Slashdot Mirror
Online Payment Firm Stripe Boots 3D Gun Designer Cody Wilson's Companies
SonicSpike writes with this news from Reason magazine: Cody Wilson, famous for making the first usable fully plastic 3D printed handgun and for his new project "Ghost Gunner" which mills metal lower receivers (the milling machine itself is of course not a weapon, and what it makes is not itself legally a weapon) for AR-15s, [informed me Monday] that his online payment processor Stripe has decided that his companies, all of them, qualify as forbidden "weapons and munitions; gunpowder and other explosives" services. This includes the Ghost Gunner and Defense Distributed.
Depending on country, various parts are classed as "vital". In Sweden for example, barrels and slides ("upper receiver") demand licenses, but a lower receiver doesn't.
...and other cryptographic currencies. This is one out of many reasons why we need them.
Because I'm 100% sure that a couple of government 'visitor' types stopped by to help Stripe make this decision.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
they are entitled to not do business with him, just as im free to not do business with them. a shame too as i was recently recommending them to a few friends of mine, guess I will have to tell them not to use them now.
The only people who lose here are stripe
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
With PayPal having a reputation of freezing merchants' accounts, what not-PayPal, not-Stripe payment processor should merchants be using instead?
I'm not sure of the specifics of this case, but legally you can sell an 80% completed lower that isn't classified as a weapon in the US because "significant" work still needs to be done to make it a usable lower receiver
This is one of the many problems that Bitcoin solves.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
The only people who lose here are stripe
You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.
From the summary I see that company A has decided they don't want to do business with company B. I don't see them doing anything to prevent any other company from coming along and doing business with said company B. Isn't this how the market is supposed to work, companies are free to make their own decisions about who they want to do business with?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Stripes list of banned partners is indeed prolific, and likely so to make it trivial to simply refuse transaction services to anyone or anything that might shake investor confidence in the service. Cody's project could have been canned for any other number of reasons, including 'high rish businesses' as the ATF or federal government could shut him down at a moments notice. 'Regulated products and services' is the real reason he was terminated as a user because while its perfectly legitimate to manufacture offer a product which manufactures a lower receiver, that receiver does not include a serial number and cody himself has expressly admitted this illegality to be a point of sale, ownership, and operation he himself champions. Stripe has a similar policy against drug paraphenalia, and it stands to reason that while a 'tobacoo pipe' does not itself break the law, smoking illegal substances out of it certainly does.
Im not condoning stripe, i think theyre a fly-by-night processing company that stands for profit, not users. Theyre no better than paypal but that having been said, Cody is a very controversial american citizen. for a corporation to treat him as such comes as no suprise in this foul era of our lord the 21st century in which senators like Liebermann can simply phone amazon and have sites such as wikileaks shuttered. Corporations like Verizon control their news site content and prohibit icky topics like net neutrality and government spying because controversy is polarizing and limits a products audience. Companies like Stripe in turn are also trying to be good 'corporate citizens' and not make waves as processing services because the most lucrative business a company can hope to achieve is the government.
Good people go to bed earlier.
He's still free to take money-orders, or to take personal checks and wait for them to clear before mailing his products to his customers.
Ie, the way it worked back before we had electronic funds transfers.
Come to think of it, he can use actual bank electronic funds transfers independent of a payment processor, but it requires more coordination with banks to do so.
What it comes down to is that no one is required to do business with him, and no one that has done business with his is required to continue to do business with him. If Stripe doesn't feel that it's in their interest, whatever that interest may be or however accurate the assessment is, they're perfectly able to stop doing business within the bounds of agreements signed with him.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The more relevant weapons in this situation are the IRS audit and the FBI raid, two BFG's that Stripe definitely wants to avoid.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
They're not rights when you're talking about negotiations between corporations. You are, of course, welcome to not use stripe for your payment services. I suspect Stripe is so worried about losing your non-existent business they're - at this very moment - trying to figure out how to win you back.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
BUT BUT BUT I thought Companies don't have the right to deny people's rights simply because they don't agree with them.
