights taken away? Does it ever stop?
Oh, and since your reasoning for this BS is the claim that murders are on the rise, how about you stop fucking watching FOX news and actually get educated on what is really happening? I won't even bother with the logical fallacy that having weapons available supposedly makes everybody frantic murderers.
What happens when the militia itself needs disposing of?
Nuff said.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's as if he is choosing to ignore the recent killings at Ft. Hood in 2009 and 2014 because clearly no one 'serving in the militia' could ever do anything like that. It must be just those dangerous civilians out there and couldn't possibly be related to an individual's mental health or motivations.
It might be helpful to note that he's not proposing a ban on gun ownership, rather that the individual states should be allowed to regulate such ownership more than is currently allowed.
not news for nerds
not stuff that matters
however it does drive click revenue to feature a hot button culture war issue.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination... However...
Everyone should be armed. Assuming you're not a felon, a weapon should be in every single citizen's possession. Period. No loopholes.
Gun safety should be taught in public school, along with the inferred rights and responsibilities involved.
The reason? So that normal citizens like you and me can defend ourselves on the way to the Canadian border. Because when these idiot libs and cons start really shooting at each other... the Klondike might be our only hope.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The whole point is for the citizens to be able to form a militia in order to defend themselves from their own government. Those words would effectively decimate the whole reason for the second amendment.
States that want lax gun laws would just create State Militias that were mostly unreguluated. These would be sepperate from the national guard. These would basically be gun clubs. In places like Kentucky a 14 year old would be able to join. The only service requirement would be taking a NRA gun class. I guess you would also need to say the pledge of allegiance.
That is all.
I for one am just grateful that a liberal jurist has finally acknowledged that it would take a constitutional amendment to do that. Most of them seem to think that the Constitution already reads that way.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia". Not wearing the militiaman hat all the time seems to be working for the Swiss just fine, BTW.
Ezekiel 23:20
The problem is that it starts off talking about a well regulated militia, and then stops, if you interpret it to be talking about two separate things. So the question is, what about a well regulated militia?
That is why there is such a divide. Is the 2nd talking about the right of the people to form well regulated, armed militias not to be infringed? Or is the individual's right to keep and bear arms OR the right to be part of a well regulated militia?
If if it's all about personal arms liberty, why mention militias at all? My guess is that they wanted to differentiate between militias organized for civil protection/defence, and merely an armed rabble.
Any able bodied male 18-40 is automatically in the militia and is always considered "serving". This guy needs to find out what the definition of these words are.
What you *should* find interesting is that this guy knows a metric crap-ton more than you do about the history of the Constitution, and maybe your opinion is like a second grader giving advice to NASA about how to construct their next heavy lift vehicle.
I do not oppose personal ownership of firearms, but I find it really arrogant for armchair legal history scholars (read: ignoramuses) to try to foist their particular skew on history.
Let the real scholars hash out what it's supposed to mean. We can then decide whether we want to amend that.
someone who wants to go on a mass killing spree doesn't need a gun to do it.
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Instead of applying revisionist views that have no Constitutional basis.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Does he really think curtailing guns will stop mass killings?
Try banning stupidity like this:
strange stoy on anti-tea party site, since I expect there are more like this on tea party sites.
Maybe then there will be less anger.
Of course he won't speak out against that because in his wacked out state that would violate first amendment rights. So instead he proposed to flush the second amendment down the toilet.
And then you get arrested crossing the border with your firearm. Welcome to Canada!
Since Stevens' change has the purpose of exactly contradicting the original intent, it seems shoddy and absurd to just change one little phrase in it. For example, the "of a free state" part becomes a joke, or at least a meaningless window dressing, once this amendment ceases to be about guaranteeing a specific freedom to the people. In other words, Stevens' modified amendment is capable of fitting in very nicely with the goals of a tyranny, and has nothing to do with increasing the power of the people to prevent a powerful government from taking away their freedoms. But maybe Mr. Stevens really anticipates his suggestion going mainstream, and supposes that by leaving the form of the original in place, 2nd Amendment supporters will be unable to effectively oppose the change?
Regardless, I personally smell a rat.
...and this moron was a Supreme Court Judge??
LMAO!
People: "body of persons comprising a community". It is a singular noun. "Peoples is the plural." "People" is not the plural of "person" - that is "persons". The second amendment does not refer to the right of any individual person to keep and bear arms outside of membership in a militia. The language is already there, but almost everyone, including members of Supreme Court regularly misinterprets it.
My suggested new text:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Laws limiting weapons in any way are prohibited, including but not limited to background checks, registration lists, and places where they can carried. All governments, foreign and domestic, should be afraid of the armed populous."
If a gun can be anywhere, everywhere can be defended quickly.
(Did you know that a convicted felon is not required to register his guns since that would violate his 5th ammendment right to not self-incriminate? Look it up!)
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
Virginia law actually bars them from arms.
"Are members of the Virginia Defense Force armed?
The Code of Virginia states that "members of the Virginia State Defense Force shall not be armed with firearms during the performance of training duty or state active duty, except under circumstances and in instances authorized by the Governor." ( 44.54.12)"
-www.vdf.virginia.gov/vsdffaqs.html
I want chocolate milk to spew forth from all the water fountains at work. And my dream has a much better chance of becoming reality than Stevens' dream.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You can change any amendment with only five words and completely change its meaning.
For example, try tacking this onto any of them - for only white land owners.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
...now take please your meds...
Here are six amendments (not in any form of airtight legalese) that would be useful:
1: Campaign donations are forbidden. Each candidate for an elected office will get an equivalent place to state their platform. Advertising anything election related on a commercial (paid) basis will be a crime.
2: Similar to Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution: Only US citizens can influence the politics of the nation.
3: A "no confidence" vote can be done on Congress, forcing a complete re-election with no incumbents allowed in for the next term (but can run after that.)
4: Same as Article 23 of the Mexican Constitution. No double jeopardy, and after three trials, the defendant is now absolved of charges.
5: Same as Article 10 of the German Constitution, guaranteeing privacy.
6: The right to a firearm is guaranteed. However, part of school education is firearms training, from elementary school to high school. The purpose of this is to "un-Hollywoodize" firearms, and make them perceived as a tool (similar to a chainsaw or weed whacker), and no more. If packing becomes pedestrian or gauche, the gun control problem will go away by itself.
These are not perfect, but they will go a ways to address critical issues.
the intention was a check of power: that the people would rise up and fight a corrupt government and take it back.
what this assclown wants is even MORE power to the government.
I say we reverse this. arm every citizen and actually make it ILLEGAL for the government to ever rise up against its own people. like that pussy at davis, the 'seargent pepper-spray' asshole, he should have been locked up for the rest of his life for abusing his authority against actual peaceful citizens who were simply exercising their RIGHT to protest the government.
we have a system where the police (in various forms) exist only to keep the powerful in power. anything left over after that is just a token to throw to the masses to keep them in check.
I'd like to see revolts against any government org that uses lethal force against its own people.
of course, it won't ever happen. we have lost our ability to keep our government afraid of us, the people. we lost. I wonder if we forever lost that?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Guns were regulated or prohibited in some cities/states so however we interpret the 2nd the founders didn't think it implied some absolute right to "arms." And, really, "arms" applies to a whole range of weapons. It means I can have a suitcase nuke camp out under a flight path with a Stinger on my roof, or whizz around the airport with a fully loaded Russian surplus MiG.
Of course the "originalist" Scalia should know this and agree with gun rights limitations (snark).
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The good part of this that I see is that he is advocating changing the constitution and not just ignoring it. The constitution can and should be amended to account for changing values, changing technology and different external influences. Once you start ignoring the constitution, then what rules do the government need to follow? Change the constitution to what it "should" say, then we all know what we're doing, what's expected of us, and where to go next.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Yes, there are people who say that "having weapons available supposedly makes everybody frantic murderers".
This is in the Main Stream Media and I frequently hear this sentiment in conversations that people have. Most people don't even know that background checks are performed before a gun can be purchased from a dealer and before a gun carry permit can be obtained. All the people with Class 3 weapons are checked by the Federal Government before the tax stamp is issued.
Listen to the Anti-Gun nuts and you will find a lot of people who think a gun in the hand makes a person a crazy and frantic murderer.
Please try to keep up.
guns dont cause mass shootings... people who break the law do. guess what is in common with people who break the law in one way and people who break the law in another? they tend to break laws. making it illegal to own guns does just a little to them as making it illegal to kill people. we dont need to stop people from owning guns, we need to find better ways to stop mass shootings... even if that means putting in boxes of 'in case of terrorist, break glass'. as far as schools go, i think we should give teachers the ability to have handguns in locked safes in their classrooms, and allow them to take it out it the case of a shooting situation.(of course, they would need to be trained for it as well).
In Swiss law use, storage and transport of weapons is VERY heavily regulated. Everyone is armed, but you don't get to walk down the street with your SIG 550 or leave it propped up in your hall closet. There are insane rules on ownership, storage and transfer, and the penalties are incredibly severe. There is no comparing the US and Swiss systems. Anything but bolt-action or single-shot weapons (beyond your militia-issued weapon) require special permits.
Stop mass killings? Debatable. Prevent mass shootings? Likely.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
***
Your argument would
a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings
b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars)
c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
I like wearing sleeveless T-shirts.
He's sooooo wrong. Every fucking moron on earth should have the right to own a gun! A rail-gun ... and mini-nukes that come with a free backpack!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The Militia Act of 1903 makes an organized militia, but anyone not part of that is in the reserve militia if they are a man between 17-45. So, most of the people he is trying to prevent from having guns could still have them under this amendment. This doesn't count states that would just make everyone in their state automatically part of the "state" militia to bypass this nonsense.
But *you* are. And so is practically every American. Unknowingly, you have committed crimes, and you have been found guilty. Why else would the NSA be spying on you? You are a criminal sir, in the eyes of the government.
If you're going to make the distinction, then NO american can have a gun, because we are all guilty according to various state and federal laws.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I'm not interested in hearing anymore from him. He's already lost all credibility with me.
Really?
http://news.yahoo.com/remaining-cattle-released-nevada-rancher-armed-standoff-witness-223821927.html
Okay, So we all form militia's! Now we don't have individual citizens with arms, we have organized gangs.. ehh emmm.. "Militia's" with arms...
Sounds like a plan to me!
This is what would happen. They changed it to Militia's could have guns, then suddenly "Militia" are considered terrorist organizations. And the only people allowed to have guns would be the police, the government & the army. We the people would be fucked.
Be seeing you...
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
I keep telling people it's alpha-quality garbage that needs a rewrite. The goal was good, but we messed up implementation. Pilot has taught us that people are fucking bastards and we need to try this again. The problem is the other side wants to gut it and rewrite it without our "freedoms" or whatever, and so nobody on this side wants to gut it and rewrite it to KEEP THE BALANCE OF POWER.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
add "not" and be done with.
A judge that fears justice... funny how he distracts away from the failures of the courts who lead us to these mass killing to begin with.
Zero guns in civilian hands = more guns in criminal hands.
The real problem here is that a US President appointed this guy and the US Senate confirmed him. Instead of fixing the Constitution, I suggest we fix SCOTUS by not appointing anymore ass clowns like him to the bench.
It's unfortunate that he made it onto the SCOTUS, but I'm sure glad he retired.
Homicide rates in the United States have been dropping and are the lowest since 1906 or so.
http://www.ricknevin.com/uploa...
The last mass violence spree was with a knife. So he is going to do what, ban knifes? Ban anything that can be used to hurt people?
The elephant in the room is that mental health services have been slashed for decades and even when people are identified as being unstable there is little that is or can be done to help them before they become violent.
I don't see how this is "ignoring the traditional definition of the term militia".
Traditionally, the term has been defined as "an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Good thing Knives are not arms.... oh wait.
What knives/cutters were used in the most recent stabbings, what cutters were used in 9/11. Ban them all!
Oh ya, this is going to work really well.
Take everything from the proles so they don't threaten the oligarchs!
Why, when analyzing the 2nd Amendment, do these so-called "scholars" mince commas and words explicitly in the text as written in the Constitution to derive the intent of the authors?
Why do they not read the Federalist papers, in which the founding fathers mention an individual right numerous times? (28, 29, 46, which I won't quote because you can find a much better summary here.)
Why do they not read the state constitutions written around the time, that reflect, in similar language, also an individual right?
1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
See the entire timeline here.
Listen, I get it. Stevens wants to amend the Constitution to revoke the explicit ordained right to possess firearms. Why lie about it and claim that it was never intended for individual protection?
So you want to also limit free speech to old white dudes on soap boxes and manual movable type printing presses?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
As an American, I would love it if we had a gun policy like Japan or UK etc, (ever hear of a drive by stabbing?) but the U.S. has been so gun crazy for so long and there are so many guns out there, getting rid of all them would likely be impossible. Not to mention the gun nuts that would rather go down shooting than hand over their guns. I just can not buy into, "more guns will make us safer"...
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
look to other modern world conflicts for your answer. can a private citizen stand toe to toe with a modern army? NO. Can a modern army effectively defeat guerilla tactics (employed by armed populace)? NO.
You're probably ALREADY serving in the militia, by US law:
"UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
à 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Whats next? to stop rape every male will have their dicks and nuts cut off. Folks, if we get rid of guns then knives will be the next weapon of choice and if we get rid of knives then bats or rocks etc.... guns don't kill, people kill and it's nothing new. Cops are not here to protect you individually but to uphold the law(protect society as a whole), look up supreme court ruling in the 1980's. Everybody should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, you are the first line of defense. Today's government are no different than past monarchs or dictators, they all take your self preservation away. Look how pathetic the bundy farm altercation looked, they were stunned and face to the ground because they were too afraid to protect themselves against those cops.
Regardless of religion, ideology, intelligence, authority or non-authority position, people will always have the need to control(power to enslave others) someone else. If authority tells you to jump off the bridge you don't do it, period, it's your life and it's one life only.
wasn't it some guy michael who did that documentary, showing that there are an average of THIRTY FIREARMS PER PERSON in Canada, yet there were only two gun-related murders in the entire country that year. by contrast, i remember the camera man showing the city of detroit and this guy michael saying that there had been tens of thousands of gun-related murders in just that one city of the united states, alone.
no: if canada's population can be sensible about guns, then gun "control" in america is not the answer. basically we may reasonably deduce that there's something terribly wrong with american society, resulting in many individuals placing little value on another person's life and them being sufficiently stressed or pathologically outright insane as to be capable of killing. passing laws to remove the guns *will not stop that*. it is simply not connected.
if [sensible] citizens are not permitted to defend themselves from their own government, what we then have is a situation where the Oligarchy of the United States (see http://politics.slashdot.org/s... ) could basically murder those people who see it as their duty to protect their fellow cizitens from tyranny.
hmmm... where have we seen that happen before? and before anyone *outside* of the united states imagines this to be a "local problem", remember that the united states has been doing things like bombing other countries and cutting off communications (cutting underwater mediterranean cables for example) of any country that attempts to e.g. start selling oil *not* on the $USD standard. so basically if the united states ends up in chaos it means the rest of the world ends up in chaos as well.
sensible U.S. Citizens: please make your voices heard. loudly.
There is a sensible argument that makes a pretty solid case that the 2nd amendment was put in to satisfy the supporters of slavery, as a MILITIA which white southerners had to take part in was the key factor in controlling the very large (sometimes, outnumbering) slave population. They wanted that right put squarely in as that was the controlling factor for slave revolts and were very afraid the abolitionist movement would revoke that ability, allowing the system to self-destruct w/o the capability of overwhelming violence.
So we can see here that the 2nd amendment was not put in place for self-defense of the individual, but self-defense of the institution of slavery -- one of the greatest evils this world has seen in a thousand years.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
IIRC, slavery used to be legal. And polygamy. And denying women the vote. So why can't we outlaw certain weapons and their ownership?
Once you reach a certain level of wealth and influence, the only way to feel you're going 'up' is to crush the bottom further and further away.
There's a limit to what rights and privileges are even humanly possible, so the only way to satiate one's lust for more of them is to make more and more of them exclusive to yourself.
Doesn't hurt (the worst kind of person, anyways) that the harder it is for a population to have weapons, the further preyed-upon they are by the criminal elements... legal or otherwise.
While I don't want this change, I am glad that someone is actually talking about this. Everyone else either wants to ignore the constitution, or reinterpret it in their favor. No one ever talks about amending it any more. Even when that is clearly what is necessary to proceed.
This problem extends to issues beyond gun control. Politicians are constantly weasel-wording laws to avoid constitutional issues. Instead, if we really want the government to be able to take images of us through our clothes at airports, read our email, detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without charges, grant copyrights that extend nearly forever, allow same-sex couples to marry, establish a national healthcare system, regulate marijuana, etc... then we should amend the constitution to say these things. Instead, we just pass the laws anyway, then spend decades fighting over them.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, pp 87-88.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, June 4, 1788 (From J. Elliott, Debates in the General State Conventions 425 (3rd ed. 1937).
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
That was almost word for word the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, which makes our 4th President essentially the author of said amendment. But he also had this further to say in "The Federalist", in which he DEFINES what it means:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
That last one was straight from the author of the amendment himself....
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Cocksucker just cannot believe that he was dead wrong on such a basic civil right as self defense.
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons. Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it? Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
Ezekiel 23:20
"Service guarantees citizenship."
in spite of the fact that the Amendment specifically names 'the People' as a benefactor
If it's not "the People" who serve in a militia, who does?
National initiative petition similar to that of Oregon and 23 other states. Works wonders for keeping the politicians accountable since you can bypass them if necessary.
I got your 5 words:
Fat chance you fat bastard.
A well trained and armed populace being necessary to the freedom and protection of all, the inviolable and absolute right to keep and bear arms in any place public or private shall not be infringed, and no law shall be made to limit abridge or prohibit any individual from owning, carrying, selling, transferring, getting ammunition for, or displaying arms in any place public or private. As an inviolable and and unalienable right of all to provide for their own defense this amendment is inseparable from the concept of a free nation and a free people. Any land without this right is tyranny, any individual without this right is oppressed and any action taken to support this right from being usurped is just.
It's the legal foundation our country is built upon. If there were sufficient agreement that the second amendment is detrimental, it could be eliminated through the amendment process.
Why does everything need a federal law anyway? There are state and local laws that could be used to address the concerns of people in high population density areas, and if there's enough benefit from those, the support for a federal law would bubble up from there.
Do you think people in the Bible Belt and California want to be governed by the same laws? There's no reason that different cultures should not be permitted to have laws appropriate to their communities.
The United States would be in a lot better shape if people protected privacy, protected the freedom to assemble/protest, and fought campaign funding abuse ( Citizens United, etc ) the way the NRA fights for guns. It would be a lot more secure in freedoms as well as its physical safety.
...has the right to self-defense. This is an implicit right, and should be taken as self-evident.
So how does/would the 2nd Amendment as written now vs suggested edits fit into THAT context?
Also, consider that:
1. criminals (of all levels) will still arm themselves and use those arms against others;
2. foreign governments could still decide to attack us on our home soil, en masse, as unlikely as it may seem now, it's a possibility, perhaps especially with forthcoming escalation of Resource Wars;
3. civil war could happen here, again, in which case is it such a good idea to have one side armed with overwhelming force (what if it's the "wrong" side)?
4. Aliens, lol
CAPTCHA: "protects"
Look, he wrote a book; he wants to generate sales. How better than to make some argument that will polarize everyone?
Come on, sheeple.
Someone needs to buy John Stevens a dictionary. Anyone who is healthy is inherently in the nation's militia; there is no such thing as "serving" in the militia in an active sense. Here are some sample definitions:
(a modern definition from Princeton's WordNet:)
"the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service"
(from Webster's dictionary circa 1900:)
"In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and THOSE COMPETENT AND AVAILABLE FOR SUCH SERVICE; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies."
If Stevens's idea were implemented, then any physically fit and competent person would be able to possess guns without restriction. Is it Stevens's goal to strengthen the position of the gun lunatics?
So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.
First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.
Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it?
Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.
Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)
In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Free speech is protected, but with the internet someone's opinion can be heard louder and wider than ever before. Without the internet, this discussion wouldn't be taking place and I wouldn't ever know about the opinions of this justice.
Should speech now be limited because it can travel faster and wider?
I still haven't figured out a good way to phrase it, but maybe something like this: "The people most likely to take up arms against the government are also the last people you want to rely on when society has come to the point that the government has turned fascist."
Why? Because these pro-second amandment people are conservative, and as such I can't imagine them standing up for any rights worth standing up for and they would firmly stand on the side of a christian fascist or theocratic federal government. Hell, I bet they would join in on the gay killing that would be just around the corner.
I bet they would flip out over taxation, though :P
Less worries from those pesky citizens who have read the other parts of the Constitution.
If packing becomes pedestrian or gauche, the gun control problem will go away by itself.
Based on what evidence or data?
Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.
We are a stable, mature, modern democratic state. We have an operable court system and the rule of law. All of this - ALL of it - comes from us.
We elect people. They represent us. If we don't like the way they are representing us, we elect someone else.
That is how government works in a democracy.
So when you suggest that we need to be armed in order to protect ourselves against our government, what you are doing is suggesting possible violence against the people that WE elected. This line of thinking can be called a lot of things. But for sure, it is Anti-Democracy.
If you are in the minority and you are losing elections and you do not like the way those elected officials are governing... if you think arming yourself is the answer... then you clearly do not understand or support democracy.
Overthrowing, fighting against, or threatening a democratically elected government is not patriotic. It is not constitutional. And sure as heck is not what the founders envisioned.
They were worried about monarchies and kings. Not properly elected officials you happen to disagree with.
I don't even own a gun, but making this change would be a bad idea. You DON'T want guns in the hands of a select few IN THIS CASE, you have to consider how this would play out if it was done today. There are WAY too many guns in this country already you'll NEVER get them all; chances are people who ALREADY have guns would be "grandfathered" in or something so all this would do is keep guns out of the hands of people that don't ALREADY have one. Further, criminals (who by definition don't obey the law) will have guns too; the only people that won't are the law abiding citizens. Is gun violence a problem? Yes. Is this a good solution? Fuck no.
william bonney would have been proud...
(yeah, simpsons ref.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
...fixing a dog.
Matters what's required now. Times change. That said, careful thought should be put into any change.
Not even my country, but mass killings in the states are far too frequent. Control firearms a little.
My 2c.
This is all about government being able to expand its power and make sure that the citizens lives are controlled by government rather than vice versa, by people who are obsessed with power and basically want to be dictators, to have unlimited power over peoples lives. They want a defenseless population and this leads to dictatorships.
I agree, that the general population in the country should be provided arms, as it is done in Switzerland.
I disagree with adding the text. That's because it's damn obvious from the mention of militia in the amendment that the right to bear arms is limited to the militia.
Conservatives tend to want not to interpret the amendment, they want to take it literally (as they do with the Bible) - to which I say - THERE IS NO RIGHT FOR GUN OWNERSHIP. You can use them and keep them, but there is no specific right to own them.
then you ARE part of the militia.
"Mr. Chairman -- A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." --George Mason, Addresses to the Virginia Ratifying Convention (1788)
We are all serving in the militia, all the time. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to credibly intimidate the Government. Moreover, the meaning of "arms" is weapons that are personally carried by a man at war: it is necessary to allow machine guns, because that's what the Government will be armed with. The "defense" is not merely the natural right of home defense, it is the natural right of defense from the Government run amok. The Founders felt that this was more important than giving everyone the right to vote.
I'm pro-second-amendment and socially liberal. There are plenty of others like me.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
If you have a basic understanding of how the English language was written at that time, and an understanding of the definition of the word 'militia' at the time of the writing of the amendment, there is no debate. The writers wanted everyone who could serve in a militia to be able to have a firearm. Those who could serve in a militia were THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. There is no reason to think any differently.
What amazes me is how many of the same people who will state that the Bill of Rights clearly gives women the right to have an abortion, will twist the 2nd amendment around to say that citizens should not have guns. (Note I'm not trying to start a discussion on abortion, I'm just saying that if you can read abortion into the Bill of Rights, then gun ownership cannot be questioned.)
and are best used offensively. Most people who exercise the right to keep and bear arms do it for personal defense. They need to because The Powers that Be refuse to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, citing racism or whatever.
If George Zimmerman had had a sword or a nunchaku, he would be dead.
You can argue all day about whether the 2nd amendment should be in place. It's a lot harder to argue about the intent. The founding fathers thought a free people should be armed. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both. It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes - as it covers both people who should and shouldn't be given weapons (missing a foot vs. being mentally handicapped, for example), both "disabled people should be denied weapons" and "disabled people shouldn't be denied weapons" are irrational opinions unless further elaborated what "disabled" means. Of course "he doesn't think that disabled people should have access to weapons", since the opposite would be dangerous. And he probably doesn't think that disabled people shouldn't have access to weapons either. It's basic logic.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm in favor of gun control, but I think most people will tell you this idea goes too far.