Substitute Gay Marriage for Guns in this case and see if your position changes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Look it up. He saw this coming over a year ago. DarkWallet = anonymity for Bitcoin.
The guy is not stupid by a long shot. Also listen to him speak, he's a great philosopher with the wisdom of an immature teenager.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Dogecoins, of course.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Have a client using your services who is generating a lot of controversy and is tip-toeing the line between legal and illegal? Sounds like everyone's favorite customer to have!
Seriously, when you are doing what they are, how can you NOT expect certain companies to not want to even look at you, especially when they have plenty of other business. Heck, I even swing pretty far into the "pro gun" camp, but I find nothing surprising or upsetting in this. Sounds like someone playing it safe. We can speculate that intimidating men in suits holding briefcases showed up and suddenly their service was cancelled, but I bet the answer is a lot more simple.
Also the "operation chokepoint "government pressure on bank transactions for businesses that they consider undesirable. that may be the heart of what's going on here.
Geeks (and other people, but us more than normal) love to analyze things, and think we're remarkably clever when we find a loophole in specific wording.
If laws were enforced by djinn that would be a useful skill, but laws are enforced by judges who are supposed to evaluate the spirit behind a law and the intent of your actions, not merely the letter. And they hate when people get 'clever'.
I assure you, the argument "But I'm not selling an X, I'm selling a magic box that spits out X when you press a button" will not go over well with a judge.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution protecting the civil rights of gays. There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.
Not just for Stripe, but for most (all?) of the CC payment processors. They generally do this sort of thing for a wide array of businesses and business models. The worst part is that often they will sign you up. accept your customers' money, then freeze your account, claiming your business is either too fraud prone and/or deals in illegal/inappropriate products/services.
Nothing to see here. Just business as usual. Move along, consumer.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Well, people don't like being told that the best way to control their government is to actually go out and meet local candidates for their school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations and to actually listen to what those candidates have to say on issues other than abortion, firearms, religion, and sex. That takes too much work. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that start out in school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations are the larval form of what become our representatives, senators, governors, and presidents and their cabinets.
I don't think that owning firearms would stop a government from being tyrannical or from attacking the population. I don't think that a lack of firearms in the population would mean that the population can't rise up. For the former, look at Iraq, which is loaded with weapons and had abuse by the government in Baghdad, and for the latter, look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, where the East German Communists didn't have the stomach for shooting tens of thousands of their own people when they interpreted an off-the-cuff comment about easing border controls as freedom to cross now.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.
Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?
In Federal law, homosexuals are not a protected class. State laws vary.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In the US this falls under 'public accommodation' laws which involve not being allowed to bar people from access to a service. Those laws would not apply here since we are looking at a product and not a person. Gun owners are not being denied access, only payment processing for some hazy definition of weapons. Companies are generally free to decide what they carry, but can get into trouble if they refuse to serve some people but not others.
Everyone else is.
You know, I find it quite interesting just how much press and attention ApplePay is getting. Even in /. comments it seems. I guess their marketing folks are spreading the money around pretty liberally. I wonder how much they'd pay me to shill for them?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
START Devil's advocate
Did you hear about that guy who stabbed like 15 of his classmates to death? Or the dude in Norway who went to an island retreat with his trusty knife, and murdered over 100 people with it?
END Devil's Advocate
granted crimes like that represent the absolute rarest form of homicide, but they generate the eyeballs for media.. and as usual, alarmism will win the day.
The protection is for being able to own (and carry) a weapon, it doesn't say anything about who has to sell one to you.
Having never been in a firearms store, let alone purchase one, what do "real" firearm shops use as a payment processor? Surely they take credit cards, don't they?
Stripe makes it clear that they don't want to participate in transactions for regulated products and services. I don't see what the problem with that is.
I am skeptical that the government cares enough to be exerting pressure. This is more likely the effect of media hype.
More importantly, the image of being able to 'rise against tyranny' with arms means you do not have to have popular support for your revolution. Weapons are a force multiplier, you need fewer people to accomplish your goal if they are armed. So instead of getting the support of a thousand residents, all you need is 20 armed ones. It allows new minorities to picture themselves in charge instead of that pesky majority that refuses to put the revolutionaries' priorities ahead of their own.