First of all, forget the idea that the constitution guarantees you the right to have as many weapons as you want of any kind. That's stupid. The first amendment guarantees the right of 'free speech', but you can't yell 'fire" in a crowded theater. You can't drive up and down the street with a sign on your car that says "my neighbor is a child molester', and you can't publish a newspaper that prints obviously libelous and untrue stores without repercussions (although some do come pretty close). Freedom of religion doesn't allow for human sacrifice, even when the victim is willing. So the idea of limitations on the Bill of Rights has a great deal of precedent.
Except when it comes to guns.
But you can't have an RPG, can you? You can't seed your lawn with land mines. By statistics, nuclear weapons are safer than hand guns. Nobody has been killed by one of those in over fifty years. But would you want everyone to have one? There are limits people are willing to accept, but nobody agrees on just where to draw the line.
People who live in rural places where there are dangerous animals or no local protection need to be armed to protect themselves. My mother-in-law lived on a farm with no neighbors for miles. She kept guns, and occasionally needed them. But the idea that someone living in a gated NJ suburb needs an AR15 is just dopey.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortunately, they frequently do it with guns. Guns make it so much easier, no thought, just react. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Show me the difference. A bad guy is often a good guy with a couple of extra beers in him, or who had a bad day. An unarmed drunk is a nuisance. An armed drunk is a danger to children.
So the idea, the one used by many countries, is to keep guns away from people who don't need them. Crazy people, people with a history of violence. People who are careless enough to let their guns fall into the hands of those people. Can you show me a way to make that happen? Till you can, I lean toward the policy they use in the UK. Basic guns, rifles, etc. are fine. If you need a hand gun, you have to show me why, and I'll have to be really sure you need it before I let you have it.
More guns isn't more safety, if that were the case the US and Iraq would be the safest countries on the planet, but they're not. People in the US live in a fantasy world created by cowboy movies. The real old-west was very different, and quite dangerous till even they started controlling weapons in towns.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
-Section 21, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The intent of the 2nd amendment is to give everyone the right to defend themselves from anything they consider a threat. If ABSOLUTELY ANYONE threatens you - regardless of their title, position or affiliation, then you have the right to defend yourself against that threat. You have the inalienable right to blow their brains away. The 2nd amendment gives you that right.
To fix the 2nd amendment simply: s/(arm|weapon)/technology/gi
The spirit of that amendment should have included all technology, not just weapons -- A fact we cryptographers are made painfully aware of in the classification and control of our mathematics as if they were munitions.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is itself an incorrect premise today as it is an anachronism. I appreciate the intention of the amendment but no private militia, however well-regulated can challenge the military might of a nation like the United States with nuclear bombs, drones, electronic warfare and all. If the future of warfare is Drones and Satellites (and it surely is), then private citizens having a gun or not achieves nothing and does not protect a free state. Any private rebellion today can be easily quashed by a rogue state.
To guarantee a free state, it is necessary to limit the might of the military and have civilian checks and balances in places. Organizations like the NSA, CIA etc. need to be reigned in, and put under Congressional oversight. A free state is guaranteed when power is distributed, so more power should flow to the elected representatives in Congress who again should have limited terms.
Does he really think curtailing guns will stop mass killings?
It has worked before. Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath
So you want to establish some force to enforce this proposed law prohibiting other people from enforcing their laws on you? Sounds about as well thought out as most conservative dribble.
I guess April Fool's has been delayed this year. The Bill of Rights is just fine the way it stands...
people who don't want a weapon, like me, would be more likely to accidentally shoot themselves, not keep their weapon properly maintained so it is useless when it's actually needed. Or, more seriously, have their weapon stolen in a home invasion; and then the weapon is in the hands of the felon.
Giving weapons to everyone who isn't a felon is a great way to get people to *sell* their weapons to felons. How many felons are already felons by the time they are 18? A lot of them - like the ten year old in Chicago arrested for armed robbery who was later that same week arrested for carjacking - but I doubt all of them. Perhaps if you were to set the gun ownership age to 30, it would work better.
I still don't want to be required to carry a weapon. I have slow reflexes, bad social skills including no sense of dangerous situations, and panic easily. The police have patted me down because they saw me acting weird or someone else did.
I do know a lot of people who could properly handle the responsibility of a weapon. Since the police and courts are unwilling or unable to seriously crack down on crime, let them defend themselves and maybe make a few criminals rethink their decisions.
is not the occasional shopping mall looney. It is the scum which invariably manages to gain control of any body of governance. That is what the founding fathers sought to address. It was worded vaguely in order for said body of governance to ratify it.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
"fixing" the former Justice.
One of the problems with advanced weapons systems is they require a bunch of effort and facilities to produce, maintain, and use. So while they are fearsome, they are vulnerable to a large force that takes over their support structures.
For example while the US's combat planes are the most amazing the world has ever known, they only work when they have secure airfields to operate from. If those get taken over, they are in a world of shit. Which is why they have security but that security is men with guns. The planes can't defend their own airfields, for many reasons.
If you want to see it on a small scale, well ask yourself why the US has been unable to secure Afghanistan or Iraq. They had considerably more forces than your silly "1 aircraft carrier" scenario, it was hardly the whole population fighting, yet after years and years, they have been unable to secure the countries.
Lots of people with small arms are a force all of their own.
Congress shall make no unreasonable law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Reminds me of Animal Farm where the pigs start revising the commandments.
No animal shall sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS.
No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS.
No animal shall kill any other animal WITHOUT CAUSE.
If George Zimmerman had had a sword or a nunchaku, he would be dead.
If George Zimmerman had been patrolling the neighborhood with a sword or a nunchaku he would have been a Ninja Turtle.
What if we turn the idea around and say that all gun owners are automatically members of the militia and are required to spend 2 weeks/year training with their fellow militia members (at their own expense). They should also be first in line if and when it ever becomes necessary to activate the draft.
Very few people in the US are "armed to automatic weapons". The majority of us have semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, which fire one shot each time you pull the trigger -- just like revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action and other firearms with magazines. AND WE'VE GOT FUCKING GRIZZLY BEARS! (and several other nasty species)
'A well-educated electorate being necessary to a secure and prosperous state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.'
If this were in the bill of rights, would it mean that only registered voters have the right to keep and read books?
I'd be curious to see the comparison between the numbers of "deaths each year that were tied to mass killing sprees" versus "deaths each year from yachting accidents" or "deaths each year from people falling off of roofs". Considering how many deaths there are in these mass killings, they might as well be considered "statistically insignificant".
And yet, the anti-gun lobby just chugs right along.
We can go on and on about who should be allowed to have a gun, that the 2nd amendment needs to be fixed and the historical context of what the words mean.
What Stevens and others who support strict gun control are missing is a part of the Bill of Rights that is rarely discussed: the preamble.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will be ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the people that requires, or is indeed subject, to endless interpretation. The preamble captures the contemporaneous debate issues - should the US Constitution attempt to list the rights of the people in a document that was designed to list the limited powers of the national government.
The compromise was a list of rights that were considered so fundamental that "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Those clauses were restrictions on the powers of the national government.
1st Amendment - "Congress shall make now law..."
2nd Amendment - "...shall not be infringed."
3rd Amendment - "No soldier shall..."
4th Amendment - "...shall not be violated..."
There are many who believe the Bill of Rights is a granting of rights to the people when it is actually a harsher, further restriction on the powers and authority of the federal government.
If one looks at the 18th amendment one sees that the prohibition on alcohol was not simply a prohibition but was a specific grant of power to the national government to regulate alcohol. It wouldn't have been enough to simply outlaw alcohol. The amendment had to grant an additional power to the government.
Stevens' amendment to the 2nd amendment would not prohibit the private ownership of firearms nor would it grant a power to the national government to regulate that ownership. Stevens' proposed amendment would simply reinforce the mistaken belief that the Bill of Rights grants rights to the people rather than restricting the power of government.
Much of the attitude regarding the role of the Bill of Rights can be traced to the 1930s when Congress and Roosevelt found a friendly Supreme Court willing to change the definition of commerce to allow the Commerce Clause to be used to regulate all manner of activities.
People are still willing to say, "The Constitution gives me that right," when, in fact, the Constitution give you no rights. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government so they couldn't infringe on the rights you have simply because you exist.
ask the folks in pennsylvania how crucial guns, specifically, are to creating havoc. or boston. it seems like kitchen utensils and rice cookers are the true enemy.
As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.
So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.
Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.
Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.
Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both.
I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.
It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes
The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to
I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.
"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There is a plethora of information available on what the founders thoughts were regarding the meaning of the second amendment. It is not difficult to determine what they meant. Read the writings of the guys who penned the bill of rights. Not hard to interpret at all. It is a bill of individual rights.
Hamilton, Mason, Jefferson, Adams, Madison....they were very clear. It is an individual right to prevent or cast off tyranny. It doesn't matter whether that tyranny is posed by politicians, rabid grizzly bears, or a burglar.
For the people who will inevitably bring up nuclear weapons as a strawman or analogue to semi-automatic weapons that the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned....There were privately owned cannons and naval vessels at the time this was written. So no, they weren't strictly considering flintlock weapons.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
Rare event in a small country, you have to wait 100 years to prove it. China will have invaded and easily occupied the disarmed country before that milestone is reached, however.
When the constitution was written, the only forms of long distance communication involved horses and either yelling or writing on paper. The founders could not have foreseen things like a telephone or even the internet. The danger posed by mass communication and instant spread of ideas is too strong to overlook. Things like "twitter revolutions" and "cyberbulling" and "anonymous slashdot comments" are a danger to society. Therefore, the first amendment should be rewritten to specifically include only communications spread orally or written by horseback. If you take away the second amendment, there is *nothing* preventing the above from happening. The second amendment protects all of the other amendments. Even though we live in a modern and peaceful society today, there is nothing that guarantees this will continue in the long run. Civilizations rise and fall - almost always due to the failure of centralized power. Weakened and dependent populations survive only based on centralized power - when it falls so do the people. Strong, independent, and empowered people survive *despite* the failure of centralized power.
This proves that an understanding of the Constitution is not a requirement to become a member of SCOTUS.
Beaten by peasants with AK-47s.
The US military + police would not stand a chance against US civilians. There are many more of us, we are well-armed and our opponents would be defecting at high rates.
Mod parent up.
Anyone who thinks that modern, asymmetrical warfare means trading blows with similar weapon systems hasn't been paying attention to the last DECADE PLUS of our history.
There isn't a Taliban air force yet the Taliban is still around despite our air force bombing them for years.
That would actually make the amendment read as it should and remove the incorrect assumption that everyone has the right to own guns. The problem with citizen gun ownership is that most citzens dont have the self control, maturity or intelligence to handle a gun correctly.
James Madison, (you may have remembered his name as he was one of the primary authors of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fourth president of the US, etc..), wrote under the pseudonym Publius a letter that was published in news papers in and around this new group of states. A whole series of these letters and essays, which are now collectively known as the Federalist Papers, were written to help explain to the people why they should ratify this new document and accept this new form of government. The people at that time were a little on the leery side and really didn't have a lot of trust in governments (having just fought a war with England and such).
In the Federalist Paper #46 Madison wrote
Not all supporters of gun rights are conservative. I consider myself armed and liberal, and agree with the following quote:
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." - Karl Marx.
If they did, they would simply read what the writers of the constitution wrote in separate articles and books about the intended meaning of the phrases of the Constitution (as listed in other comments). No, judges, lawyers, and politicians like to cherry-pick laws to make a stronger case, and then apply modern-day interpretations of the language to them, rather than look at the supporting documents and historical context in which the text was written.
I see this in English majors too: they'll take writings of Shakespeare or something, find some odd phrasing, and then insist that Shakespeare was trying to argue for some social issue that didn't even exist at the time.
It is possible for both statements to be true...that is, that there are cases where lethal self-defence is the only way to stay alive, but *also* that on average owning a gun makes it more likely for the owner of the gun to be injured/killed.
If this is the case, the each individual gun owner needs to decide whether they think they're going to be subject to an armed attack in their house, and also beat the odds of being injured.
The weapon and munition had to be kept separately, and in a closed surety safe. Also it was mostly rifle last time I looked. Contrast with the USA...
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok ... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself ... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years ... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of his income. If the govt. *really* wants to FINALLY do something constructive with the land they sat on for over a century? Again, fine ... but do it in a sensible way. Inform people of exactly what's going on (not LYING about it), and if it's something like a solar project? Why not just build it there and leave the cattle alone? I don't see why they couldn't co-exist and keep everyone happy.
People kill. Guns should be sold and available. Anyone who might get mad should not be allowed to possess them. In the U.S. the 22x as many people who shot someone they knew, out of anger, all said the day before that their gun was for self protection. The same goes for mass murderers. Do the math.
I just came across Canada stabbing victims identified as students: ‘They were all good kids’. The dichotomy is intriguing:
(1) The victims were 100% innocent. (2) The murderer was 100% guilty.Bang Bang You're Dead is a great way to explore the question, "What if this dichotomy were wrong?" Now, I don't mean to assert that victims always match the pattern in Bang Bang. Sometimes people lash out at folks who had nothing to do with their pain. But sometimes they do. And when we assert (1) and (2), we sometimes depart from a true description of the situation. Do we care about this?
The idea that merely removing guns from the populace will stop the 'badness' which leads to a good proportion of mass murder is delusional. It'll merely suppress visibility of the problem. Sadly, many are just fine with this. Treating the symptoms is easier than treating the cause. False dichotomies are easier than uncomfortable tensions.
Sounds like somebody wants to start a new Civil War. That is exactly what a serious push for this change will result in.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to.
1 + 1 = 2, you fucking moron.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
so the NY Times shouldn't be given freedom of the press.
Everyone should be armed.
The amout of gun control in Swiss is quite high. You're restricted in what you can own and where you can shoot. Canada probably has laxer laws than the Swiss.
This is how Switzerland does it. They haven't been in a foreign war in two hundred years. Even Hitler decided not to try it.
Probably because the Swiss were hiding the Nazi's loot.
Their crime rate is very low and they actually have a civil defense plan that doesn't involve people hiding in closets and hoping somebody shows up to save them. Plus, obviously they don't need to incur all the costs of foreign wars, so they can run data centers, banking platforms, and ski resorts instead.
And having a a small (4M) population, a homogenous culture (no East vs West vs South vs North West), a good Gini coefficient, high medium incomes, and low poverty rates, having nothing to do with it. There's also mandatory military service: I think the gun culture would be very different in the US if there was mandator 2-4 year service in one of the five branches (with pacificists perhaps being assigned to the Coast Guard, or maybe the Peace Corps).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I walk down the street regularly here and have never been threatened by a gun. Even living in a state where open carry is legal.
If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to.
1 + 1 = 2, you fucking moron.
Ha, funny.
That is what you were going for, right? Because that's how I intend to take it, regardless.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I keep seeing news clips from sources like MSNBC who are apparently on a mission to frame Bundy in that light (thief, welfare mooch, etc. etc.).
If you look at it a little further though, I don't think it's quite that clear....
First off, the entire argument centers around his letting his cattle roam and graze on the grass on all of the otherwise unused land that the Feds are NOW putting up a fuss about. Do animals not roam and graze on land in nature anyway? This isn't a case of Bundy building physical structures on govt. land, or even so much as parking vehicles on it. The government's main defense here is a claim that he owes them a large amount of money for unpaid "grazing rights". Ok ... except if you look at the history of grazing rights? All they were was a way for ranchers to avoid having to deal with the hassles of maintaining grazing lands themselves -- repairing broken fences and so forth. A govt. agency offered to make things easier on them by performing those services centrally and collecting grazing fees to fund it, and they agreed. Bundy was actually doing the fence repairs and maintenance himself ... so his failure to pay these fees is little more than a technicality.
So much information, but lets make your vision a little clearer., shall we? First it does not matter if animals graze on land in nature, you would not like it if I let my heard of cows on your land to graze. Secondly Bundy is building physical structures on the land, unless you dont call trenches that he is building to provide water physical structures, on the land. As for grazing fees, it does not matter if he decides to do the repairs to fenses himself, he owes those fees, he is using the publics land, he does not get to decide unilaterally if he wants to stop paying.
Additionally, I think many folks supported him primarily as a way to "poke a proverbial stick in the eye of big government", as opposed to a direct interest in seeing justice done for Bundy and his family/relatives/friends. As a taxpayer myself, I have a big problem with government buying up large tracts of land and then just sitting on them, as they clearly did here. That's a huge waste of our money! Government's purpose is to serve the public -- so any land it purchases should be clearly towards that end. In this case, Bundy's ancestors had cattle grazing on the same land for over 100 years ... and it didn't bother anybody. Only *now* is it such a big deal, govt. felt the need to use helicopters, vans with SWAT teams and more, to basically invade the area and put on a show of force -- even attempting to seize the man's cattle.
The government did not just buy up that huge track of land, atleast not anytime in our generation, or our parents generation, or even thiers. They have owned the land for just as long a Bundy's family has been using it. They just formed the BLM to manage it. Also the government owning land is one of the ways they offset taxes. As for why it did not bother anyone, it is because until 20 years ago they were paying the fees, until he stopped. Also they did not want to sieze the cattle, they wanted it off the public land...major differnece
Lastly, there's the issue of govt. clearly lying about its intentions. A claim was initially made about the land being purchased for the purpose of preserving an endangered species of tortoise. Interestingly enough, there are records showing the boundaries of the protected land were re-drawn in the past, to accommodate other government projects - when they were found inconvenient. So the idea Bundy has to go for endangering these animals now is ludicrous.
it is not Bundy's land, he has to go for what the owners say, or he can find other grazing land.
Bottom line? If the guy owes the IRS back taxes and keeps refusing to pay, fine... Collect it from him the usual way. Seize his bank account or garnish some of
When you cant win, ad hominem.
we don't all live in the same world. Some live urban lives, suburban lives, and yes some people still live a very rural lifestyle. Assuming everyone lives like yourself is ignorance.
His antipathy towards our most important civil right, the right to self defense, shows that Stevens was never fit to be admitted to the bar at all. The second amendment doesn't need fixing, it needs ENFORCEMENT.
The right to keep and bear arms isn't for the government to grant or withhold, and the second amendment doesn't even presume to do so. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, it cites one important reason for preserving it, and forbids the government from infringing it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If the government really wanted to assert control, it could use tanks, jets, nukes and many other weapons which you don't have access to. Syria is a prime example of why arming everyone does not guarantee anything.
Canada is a second example that arming everyone is both unnecessary and needlessly increases gun-related deaths.
When the Second Amendment was written, “people” didn't mean “persons”. It meant “a people”, namely the American people. The Second Amendment never said that arbitrary persons have the right to bear weapons.
Its intention is to protect the American people from oppression by a hypothetical corrupt government, by enabling the people to form an armed resistance against the government.
This amendment to the Amendment is just “gun control” — not a new idea.
Since he's well versed in the constitution he knows the outlined ways the constitution can be changed. His book isn't one of them.
It is correct that people misunderstand about individual arms but the phrasing he is proposing is an amendment; not repairing the old one. He turns militia from it's actual meaning into the national guard.
I find it hard to believe people would go for the intent since we seem to go after any groups with compounds full of weapons... the purpose of the 2nd is directly opposed by the government and people generally support that and are content to keep the arms for themselves... which makes them pretty much useless.
How do we handle the militia problem? do we require they get officially recognized before allowing them? Do we make it extremely open ended like religions are so every cult can become a militia? Militia can handle actual REAL arms-- like bombs and tanks-- not the pop shooters they let individuals have.
The founders were against standing armies.
Because if there's one right that needs to be guaranteed and protected from tyranny... it's the "right" of the armed forces to be armed.
Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I thought it was a bit sketchy before what exactly the 2nd amendment meant, but specifying it with this addition really underscores the absurdity of the position.
Esoteric reference.
It's very curious how Slashdot (and other large web forums like Reddit) mostly lean left on every issue..... except gun rights/gun control, where an NRA convention that Charlton Heston himself would be proud of breaks out every time. I've never figured out why.
Funny how you don't mention the millions in publicity support purchased by extreme-right wing groups. This is a non-story inflated by right-wing media.
Bundy is a run of the mill tax dodging business slimeball and he's being propped up for propaganda purposes.
What should scare you about this incident is the ability for rich groups to purchase support, put guns in a bunch of uninformed moron's hands, and steer public policy for fear of creating an incident.
3 words,
Not gonna Happen.
Good Day!
It will be easier to fix SCOTUS than the constitution. Considering the 27th amendment is the most recently ratified in 1992. It also holds the distinction of taking 202 years to become ratified after being submitted in 1789. Of course it deals with congressional pay and not anything of real import to average citizens.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
this is about the stupidest change to the constitution ever proposed...
The people by gathering signatures in all states to make it a ballot topic...if more than 2/3 of the states vote on it and 'No Confidence' is found... HASTA LA VISTA BABY
just not militarily...
Sounds like a senile old socialist.
Isn't it curious how Fmr. Judge Stevens wants to add words to this amendment that would restrict arms to only those in the military? If we did as Mr. Sevens suggests, then we'd have the same situation as if the Second Amendment were repealed.
Judge Stevens: if you don't like the Second Amendment, then just say so. Don't cloud the issue by trying to apply a "fix" that really isn't.
Yeah the Second Amendment sucks. But the Bill of Rights is too important. PLEASE DON'T MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Do you really want to open up a discussion on whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion needs a little "fixing"? For every enumerated right that you care about, there are huge numbers of people who'd be glad to see it deleted.
The street gangs and mobsters are also part of the armed populous, as are they petty thugs robbing 7-11s. I guess you thing the government needs to be afraid of them as well.
Most of the land was originally the feds in the first place and only leased to others. And before then the land belonged to the natives who lived in the area before the white man came and decided they wanted it instead. At no point in the long history of southern Nevada was there ever a divinely granted right to this farmer or his ancestors to own or occupy the land.
Grazing cows are very damaging. Granted that damage was done hundreds of years ago. Hint, the southwest wasn't alway barren dessert. The introduction of horses made a huge difference.
Cheap storage VM.
His proposed fix is a little too wordy. We should use more brevity and make the meaning the forefathers intended more direct and precise. Instead of his proposed change being:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
Should simply be:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why make it so complex and leave it open for conjecture?
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
I agree that the wording of the 2nd Amendment COULD be construed as to state that all persons shall have the right to arms SO they will be available for the militia.
How then to reconcile this claim with Article 1 section 8 "the Congress shall....set the discipline of the militias....officers to be appointed by the states".
That sits squarely with the idea of the Militia being an organized and trained body with all men being compelled to perform training.
Absent this compulsion, for whatever reason, nullifies any claim to be a member or potential member of the Militia.
It follows then that there cannot be personal right, given that the mandatory service in training is absent.
Stevens is correct, but I think the 200 years of precedent before all SCOTUS before Roberts the right wing ideologue, was more than sufficient to prevent Heller or this issue.
Only a deliberate attempt to redefine "militia" could lead to the tortured "reasoning" of Heller before the Roberts court.
Interesting sexism there...
I see nothing in there requiring any of that.
Big brother knows best. I'm too weak and irresponsible to use freedom wisely, therefore I should not have freedom. Freedom is slavery!
Rat poison in the school lunches is way more efficient than a machine gun. Takes hardly any effort at all.
Sorry, but people aren't going to stand for this sort of revisionism.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
There is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, and any attempt to change it will mean instant Civil War. The so called mass shootings will pale in comparison to the destruction that would follow.
It's not subject for debate. The reason the 2nd Amendment exist, is to aknowledge that the people must have the ABILITY to revolt against a tyranny, and in that effort, the people must have a reasonable chance of success.
When our own government is the enemy, the only remaining obsticle are people grabing their own weapons, and networking together. Clearly we are under a Tyranny, the acts of the BLM in Nevada is proof of that, and when our own universities have conducted a study that shows America is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy or Republic, our economy is collapsing, constant abuse and infringement on constitutional rights and civil liberties, and human rights. Many of us have known this for years. And those same oligarchy, are trying to convince everybody that NOW is the time to change the 2nd amendment???
Is everybody really that stupid? The 2nd amendment is more valid today, than it was when it was written. It is our last line of defense, and we will not tolerate any changes to it, nor the rest of the constitution, as those oligarchy would slip a 1000 page replacement in with all kinds of things that benefit THEM to assert control over US.
They don't have to. All able bodied citizens ARE part of the militia. There is no such thing as a Federal or State militia, because the federal or state can be the enemy, and the militia must be independent and ablt to fight them.