I think the libertarian program is that private power is ok as long as it is being used the 'right' way. As soon as it is being used the 'wrong' way it is somehow the government's fault behind the scenes, or the private power is simply a traitor to freedom.
You have obviously not been reading about what they are trying to do with operation chokepoint.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe. Repeat after me. This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe.
As for your attempt to co-opt LGBT issues, a payment provider would not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. It would have a very hard time proving it was not doing so should it refuse payment processing to a gay marriage provider. That has nothing to do with your rights under the 2nd amendment whatsoever. How a complete troll like that got modded to +4 is beyond me.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about your post... Pot, meet kettle. Why not skip the rhetoric and contribute to the conversation?
There is where Bitcion is supposed to come in, no? As circumvention of this and the banks? Can we say miserable failure?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have? If you can, wouldn't it apply equally to wedding cakes for gay people and services sold to gun makers?
If not, could you please explain the difference between right to marry and right to keep and bear arms in rendering services to the public?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, you're supporting the idea that certain rights are for certain people are more important than other rights for everyone. Gotcha. So much for "equal protection" being equal.
Animal House was a cautionary tale, not an instruction book.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It doesn't say anything about who is prohibited from selling one to you either, yet we have all sorts of laws covering that. If the government can prohibit, it can also mandate, as it frequently does, with little complaint. As long as online payment firms don't collude, they can do what they want. We need at least one that serves all our needs without objection, like a 'dumb pipe'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Animal House was an awesome, irreverent movie that has stood the test of time and become one of *the* classic comedies.
Animal Farm is a dystpoian, allegorical novella about government overreach and oppression, which is what I think you're going after here.
What were you thinking about my post? Where is pot/Kettle?
My Libertarian views are that people should be able to deny service as they see fit. Works equally for Cakes and guns. And for the same reason. It is entirely consistent.
My personal view on Marriage, is that it is none of the government's business, and there should be no laws either supporting or denying status based on marriage. Period.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The issue is that Stripe likely made its decision based on extralegal threats by the Holder justice department, or some other government agency. Operation Choke Point comes to mind. Failing actual legislative action, the executive imposes de facto suppression of firearms, pornography, bullion exchange, etc.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Same thing can be observed with urban gangs too. A dozen people can terrify a neighborhood of thousands.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
History is filled with examples and counter-examples, but to me the best historical example that gun restrictions can lead to a large scale rise in tyranny is that after World War I the German government was prohibited from having heavy weapons by treaty, so they in turn decided that they didn't want a civilian population as well armed as the government and began taking away people's right to own weapons. This in turn left the civilian population vulnerable to the type of thuggery that the Nazi party used in order to intimidate people at the local level. By the time the Nazi's rose to power it was too late and millions of people died, but it seems there was a crucial period where a well armed civilian population could have made a difference in preventing the rise of the Nazi party. Individuals didn't have the peace of mind that comes from knowing you can protect yourself from a gang of local thugs and criminals and the local thugs knew that a few guys with sticks and bricks can intimidate a community, especially in cities. At some point thuggery just reaches a critical political mass if it isn't nipped in the bud.
My concern isn't that the people have sufficient arms to over throw a government, might doesn't make right regardless of the motivation, my concern is that people are so disarmed that any group of thugs and organized criminals can intimidate an entire community and use that local power to seize control of government power themselves. Once thugs are in power and control the government then it is likely too late for a disorganized and oppressed population to do anything about it without outside help regardless of the right to own weapons.
We see this local effect of thuggery time and time again especially in cities, but also in some towns, where politicians come to power with the backing of organized crime. That kind of thuggery trickles up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Depends whether you're dealing with a protected class. Gun receivers are not, last time I checked, a protected class.
There is actually a huge difference in the argument you are making. There's a difference between choosing *who* you do business with (or employ) and *what kind* of business you are willing to be in. If you're a gun store and you refuse to sell someone a gun because they're gay, that should be illegal (whether it actually *is* illegal is still being debated). If you're, say, a department store and you don't wish to be in the business of selling guns, you should have a right not to be. I think this case is pretty clear cut that the payment processor has a right not to be in the business of processing payments for guns.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Anything can be a weapon if placed in the right hands in the right situation.