The first part of the 2nd amendment tells us WHY it is important, and the 2nd part tells us what the GOVERNMENT can't do.
That's it.
If the government is willing to disarm itself first, I might be willing to consider the proposition, but when the elite bureaucrats can have armed bodyguards, personal ccw and our police forces are armed to the teeth for no-knock paramilitary raids on civilians, forgive me if I'm hesitant to give up my right to self defense.
As he did in the post you replied to apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but he won't against what you put up destroying him totally here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... "gosh, I wonder why Zontar's doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!! from that second link (not)?
First, at the time it was written, yes it took 2 minutes to reload, but that is how long it took the enemy to reload as well.
Second, it's about firearms, not weapons of mass destruction. Clearly the founding fathers had no concept of those types of weapons.
Let us look at it this way.
An individual can own any weapon, that can be controlled and operated by an individual person, with reasonable amount of control and safety, and does not require special training, or facilities. Nukes, Biological and Chemical weapons, all require those things, so I think we can safely say those are out.
People mentally ill, barely qualify as human, and so they should not be able to have weapons.
This guy owns the land. The government has some buddies who want it for drilling, so they stole it from him. That is all.
No one ever doubted what the second amendment said. When anti-gunfreedom folks wanted to ban guns, the 2nd got in their way. They jumped through all manner of (now discredited) hoops. Even Justice Assclown above knows this, which is why he's proposing an amendment to change the meaning. You don't amend to fix punctuation or whatever the liberals claim is the issue this week.
But- doesn't matter. Here's why I'm posting- your suggestion to use two dead languages for parity is bad! Here's why:
> A dead language is not understood by the people.
Imagine a controversial statement in English- lets pretend a law says you can't hunt elk. Someone claims that the ancient Greek and Latin are both written with a word that does mean "elk", but can ALSO be used, in some ancient poems in Latin, to mean ALL ungulates- and he claims that in Greek it means anything that dwells in the forest with fur and hooves. His claim is that in two of the languages, it most certainly applies to deer.
Now you need a linguist to argue. So you have a conservative linguist on Fox, and a liberal linguist on CNN....
> Powerful folks who want the law interpreted don't give a fuck
Elohim means "voices". It's in the Bible that way, and Genesis is lousy with it. It could well be a reference to a pre-monotheistic setup referred to in ancient religious documents. In your Bible? It's translated as the Lord or God or whatever. It's definitely NOT translated as "voices", and when you look it up there's a lot of effort meant to explain away the plural in the ancient Hebrew. Why? Because it doesn't mesh with what a lot of people want it to believe. You need a bunch of translators to get anywhere, and even though there's been polytheistic references to a fucking pantheon in the Bible and its constituent ancient books (the modern Bibles are basically formed by a council of folks deciding which books are canon and which are not- council of Nicea, for instance) for THOUSANDS OF YEARS- and almost no one knows this. Because the people with control over this language just tell you what it says, even though they are twisting it to suit their interpretation of it.
So it would need to be in English and then two other languages that are living and not subject to the same political rule if you wanted to do that- Japanese and Arabic would be solid, as could be French and Dutch, or Cantonese and Hebrew (a reconstructed language). With living fluent people, you couldn't blow smoke up their ass.
But I think even better would be the requirement to provide:
> Examples Negative statements
Modern laws use these. For instance, a law in Florida at one time said you couldn't have a TV visible to the driver, but this couldn't be used to get you in trouble for any manner of directional type of device- the writer of the law figured that something like that either existed or could, and baked in some forward thought to prevent a cop from busting you on your iphone directional system or GPS (things that I'm pretty sure didn't exist when it was written). Future proofing can't be generic, but making it routine when possible would be kind of nice.
No, criminals in congress who are not obeying their oath of office are criminals and anything they do is invalid. They do not get to re-define militia.
If our own government is the enemy, are we supposed to stick our heads out the window and tell them to fight with each other? No, we grab our own weapons, network together, and move against the criminal oligarchy.
Says it all that he cannot articulate his position without half-truths / lies, folks.
As was noted, the Heller decision pretty much makes it clear that the militia is anyone who can contribute to the common defense (so if you can make a phone call, you can be appointed Communications Officer of the Militia, if you can make toast you can be in the Mess hall, etc, etc). Ergo, the militia is most everyone not on life support.
As for "serving"? Well, you can be serving the military yet on leave, or in the reserve. Then agreement is that should you be called upon, you drop everything and respond. So willingness to serve meets the requirements for service -- you don't need to be running live fire drills all day to be "serving".
I doubt the old goat even realizes the fatal flaws in his position.
Thank goodness this clown is retired!
I guess the OP hasn't bothered to RtFAmendment.
Oh well. More pistols for everyone! No matter that they're useless as military weapons.
Sticking a bunch of cows in one spot and leaving them is damaging I suppose but so is keeping them off the land. High intensity grazing is basically necessary for healthy grasslands. No more million head hers of roaming bison? You NEED cattle to prevent desertification.
Exactly. Just like zero lead in your peanuts = more lead in your pistachios.
More like zero lead in your lawful peanuts = more lead in your unlawful peanuts.
As it stands, guns in civilian hands can stop guns in criminal hands, which makes it different than lead in peanuts since zero lead in your lawful peanuts can't stop the lead in your unlawful peanuts.
Give me an analogy that fits with self defense, and maybe we'll get somewhere :)
Grazing sheep and goats is very damaging. Cows on the other hand, not so much. Sheep and goats will graze down to the root bulb, pull it up, and eat it before moving on. Cows don't do this, they will graze down to the ground, but generally leave the root ball intact. The major portion of the damage done to the southwest was the product of sheep and goats. (I know this because I live where the Chihuahuan desert moved north 100 miles during the wool and mohair era of west Texas) Now, cows CAN damage land, but only if kept on it to the point where they are starving to death anyways, at which point they will probably consume the root bulbs of the grass, but if your to that point, you have another problem entirely.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
You see owning a gun as a protectable freedom. That’s a peculiarly American perspective.
Much of the rest of the world (I live in the UK) would view gun ownership in much the same light as tiger ownership. (Zoos get to own tigers. Private owners can keep tigers too, but they’re strongly regulated. People who own tigers are not expected to take their tigers when they pop down to the shops.)
is people would form militias, of whatever requirements they make (We are from the Elm St. Militia), and will arm themselves.
Being in the military is not a militia...
The 2nd amendment was not put there for cattle ranchers and farmers and people who hunt for food.
It was specifically put there because the founding fathers recognized that the human spririt has failings.
One of those failings is the one THEY were most familair with, and Mr. BUNDY out on his Ranch in Nevada is finding out right now.
HIstory is quite clear about this point: Governments have a nasty tendancy to kill, and destroy themselves along with the laws of the land and the citizenry with them.
If the people are denied the unconditional purchase and ownership of ANY weapons, governments will have their way with them.
Contrary to that is, of course what we know to be true: If no person who gets out of bed in the morning feels like controlling, possessing or stealing, or killing his neighbors were around, I would agree. We would not need weapons.
But we live in a world were a small fraction, about 1% of the population have uncontrollable urges to Murder, Steal, Rape and Loot our country.
If everyone is not armed, they will eventually take over. It also makes it VERY expensive for say, the Russians, Europeans or Chinese to ever EVER get the notion of invading and setting up on US soil. So arming everyone has lots of benefits.
But unfortunately we have subject A: Mr. Harry Reid from Nevada.
But we do not live in that sort of world with Mr. Reid and his ilk around.. We live in a world, were Harry Reid, a Senator from Nevada has colluded with foreign interests, to use his ability as a law maker to make laws that make it OK for China to steal land from a American citizen.
When Harry Reid says for example, you can't break laws I make for my own benefit to steal Mr. Bundy's land AND you are a domestic terrorist for resisting my business investments as such...
WELL WE HAVE A WHOLE NEW KIND OF COUNTRY WE ARE LIVING IN. ...For his own personal gain himself, and his family. That form of government is not a democracy. Or haven't you all heard?
It is a Oligarchy. http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
What? The USA has no engineers who could build, manufacture and create a solar energy plant as good as a Chinese government firm? Really?!
News to me for those of you sitting in your parents basement after 4 years of engineering school looking for a job!
Of course we do and worse yet, I wouldn't trust Chinese parts in something as critical as a power plant in the USA.
In the end Senator Reid, has colluded with foreign powers to steal this land, and profit from it, including his family.
O L I G A R C H Y.
According to the Constitution, that is TREASON, as it redraws the borders such as what wars do, and therefore has made war on the American people for his personal gain.
Secondly why do you need snipers to come out and target Bundy over were his cattle are grazing? Unless of course you know what you are doing is against the law, and immoral and he would resist?
Third there are laws that have been ignored, that have means to grand father Bundy into the ownership of the land he grazes his cattle on. I am sure an agreement could be reached on that without the need of Military snipers, Blackhawk helicopters. These laws are totally ignored. That is to be expected, because this isn't about the LAW, it is about Reid and his kid getting a sweet deal on a solar energy plant.
Bundy is a special case because he has been grazing those lands before most of your grandfathers were born, over 100 years his family has been there using that land the same way he always used it.
The response from the Feds makes absolutely no sense. Certainly no sense in formenting, provoking the American citizenry with military assets placed all around the ranch.
How do we fix it?
1) Reid resigns immediately.
2) Bundy is grand fathered into the lands he has been on for over a 100 years using existing
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
I am not anti-gun but I believe in some restraints. Gun ownership should only be for sane law abiding citizens. no crazy people, no criminals, no violent prone people. There should be some limits to the number of bullets and the type of guns. 10 bullets is enough. And gun purchasers should under go a background check. No one should be forced to have or carry a gun unless there are in the military.
What is it with you anti-gun zealots and your projection of phallic issues onto anyone who chooses to be able to protect themselves and their families with firearms?
I for one am just grateful that a liberal jurist has finally acknowledged that it would take a constitutional amendment to do that. Most of them seem to think that the Constitution already reads that way.
He's not saying that at all. He's saying that the ambiguous 18th-century phrasing has been misinterpreted to mean something different from its original intent, and that it needs to be restated to restore that original intent.
(If you're on the Red Team, you probably believe the correct interpretation, in modern language, is, roughly speaking, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you're on the Blue Team, you most likely believe the correct interpretation is, roughly speaking, "A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.")
He is almost certainly correct about that, at least. The problem is that the two sides disagree on what the original intent is, and thus what the resulting corrected phrasing should be. He apparently agrees with the blue team..
Cities now face occupying armies in the form of out-of-control police. Before you write any pro-police nonsense, I'll refer you to the (usually numerous) daily stories about abuses of power.
The fool makes no mention of the thousands of lives saved by guns, or the fact that the higher the gun ownership rate, the lower the murder rate.
The idiot should realize that, if the Constitution were opened to change, all kinds of things would be changed, most not to his liking, no doubt.
As worded, police would be prohibited from having guns. Unless police count as milita, in which case that guy in Nevada suing the police for violating his 3rd amendment rights should win.
Look at your gun-control paradises; Chicago, New York, and New Jersey, and look at the rampant crime there. Chicago (all of Illinois) just joined the rest of the country in issuing CCWs, though, so it will be interesting to see if the vermin still want to try their hand at preying on people there now.
"...the intention was a check of power: that the people would rise up and fight a corrupt government and take it back."
Nice try. The founders intended that the well-regulated militia be under the command of the government. If you don't believe me, google "whiskey rebellion".
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
and so are most other citizens of my state. Even ignoring that, this guy is an idiot.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1
Well-regulated back then meant well-equipped, equipped with the same level of weaponry as the tyrannical adversary.
Thanks for playing.
it takes a 2/3rd majority of both house and senate to amend the constitution. Thats never going to happen. We cant even get enough to agree in order to override a veto from the POTUS. You also have the 1936 SCOTUS ruling that says that you should be allowed to have the same weapons used by the military of the day. At the time, a short barreled shotgun was NOT used by the standing army. So he violated the NFA by not registering it and paying his $200 tax stamp. The ONLY reason the 1986 full-auto ban still exists is because NOBODY has yet brought it before the courts and sited the 1936 SCOTUS ruling. Clearly 3-shot burst and full-auto M4's are widely used by many branches of our military.
btw today's state militia is the Sheriff's department and by extension the local police forces granted their authority from said sheriff's departments.
Go to Switzerland and ask people why they don't commit ugly crimes against their neighbors. They're not going to say "because he's got a gun", they're going to say, "because I know and respect my neighbors". Compared to the US it's an absurdly homogenous society.
Just try to implement that policy in the US. What are you gonna do, drive down into the slums of South Florida and hand out guns from the back of a truck to anyone with an ID?
Deadliest school masacre yet in the U.S. featured only one gun, and that was incidental:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Which is no defense of anything in particular except perhaps caution about what laws can actually prevent in the face of determined malice.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Read it. It says a militia is necessary for the security of a free STATE. Not a free PEOPLE. That implies defense from foreign powers, not the state itself.
So your argument is not so clear cut.
in just 5 words he makes it legalization of a fascist armed police state
It is the greatest document ever written. That some dudes overthrew their government and founded a country based on the rights of the individual above all else instead of making themselves kings and imprisoning/executing those who they didn't like is so rare in human history I can't think of another time at which it has occurred.
It must be nice to have the mainstream media do all of your thinking for you.
And how do you propose you go about "arming every citizen"? And what should that be? Does everyone get a free AK-47? Or is is just little concealed handguns for all? Are grenades part of the package? Is ammunition free too?
How well do you sit with the idea of the government taxing it's own people in order to convert that money into firearms, rather than using it for roads, schools, power grids, police ... ?
You're probably the kind of guy who calls his neighbors "sheeple" and believes that the ghetto would magically become middle-class if you just burned down all the mansions up the hill. Think your policy through. The reason it hasn't been enacted is because it would be a CLUSTERFUCK.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
He has no business being on the bench. A big F-You goes out to the bastard.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My state has had a 2nd Amendment before there was a 2nd Amendment, and it specifically mentions that I a citizen have the right to bear arms.
So even if the Federal 2nd Amendment was changed, we would tell the Feds to take a hike instead of giving up our arms / rights.
Apparently he has never met or read about ESR and his shooting hobby.
I propose we strip John Paul Stevens of his citizenship and toss his ass out of the country. He has forgotten what it means to be an American citizen. His kind is a danger to this country and should not be tolerated for a split second.
Oh, and take away his considerable retirement checks.
How exactly does it make sense to believe that the 2nd Amendment was to effectively protect the military's right to bear arms? The Founders obviously were talking about grassroots organizations and the people and not just another branch of the federal army like the national guard is now.
"shall not be infringed" ... "congress shall make no law" ... can't get much clearer than that
The people rising up to form a militia arises for the need of people to fight against their own corrupt government including the armed forces of such a government. It is absurd to suggest that the government control the very weapons that one day may be called upon to overthrow the government.
And frankly what we see these days relates to exactly who is getting shot. Go back to 1850 and shooting an Indian, an Oriental, or a Negro was not an item that involved the news media nor the police departments. As we began to admit that minorities are actually humans who deserve equal protection under law we ran short of people to shoot. We also have not seen hard core war since the Korean War and that level of combat is denied for our more aggressive young people. Then we started to limit which criminals could be gunned down. Oddly these conditions have led to people feeling a need to act out and kill people for no real reason. Killing others seems to actually be part of the American dream. Maybe that is why we want to police the entire world.
Roughly 175 million people distributed throughout the United States against one aircraft carrier? Wouldn't even be close. That aircraft carrier can only operate because literally tens of thousands of people stateside are working to keep it operational.
The carrier might be powered by nukes, but the sailors on board are powered by food which has to get shipped in. Half the people who ship food to the carrier are firearms owners: gee, wouldn't it be a crying shame if some botulinum got into that food.
The catapult might be powered by reactor-generated steam, but it's JP-5 aviation fuel that keeps the aircraft in the air. Half the people working in the refineries that generate that JP-5 are firearms owners. Wouldn't it be a shame if they went on strike?
Plus, those 5,000-or-so sailors on board the aircraft carrier include a few thousand gun owners -- military guys love the Second Amendment -- so we'd already have people aboard the aircraft carrier.
If you're going to assume that 175 million firearms owners are going to passively line up and let the US Navy drop cluster bombs on them, then you're mental. That's not how the fight would go. In a serious guerrilla war, 175 million firearms owners would make mincemeat out of the entire U.S. armed forces, who number about 2% that of the civilian firearms-owning population.
What's more than this, I'm pretty sure you know this... and you're trotting out something that you know is bullshit.
But I am with them could you imagine what the cops would do to us if they were completely unopposed ever.
The guy does NOT own the land. The land has been owned by the government for as long as he has been using it. He owns 160 acres, that is it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Ok, why in the world, in any point in history, would anyone think that a government would need to put an amendment into any constitution, anywhere, giving itself the right to be armed????????????????
There's no need to change the constitution. Just do what the NRA was set up to do, and require training and suitable storage and handling conditions for each type of weapon, and establish strict liability when they are not followed. There is simply no excuse for the number of accidental deaths, or weapons carelessly getting into the wrong hands. You want to own a gun? For sure, but pass a course in ownership, storage, and handling, and have suitable facilities for keeping it secure. Nothing of this contravenes the constitution (or even common sense, which seems wildly lacking in the NRA).
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041514-697268-bundy-ranch-harry-reid-rory-reid.htm
Add these words, '... bear arms so long as you can't fire them, have no bullets, and you are enslaved by the Democrat,err Communist party."
Democrat. Communist, same thing these days.
Nevada never had bison.
Cheap storage VM.
this has been discredited by almost everyone, including fox news...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
When you make it illegal (or very difficult) for good and law-abiding people to own weapons, then only criminals will own guns.
Make no mistake- people that are out to do bad will have no trouble at all obtaining weapons and using them and will have a field day knowing that even more of the good citizens have been stripped of their rights to protect themselves, their families, and their property.
As an outsider (I live in Australia) I find it amusing (and slightly scary) that removal of an individual's rights are automatically assumed to be evil.
In Australia, most people *don't* have the freedom to carry hand-guns (or crossbows or semi-automatic assault rifles) and mass killings in Australia are vary rare (only one that I can think of in the last 20 years).
What we have is freedom *from* mass killings. I'm happy to give up my freedom to carry deadly weapons if it means that most other people also don't have deadly weapons most of the time.
At the end of the day, the ultimate individual freedom is to be able to absolutely anything you want, absolutely any time you want to, including killing anyone you want whenever you feel like it. We deny people that level of individual freedom to protect the freedom of society as a whole to get on with their lives in (relative) safety.
And if someone goes mental in Australia, 99% of the time they go mental with fists or maybe a knife. If we can't stop all murderous psychopaths, I'd far rather have a murderous psychopath with a knife or two in my country than one with several semi-automatics.
more treason from the bought and paid for SCOTUS
What scares me the most is that some of you ignorant fucks may actually vote.
The basic technology of semi-automatic and full automatic weapons has not changed since WWII.
Yet Mr. Stevens thinks his change is needed now when it was not needed in say, 1950. What has changed?
Maybe Mr. Stevens and the other gun controlers are trying to tamper with the wrong factor?
All that will do is expand the scopes of the definitions of 'disease' to include ever growing cross sections of society.
Never gonna happen. Getting a change to the 2nd amendment won't happen before the extinction event that wipes out all of humanity. And besides the 2nd amendment was written in era when a gun was a necessity of daily life in America. It was needed for hunting and protection. It made a lot of sense to ensure that the citizenry had access to guns. Also the whole idea was to be a sort of plan B in the event that the American Experiment devolved into tyranny, as it seems to have done.
... a plan to "fix" the Bill of Rights, amendments which have guided and protected Americans for over two centuries, I get very leery.
It happens all the time and it's why super old people shouldn't be in power positions.
FTFY
.sig
Doing a quick bit of research
This says gun crimes went down http://guncontrol.org.au/ but obviously from the domain, that has its own bias.
This cites a few papers http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/ the most reputable claiming that gun suicides were decreased with a weak reduction in homicides.
And this one says hand-gun homicides went down but then greatly increased due to organised crime http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work but still of note, overall firearms homicides went down even if the % of those that were handguns increased. (this one is a bit confusing as they don't label their y-axis, but from the text it appears to be % of firearm deaths by handgun, and then maybe % of homicides compared to all methods?)
Finally wanting a look at some raw statistics assault has been on a slow but steady increase since 1996 http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html but annoyingly those statistics don't go from any early than 96 so I can't see if this was an existing trend. The trend of homicides however goes back a few more years and shows a steady decrease http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html . Still causation and correlation and all that.
So it's all quite cluttered, and I admit I didn't see the reduction in crime I thought I'd see - Australia (like most countries) did have a small gun death per capita compared to America to start with. Maybe instead of killing people with guns, we just punch people now, or maybe as you would likely imagine less criminals get shot or fear being shot by citizens defending themselves, or maybe we're just a bunch of drunk people that like punch-ups and bars now.
From everything I've seen I would say gun laws don't seem to have a significant impact on crime one way or the other. Presumably a change in culture would be more effective than a change in laws. I would like to see crime vs economy graphs, crime vs law enforcement budgets etc where I *imagine* we'll see a bigger link than gun laws.
Repeat after me:
The Constitution is a living document.
Any part of may be amended, changed, deleted, or added to. The procedure for doing so is outlined in itself. The right to bear arms is not sacred.
Remember how that worked out for ethnic Japanese in WW2? The second amendment sure kept the US Government from rounding up natural born US citizens and forcing them into concentration camps.
That was the intent. There is so much NRA-fueled bullshit out there to the contrary, but the intent was not five guys and a pickup. It was not about supplanting law enforcement. It was meant as another deterrent against a foreign aggressor as we had just emerged from what in some ways was an occupation.
The word people is not capitalized in the amendment as it is in the Constitution and that difference does matter. If the idea was individual ownership, there would be no need to mention militia at all. In addition the Constitution itself outlines the duties of the militia, so any argument about definition is absurd.
The Constitution also outlines who is in charge of the militia. It is Congress - our government - that calls on them. They were not meant as defenders of the People. The militia were not meant as a hedge against our government. They were meant to be a part of it. One of the duties of the militia outlined in the Constitution is to SUPPRESS insurrections.
So no drunks hunting deer, no Waco bunker types, no home protection, etc. It was clear then. We've just allowed ourselves to swallow a hell of a lot of bullshit and cause a lot of us *like* guns, we're only too willing to repeat it.
But he's right. He just wants to make it clearer. All else is nonsense. And there is a hell of a lot of "all else" on this, there is a hell of a lot of lawyering/bullshitting on this subject. But hell, you know better than a former member of the SCOTUS before even reading his argument, right?
The arrogance.
As someone looking at US culture from outside, the attitude towards guns is one of the things I despise most. I can see how the "right to bear arms" made sense before modern weapons but seriously, the gun nut culture and weapons worship that I see from people from US whenever someone has the audacity to suggest that maybe there's too many guns too easily available is just insane.
neither contribute to society.
Guns are about equalizing the power between the government and the citizens. Without armed citizens the government has no fear of stepping out of bounds. If it has no fear of stepping out of bounds it will oppress. What separates a citizen from a subject is a gun. Without a gun the government can and will do what it pleases. Politicians are moronic, pettty, sociopaths that only understand self-preservation. They are exactly the type of people you cannot trust at all.
I don't fear mass shootings. I fear a country where the government can sieze assets without right. A country where at anytime if the government my views not politically correct enough, it can just assassinate me without due process. I fear a country of stupid Americans who throw away their rights because certain nigger/beaner demographics go around shooting each other over stupid nonsense because they are too chimplike to operate functionally in a democratic society.
If you want a solution to the gun problem its very simple. Get rid of multiculturalism. Institute national socialism. Give people the unfettered right to use deadly force in self-defense of life and property. Society will become as close to equal and peaceful as possible very quickly.
We've always had guns. We haven't always had mass shootings. These shootings really didn't start until the 60s when these leftists started spreading their commie disease.
The nuke would be illegal not because it's a massively dangerous weapon, but rather that it is an environmental hazard to manufacture, store, or use.
The same would go for depleted uranium shells, chemical weapons, and biological weapons.
While these limitations might be an issue for some, the USEFUL weapons would all still be available, be it laser, microwave, rocket, or other form of explosive.
Now the rules regarding *HOUSING* the stuff are something that would need lengthy discussion (and might offer an opportunity to loosen up restrictions on the above 4 examples of restricted weapons as well. But as usual, move would trump all and only wealthy individuals or corporations would have them.)
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, obviously, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a lying bullshitter.
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
You said MY program's a virus?