I'd still rather have murderous psycopaths with lumps of rock than nuclear weapons.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(Now if Stripe is applying their rules differently for different people, that *is* a problem. If, for instance, they'd happily process payments for a gun store/manufacturer owned by a Democrat but not a Libertarian or a Republican, *that* I'd have a problem with even though I tend to be a Democrat).
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Why the hell is this flagged as interesting. It's not even vaguely interesting from a logical argument sense. As others have pointed out there's a fundamental difference in *who* you choose to do business with based on race, color, religion etc and *what* you choose to do business with (e.g. gun part manufacturers, clown costume manufacturers, taco distributors).
You know, I find it quite interesting just how much people claim anyone who appreciates something that they don't is suddenly a paid shill. And if everyone is paying attention maybe they're not paying anyone... or maybe you just don't understand how social media has changed the face of mass media?
It may well be a matter of appreciation on jfdavis668's part. However, he claims "Everyone else is" using ApplePay. Which is absurd on its face.
As for the media (online and MSM) coverage, it's been orders of magnitude larger than for any other e-wallet/e-pay platform. So I made the inference that Apple is staging a big marketing push for it. That's a reasonable conclusion, IMHO. Whether jfdavis668 is a paid shill or not, is irrelevant.
Go troll someone else, AC.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law just for people who mention nuclear weapons in gun ownership debates.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Although this does make me curious as to what other questionable products Stripe continues to process payments for, because the maker didn't piss off the wrong people in government.
I am of the opinion that I'm paying you for a service, not to spy on me and my clients on Uncle Sam's behalf.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
the concept of protected classes smacks in the face against the concept of equality.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
THEN liberals will scream their cyber rights are being violated.
just like school shootings, they dont happen often but when they do they take over the media, meanwhile 3 people were shot in my city (9th deadliest in the country) last night
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
crime is crime asshole
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The Nazis rose to the power with popular support. The people did not engage the leaders that they chose before choosing them.
This is part why so much concern is expressed in the United States when we see elements of fascism cropping up in political parties, when such groups start subhumanizing groups of people, where they start having information wings masquerading as news, and where issues are only allowed to be debated in black-and-white as opposed to the various greys that they really are, it's an appeal as authority because they say they are, not because they've earned it, and it can lead to terrible results.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It is totally legal to build for yourself any gun that you are allowed to own.
If I use a CNC mill, a file and hand drill, a 3D printer or this guy's tool on an unfinished lower it doesn't matter.
It is also totally illegal to build anything you are prohibited from owning.
Guns are and always have been, easy to build
The fearmongering over this subject is amazing.
Manhattans law?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Same thing can be observed with urban gangs too. A dozen people can terrify a neighborhood of thousands.
Especially if those dozen people have military hardware and government authority.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
At the end of the day, the guy is selling a tool...a basic CNC milling machine. Those are available all over the place and serve many more purposes than allowing the owner to mill gun parts. I guess the next step is to prohibit people from selling files and drill bits because they can also be utilized for gunsmithing purposes. Where does it end?
I'm sure he can find another payment processor that doesn't have a political agenda.
since you can buy all the other parts and they're not weapons.
An 80% lower is not a weapon, do ANY machining to it towards making it functional and that changes. So what goes in the Ghost Gunner is not a weapon, what comes
out is.
Source: I am a Weapons manufacturer (type 10 license)
If "Stripe" was in quotes or something, it would help.
"Firm Stripe" could be some sort of adverb. A method of booting someone?
(Online Payment) (Firm-Stripe Boots) (3D Gun Designer)
"Stripe Boots" could be the company since "Firm" seems to set us up for a name but we're missing a terminator. And "gun" could be a verb (like "gun down").
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe Boots") (3D Gun) (Designer). But then "gun" should be "guns."
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe") (Boots-Gun Designer)
Or maybe there's such a thing as a Boots Gun? A gun that fires boots? But then we're missing a verb...