I disproved that too here WITH PROOF FROM A RELIABLE & REPUTABLE SOURCE IN THE SECURITY COMMUNITY who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
(Which I always produce from reputable sources, NOT fellow "trolls" whom I destroyed, like I am destroying YOU (see ps below)):
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler to make his process run faster." - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Again: How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Can't get out of your crap now, can you? Nope... same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
Funny:
You can't seem to explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
So marijuana is a dis-qualifier, but you got nothing to say about beverage alcohol?
Seriously?
Your reasoning on pot should mean a similar choice should have to be made so that if you own a gun you can never even have one beer.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The reason Hitler didn't try it was that a) Switzerland was neutral (and had been for just about ever) in the same way that Spain and Sweden were and b) all his gold was moved there. The last thing he wanted to do was jeopardise his bankroll.
When my parents were threatened and decided to get guns, they both trained hard. My dad is a really accurate shot, and my mom is even better. Unfortunately, not everyone is quite so well trained. And some people seem to think guns are toys that you don’t have to be careful with. I’d be in favor of stricter regulations on certifications beyond what you get from an internet course. But I also think it should be a lot harder to get a drivers license. Too many idiots on the road.
As for our right to bear arms, there are two reasons why that right should never be taken away: (1) the government hasn’t demonstrated its ability to protect people otherwise and also often borders on presenting its own threats to the people (I don’t advocate violence against government representatives, but the government DOES need to generally operate in fear of at least political retribution from the people it’s supposed to serve), and (2) we’re too reliant on the government anyway — I think people need to be more self-reliant, not reliant on the nanny state.
In the US, state and federal governments no longer function to serve the people. The fund themselves at gunpoint, taxing the shit out of citizens, but operating primarily to further the goals of a minority of big corporations and major political party agendas that keep politicians fat and in office. Andrew Cuomo has given talks about restoring trust in the government. The government should NEVER be TRUSTED (per se). Trust doesn’t enter into it. It needs to be a centralized resource that pools resources and enacts laws to meet the needs of the people, and it is “trusted” only so far as the people judge its success at those goals, based on sets of internal and external checks and balances.
I trust federal and state governments like I trust Windows: It’s okay as long as I run antivirus software and firewalls and perform regular reboots. And watch it carefully and aggressively save my work and perform regular backups and perform regular maintenance, etc., etc.
Did I just happen to miss the part where requiring involvement in a local or federal militia to have the ability to bear arms results in the people with their dick in their hands? Police brutality alone is sufficient evidence to shit all over this judge's argument. If the president tells the military they need to kill everybody in virginia as a matter of national security, those idiots would up and do it too. Then what? Might as well fervently dedicate ones self to nuclear winter and get a move on.
and if it's something like a solar project? Why not just build it there and leave the cattle alone? I don't see why they couldn't co-exist and keep everyone happy.
Solar plants can't coexist with cattle. I install remote radio relays on cattle farms, and we have to build fences around our towers and panels because otherwise cows ruck up against them, presumably to scratch an itch, but whyever they do it, they totally fuck up solar panels if they can get to them (which I learnt the hard way).
Other than that, I don't care or have an opinion about whatever else you were saying.
Getting a dog neutered is called "fixing". I guess that's what he really means here.
Being harmed had nothing to do with it. There was nothing to invade in Switzerlandthey were incredibly cozy with the Nazis.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to serve as a doomsday clause and to enshrine a HENOPOLY on the legitimate use of violence. Henopoly in this case is to be understood as the people reserving the right to revolt to withdraw the government's legitimate monopoly on violence. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 are uncostitutional.
If Max Weber lived to see the Holocaust, he would have repudiated Gewaltmonopol. J.P.Stevens needs to hauled like a side of beef on a meathook to the nearest Holocaust Memorial Museum. This is what gun control does.
Yes, I'm a Kosher-Intake-Kosher-Exhaust type.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is to never, ever, ever, let a government have total control over our lives (Revolutionary War). The Second Amendment is the FINAL bounce of power. You have the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, the Legislator Branch.....AND the People. If any of those three step out of bounds (of the Constitution), it is our job to make sure they get back in line. I'm not advocating violence against the government (I served in the military) , just saying if these branches step out the Constitution, its our job to protest and make sure they understand they are in the wrong.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to give people the power to fight their own government should the need arise. If you look at the Bill of Rights and what was going on under British rule many of the Rights were added specifically to address issues they experienced. The British were limiting the ability of the people to report on what was going on, was preventing organized demonstrations, was confiscating weapons and forcing private citizens to harbor troops. Without the 2nd amendment the people of the US would have zero chance of overthrowing the government should the need arise. Of course with the technological advances in military weaponry it'd be very difficult to due with personal weapons, but that may be more justification to broaden the weapons allowed by private citizens.
There are more privately owned guns in the U.S. than not only in the U.S. military but also in all the militaries in the world. Does anybody really think this will actually happen? Want to see a mass coast-to-coast civil uprising? Watch the U.S. government try to take everyone's guns away. Thus far, New York and Connecticut aren't having much luck confiscating firearms, are they?
...it's a sure-fire way to ensure that the 2nd Amendment is exercised with extreme prejudice.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Stevens is a very smart man. And knows exactly what he is saying.
It's actually a dirty little (no-so) secret.
The 2nd Amendment is part of the "checks and balances" system. For a state to remain free it must from time to time repel Tyranny. That is the sum total of the 2nd Amendment. To preserve liberty from tyranny. That's it. That's all.
What's the dirty little secret???
That the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect the people's ability and right to revolution and armed dissent.
The founders knew that "might makes right" and that if the government was the only entity that had the power of coercive force that it would move even faster towards Tyranny.
So let me be clear... the 2nd Amendment is the codified protection of our right to rebellion via lethal means.
No politician wants to say that the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to put a bullet in his/her head. That's why the debate is always framed by politicians as "personal defense" and "what did they mean by 'militia'?"
You basically got every single thing wrong about the case.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This posting on slashdot has motivated for me to go for my handgun license. Everyone has the right to protect themselves and their family.
You can't seem to explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
Not that I really care, but so far we've seen only your claim and absolutely no other evidence that this ever even happened, much less why.
The only thing I've been able to turn up is that both these guys seem to have sites that are alive and thriving.
APK, you need to face up to the fact that nobody is going to believe a single word you say without incontrovertible proof. And since your notion of "proof" equals "link to another long silly offtopic APK flaimbait rant", it's easier just to say that nobody believes anything you say.
Given your history over the last decade (and some), my guess is that this is based on some incident where you spammed their sites until they changed to providers that would block your IP address. Until you provide some hard evidence to the contrary, you are wasting your time bringing it up at all.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sure reads like one....
This fact you point out further destroys the 2nd Amendment "where's the militia?" argument made by anti-gun people.
The 2nd Amendment was passed before there was a legal definition of "militia" at the federal level, because as you point out, the Militia laws had not yet been passed.
When the Militia laws were passed, it was REQUIRED that all males purchase guns by their own means.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
By adding "anytime they want". Problem solved. This book, and ex-justice, and his proposed fix is ridiculous.
As others have said, when written it was assumed every citizen would be part of the militia, thus the terse text in amendment II.
;)
I've always thought a good way to enforce the spirit of the words would be to deny gun ownership to anyone who has not served their country.
It could be civil - postal worker (no 90's jokes please), firefighter or police, someone in the executive such as alderman, mayor, congressman - or active duty military.
This harks to the thinking of Robert Heinlein, who in Starship Troopers commented that if you wanted to vote, you needed to have served.
Having gone straight from high school to the Air Force, this has always seemed a sound principle.
Of course, certain individuals (the current NRA leader, for example, who claimed a nervous disorder to avoid the draft) may have different feelings on the matter...
Bundy's family was using it 78 years before BLM even existed. Incorrect.
+++OK ATH
His family was using it 76 years before BLM existed. Incorrect.
+++OK ATH
where's my personal sam site and suitcase nuke? surely the founders meant any type of arms. any argument against those can easily be used against any other type of weaponry. it's all or none or gtfo.
...
That's what judgement is for. There is no way to avoid judgement, and if the Justices can't tell when scope creep is being used to destroy the Constitution, then we're doomed. It's arguable that we're already there.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Going all the way back to the time of the revolution (or a bit after it) a legal president that actually crated two kinds of militia. A select militia and a general militia. In modern times the concept of the select militia has been taken to be the National Guard. Which actually isn't a militia at all as it's directly tied into the US Military. The other end of this spectrum is the concept of the general militia which is actually every able bodies man in the nation. The reasons for this being that in the past there were conflicts between the states and the federal government as a whole as to who was allowed to keep a militia. This precedent still hjolds true today. This is how those 'Michigan Militia' types don't routinely get stamped out by the ATF or DHS.
All I have said here really is a moot point given that what this ass-clown is pushing is a blatant call to revoke the right of the people to own personal weapons by harping on the concept of the militia and playing with the means of works. I won't bother trying to explan why this is completely wrong and instead will direct everyone to check out the episode of Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit' on gun control. They lay it out better and funnies than I could.
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
I disproved that too here WITH PROOF FROM A RELIABLE & REPUTABLE SOURCE IN THE SECURITY COMMUNITY who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
(Which I always produce from reputable sources, NOT fellow "trolls" whom I destroyed, like I am destroying YOU (see ps below)):
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
What trolls like Reimer or Little do that get kicked off a hosting provider is get another to troll and libel again. That's what Reimer and Little had to do. Everyone knows that much. Ask any hosting provider. They tell you that when you get one removed. That the troll or libeler will do it again on another hosting provider. Or host it themselves if they can. It's what Rt
You've been called out. I'm waiting for you to explain your quoted libel here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
I disproved that too here WITH PROOF FROM A RELIABLE & REPUTABLE SECURITY COMMUNITY sources http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
(Which I always produce from reputable sources, NOT fellow "trolls" whom I destroyed, like I am destroying YOU (see ps below)):
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
You don't & I shot you to pieces for it scumbag -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Anything I've stated, as per my usual, I have direct locations where it occurred if need be such as website pages bookmarked for it or emails I can forward! Do I even owe YOU that?? No. Not at all.
However you owe us all reading, lol, the SHEER ENTERTAINMET of seeing you grovel, we've had enough of your running & "troll evasive maneuvers", it's boring. We all know you are toast from that alone, around here, but also for libeling me. Your rep is that of a libelous troll who can't back up his bullshit.
LOL, yes - by this point?
I definitely THINK you owe us all the ENTERTAINMENT of you facing up to your lies point by point, as I quoted them, so I can annihilate you here & humiliate you as well watching you grovel, lol...
Why? Well - you can't backup your crap I have you caught in in libeling me... period).
* :)
This is just the start - I am practicing a bit of what you do, or rather, "Claim to Do". A bit of refining my posts that challenge you vs. your libel - & you're faiing in evasion of your libel of myself.
APK
P.S.=> You're very pitiful... apk
Once again: You've never offered even so much as the slightest shred of evidence that either of these guys ever had their sites yanked at all.
Until you offer some solid evidence that this even happened, nobody is going to believe you, it's that simple.
Until we see this story from a reputable 3rd party, we are going to assume that you're making shit up and that nothing of the sort ever happened at all.
Again, I remind you that linking to your own posts is not proof of anything.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Here's CONTRARY PROOF FROM A REPUTABLE SECURITY COMMUNITY source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Here's CONTRARY PROOF FROM A REPUTABLE SECURITY COMMUNITY source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Here's CONTRARY PROOF FROM A REPUTABLE SECURITY COMMUNITY source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
I think when the time's right, you'll have to eat your words on that again like you did here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Plenty of proof on you having to eat your words (quoted) here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Here's CONTRARY PROOF FROM A REPUTABLE SECURITY COMMUNITY source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
You said by turning up cpu priorities in my program I am turning off the processscheduler?
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
See! An easy to learn constitution that works perfectly for the governing body. Why should the people have any right or freedoms? Its just a pain in the butt for the rulers.
Eat your words Zontar the Mindless -> hhttp://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/memory-optimization-hoax?page=38
PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Jay Little being kicked from CrystalTech.com:
"I asked Jay Little to run this by Dr. Russinovich in fact, lol, & he never tried it again. He OUTRIGHT RAN, & especially after CrystalTech.com removed his website for libel & death threats directed my way! ******* "IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 & "This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com ******* So did petitiononline.com as well for the same childish 'geek angst' that FATBOY Jay Little (no dick type, you know, an obese monstrosity) tried: Jay, learn a bit out IRQL_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL_TO, buffer overruns/underruns" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
For starters!
(Which, as anyone can see, Neither Jay Little OR Jeremy Reimer DENY that happened to them - being kicked from their hosting providers for stalking, email harassing, & libeling me on their websites (and other places online)).
* Want emails from CystalTech, ENom, Shaw too? Just ask & "ye shall receive"... now, "eat your words" yet again, you libelous little scumbag!
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, yet again Zontar the Mindless (libeling troll that you are)... apk
Eat your words Zontar the Mindless -> hhttp://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/memory-optimization-hoax?page=38
PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Jay Little being kicked from CrystalTech.com:
"I asked Jay Little to run this by Dr. Russinovich in fact, lol, & he never tried it again. He OUTRIGHT RAN, & especially after CrystalTech.com removed his website for libel & death threats directed my way! ******* "IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 & "This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com ******* So did petitiononline.com as well for the same childish 'geek angst' that FATBOY Jay Little (no dick type, you know, an obese monstrosity) tried: Jay, learn a bit out IRQL_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL_TO, buffer overruns/underruns" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
For starters!
(Which, as anyone can see, Neither Jay Little OR Jeremy Reimer DENY that happened to them - being kicked from their hosting providers for stalking, email harassing, & libeling me on their websites (and other places online)).
* Want emails from CystalTech, ENom, Shaw too? Just ask & "ye shall receive"... now, "eat your words" yet again, you libelous little scumbag!
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, yet again Zontar the Mindless (libeling troll that you are)... apk
Proof's in Jay Little's OWN WORDS below, quoted, that he never denied & in fact, AFFIRMED!
PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:
---
Jay Little being kicked from CrystalTech.com:
"I asked Jay Little to run this by Dr. Russinovich in fact, lol, & he never tried it again. He OUTRIGHT RAN, & especially after CrystalTech.com removed his website for libel & death threats directed my way! ******* "IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 & "This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com ******* So did petitiononline.com as well for the same childish 'geek angst' that FATBOY Jay Little (no dick type, you know, an obese monstrosity) tried: Jay, learn a bit out IRQL_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL_TO, buffer overruns/underruns" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
AND
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
For starters!
(Which, as anyone can see, Neither Jay Little OR Jeremy Reimer DENY that happened to them - being kicked from their hosting providers for stalking, email harassing, & libeling me on their websites (and other places online)).
* Want emails from CystalTech, ENom, Shaw too? Just ask & "ye shall receive"... now, "eat your words" yet again, you libelous little scumbag!
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, yet again Zontar the Mindless (libeling troll that you are)... apk
I don't see the need for the extra verbiage and think the former justice is making things way too complicated.. The Second Amendment clearly states the "right to bear arms AND keep a well-regulated militia." Every logic course I've ever had told me that AND denotes both conditions in the statement must apply. So if you bear arms, you must be part of a well-regulated militia. That implies at the very least training to be a responsible gun owner and, yes, background checks with no exceptions. This amendment was written during the Age of Reason when logical thought played a very important role in philosophy and political throught. So the framers must have had logical statements of this sort in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Hey... I just realised that I *know* Jeremy Reimer.
I'll drop him a line after the holiday weekend and see what he has to say about all this.
UPDATE: No need for me to do this now.
Although I might still send him a mail and see if he remembers me from that conference. And let him know how much I appreciated his many excellent posts at WindowITPro.com.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Why do you keep referring to Ars Technica as my "backers"?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
I didn't HAVE to prove this @ all, but I did (see quotes below):
---
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
" "IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
"Why do you keep referring to Ars Technica as my "backers"?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
I didn't HAVE to prove this @ all, but I did (see quotes below) - after all: YOU BROUGHT THEM UP FIRST not I, trying to "damage' my reputation (bad move):
---
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
"Why do you keep referring to Ars Technica as my "backers"?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
I didn't HAVE to prove this @ all, but I did (see quotes below) - after all: YOU BROUGHT THEM UP FIRST not I, trying to "damage' my reputation (bad move):
---
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
SEE SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: asshole - & only NOW are you "eating your words" on Jay Little, eh?
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
SEE SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: asshole - & only NOW are you "eating your words" on Jay Little, eh?
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
Jay Little's OWN WORDS do you in here:
"And how many times do you have to be reminded that linking to a copy of the same unproven claim does not make the claim true?" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:16AM (#46787617)
You lying little semantics/word game playing little sockpuppeteering scumbag troll.
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
SEE SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: asshole - & only NOW are you "eating your words" on Jay Little, eh?
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* Should I forward the emails (to anyone interested from his former hosting provider CrystalTech.com too?
APK
P.S.=> I also notice you won't TOUCH where your own quoted libel of myself has you pinned here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Why's that, Scumbag?... apk
Ok, thanks for the info. That's one of the things I really do like about Slashdot. People from a WIDE variety of backgrounds are here, and can share first-hand information the rest of us wouldn't have.
I imagined the cows would pretty much just ignore such things as solar panel installations, since they're stationary objects and they can graze around their perimeter. Still, building fences around them doesn't seem like a bad idea anyway -- as you probably don't want random people climbing around on them, vandalizing them, etc. etc.
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
& motivations: APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
---
"Drop it, APK" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @12:53PM (#46788481)
No - here is WHY, by analogy:
"There is nothing you can do to stop it. The process has already begun. I receive no pleasure in this. It is simply the only solution... - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...
THUS:
"Shutdown code, rejected: My programming ( http://start64.com/index.php?o... ) has advanced beyond YOUR commands: Beyond YOUR weakness" - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...
---
"You were stupid to bring this episode up in the first place, when it's so easy to prove that you're lying and/or delusional" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @12:53PM (#46788481)
WHO brought up "arseholetechnica" FIRST? Not I:
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that (floor PhD's) - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
QUOTED - You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
More like TROLLS of a feather (lol): APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
NOW:
WHO was WITH Jay Little there?
You guessed it folks - JEREMY REIMER!
Trolls of a feather, TROLLING TOGETHER & libeling, emial harassing, being booted from their hosting providers, + FAR more like libel (gee, just like YOU Zontar).
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apkAPK must be put to death
More like TROLLS of a feather (lol): APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol!
Some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
NOW:
WHO was WITH Jay Little there?
You guessed it folks - JEREMY REIMER!
Trolls of a feather, TROLLING TOGETHER & libeling, emial harassing, being booted from their hosting providers, + FAR more like libel (gee, just like YOU Zontar).
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
ArseHoleTechnica(Jeremy Reimer & Jay Little) stalked me there posting WELL after me there proving that (to their utter dismay) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(I shot them totally down, easily...)
APK
P.S.=> Now, you too & you brought it on yourself, libeling me thus -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
... apk
Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...
Clearly, not.
Mine (hpHosts/malwarebytes) are by way of comparison - see link below... lol, YOU FAIL!
APK
P.S.=> Now, WANNABE "writer" (liar & libeler)? "EAT YOUR WORDS" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Why? See below!
NOW:
WHO was WITH Jay Little there?
You guessed it folks - JEREMY REIMER!
(Trolls of a feather, TROLLING TOGETHER & libeling, emial harassing, being booted from their hosting providers, + FAR more like libel (gee, just like YOU Zontar)).
---
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
---
SEE SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: asshole - & only NOW are you "eating your words" on Jay Little, eh?
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
Why? See below!
NOW:
WHO was WITH Jay Little there?
You guessed it folks - JEREMY REIMER!
(Trolls of a feather, TROLLING TOGETHER & libeling, emial harassing, being booted from their hosting providers, + FAR more like libel (gee, just like YOU Zontar)).
---
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Pretty solid proof of your buddy Jay Little from arseholetechnica there and his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol, some 'expert' (wannabe) since when I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little AND Dr. Mark Russinovich RIGHT THE FUCK DOWN... easily.
---
SEE SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE: asshole - & only NOW are you "eating your words" on Jay Little, eh?
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
APK
P.S.=> See, I can DO that - you most certainly can't & you UTTERLY FAILED here too libeling me -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/com... which where YOUR WORDS ARE QUOTED, you no longer can fight on that & YOU ARE TRAPPED, libeler... apk
"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said MY program's a spyware?
Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!
Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...
---
"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You say my program's crapware?
Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.
---
"He's effectively turning off the Windows process scheduler" - FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Question:
How would the process scheduler be turned off by doing that?
APK
P.S.=> Same with using arstechnica as your backers - BIG mistake!
I annihilated arstechnica, & outside their private playpen where THEY STALKED ME TO @ Windows IT Pro forums http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , no less!
You can't explain WHY Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little's websites were removed by CrystalTech &/or Shaw CA hosting providers
IF I'm "so bad", why'd THAT happen to 'em? apk
"IM NOT REMOVING THE CONTENT. I HAVE HOWEVER BEGUN HOSTING MY WEBSITE ELSEWHERE." - jaylittle - March 31, 2005 FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
&
"This battle with APK has taken it's toll I am afraid." - 4/2/2005 7:47:38 AM jaylittle @ www.jaylittle.com FROM http://windowsitpro.com/system...
"Regarding Jay Little: I don't have all the facts" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 18, 2014 @11:57AM (#46787987)
You do now - he was FORCIBLY REMOVED by his hosting provider CrystalTech.com...
---
APK must be put to death by Jay Little @ top http://www.bing.com/search?q=a... first result no less - note the jlittle1 in the path of that result.
Solid proof of Jay Little from arseholetechnica there & his character + motivations for my having floored HIM publicly @ Windows IT Pro claiming he was an (literally) "AN EXPERT ON EXCHANGE" - lol!
Some 'expert' (wannabe) since I produced Microsoft's OWN DOCUMENTATION for Exchange Server being unhalted by Memory Optimization Technology (sped up too) it shut BOTH Jay Little + Dr. Mark Russinovich DOWN... easily.
WHO was WITH Jay Little there?
JEREMY REIMER!
(Trolls of a feather, TROLLING TOGETHER & libeling, emial harassing, being booted from their hosting providers, + FAR more like libel).
---
Jeremy Reimer being places on a tracking ticket by his ISP, Shaw of Canada:
"Thank you for your report. Please advise the sender to cease & desist this unwanted communication w/ you & keep this record. If further messages are received after that, we can investigate this further & we will act accordingly. & Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket... Regards, Acceptable Use Policy Management Team Shaw High-Speed Internet Service Shaw Cablesystems G.P. 2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E. Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7" FROM-> http://windowsitpro.com/system...
---
* They STALKED ME to Windows IT Pro forums to their chagrin.
APK
P.S.=> Zontar libels too here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Don't care what the founders intended ... they are not gods.
But a people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people, and a well armed population is much harder to control through simple force of arms. When Katrina disarmed the government (the cops there apparently were worthless) I would have seriously wanted my armaments, and to believe that Katrina can't happen again is foolish and dangerous. I am reading "One Second After" and finding it very interesting, yet another post-apocalyptic novel, true, but it is much more real than zombies at the park.
The decision tree you need to look at branches first on "is the government still operating at full effect?". If it is, then take our guns. If it is not, then leave us armed. Now put probabilities on that first branching, if you then run the model (ask yourself that root question every morning), how reliable does your government have to be? And what does history tell us about it's reliability?
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
When the holy bleep did we start letting the cops and the military write our laws or tell us what had to be in them?
They work for us, not the other way around.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Justice Stevens' judicial philosophy during his entire judicial career was basically that it didn't matter what the Constitution said, it only mattered what he felt it should have said. Over the years, his opinions said that the "commerce clause" was intended to eviscerate any retrains on Congressional authority (US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, Gonzales v. Raich) that freedom of speech applies to a lot of things, but apparently political speech is not one of them (Citizen's United v. FEC). At least he's admitting in this case that we should change the Constitution rather than simply ignoring it, but why on earth would the Constitution need a clause saying essentially that you have the right to arms except you don't?
The Gospel according to lolcat
You have retired from the bench and that means you are to take it easy, please don't fret yourself with such heavy matters as gun control. You had the ideal situation when you were on the nation's highest bench to do something about this and well obviously none of you did. So please just don't worry about making big changes to the Constitution now, however you right on the mark in regard to the legalization on marijuana, you may proceed full bore on that issue.
The "Standing Army" of which you speak has been crushing liberty and preventing freedom since 1898.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
The real problem is the proliferation of prescription drugs for anxiety, depression, smoking cessation, and other uses. Many of these drugs are approved based on edited or falsified data and can cause delusions, hallucinations, and violent or suicidal behavior. The FDA must be held accountable for catering to the will of the pharmaceutical industry and being more concerned with corporate profits than public safety.