Online Payment Firm "Stripe" Boots Gun Designer
Hmm...maybe "stripe" refers to the magnetic stripe? Or do people usually call that a magnetic strip?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution protecting the civil rights of gays. There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.
I disagree. The 5th and 14th amendments are intended to ensure all of us receive the equal protection of the laws. It is under these amendments that laws banning marriage were struck down.
While I can acknowledge that goal, I still put that more in the 'hype' box. For the foreseeable future at least the solutions he is working on generally require greater skill and resources then the more traditional methods for producing home firearms. It is kinda like the people working on laser pistols and DIY coil guns, yeah they work and do not count as 'weapons' under federal law, and yeah you can build them at home, but outside the naughty little high of building such devices, they really do not actually add much to the day to day reality of things. Maybe some day some new materials or tools will come out that actually does result in no-skill DIY firearms, but until then they are just philosophical points and that is about it.
... especially considering that I've yet to see an Apple Pay terminal in my tiny third-largest-city-in-the-state.
Google Wallet, yes, but no Apple Pay yet.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The 14th doesn't count?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?
Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The thing about equal protection is, weak groups tend to need a bit more protection then strong ones. Strong groups generally can protect themselves and do not benefit nearly as much from the scraps of help others get.
It is also not a zero sum game. Believe it or not, a society of 300+ million people can both address 2nd amendment issues AND civil rights. The classic argument of 'we shouldn't do anything about XYZ issue I do not care about until ABC issue I do is completely settled!' is just another way of never getting around to XYZ.
The Ghost Gunner machine is designed to take so-called "80% registers" - incomplete lower registers that aren't legally considered weapons yet and therefore aren't tracked, numbered, or registered - and finish milling them to make them into functional components. Thus, it enables manufacture of the controlled component of an AR-15 without applying a serial number or doing any sort of registration of the weapon, allowing someone to create a completely unregistered rifle piece-by-piece.
Which is all perfectly legal.
Basically the guy made a machine that take the place of "me and my drill press." Not really sure what the hubbub is all about.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The best one is the anti age discrimination shit that only applies to age discrimination against people over a certain age.
A paid shill? I wish. My comment was more of a reference to everyone jumping on a bandwagon about whatever topic is hot right now. Fight one fire with another fire.
Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?
Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens? Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Do they care enough? Well that depends. Does it take a court order (with a required quarterly refresh), 200 man hours to set up, and 20 per month to maintain? Or does it take 2 phone calls and an entry in a database? If the former, yeah printable firearms almost certainly isn't high enough on anyone's radar. If the later, I absolutely believe they would come down hard on "minor annoyance" situations such as this. I suspect the real answer is somewhere in the middle.
Luckily for Stripe, they're not beholden to some government definition of what they, as a corporation, decide NOT to process transactions for. Upper receiver, lower receiver, high power magnets,Shirts with sexual innuendo, Hello Kitty paraphernalia. Their terms of service, their call.
Unfortunately for that theory, payment processing companies, banks, and other similar outfits are opening their mail and seeing inquiries from government agencies about their relationship with Certain Firms. Not that it's being implied that there's anything wrong with doing business with Certain Firms, oh heavens no, they're just, you know, asking questions. And so, most of those questioned outfits decide that doing business with Certain Firms is more trouble than it's worth and drop them.If you're government and wanting to cut off the oxygen to Certain Firms with minimal fuss and expense, what nicer, cleaner way than to just kind of casually glance in their financial institutions' direction and watch them scatter?
So I guess if I want to buy something from him now, I have to send him a check or money order.
How quaint.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
One could argue that the right to bear arms is what allows you to be openly gay. Its almost ironical and shit. :)
A paid shill? I wish. My comment was more of a reference to everyone jumping on a bandwagon about whatever topic is hot right now. Fight one fire with another fire.
Understood. I guess we're in violent agreement, eh?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I would much rather see the government drop marriage from teh language and develop domestic partnerships. Essentially contracts between people, regardless of whether or not they wish to engage in a religious ceremony or have sex with each other, that are stating that they are coming together for the purpose of maintaining a household. There should be different types of contracts, for instance, one could be just for people that wish to be room mates and would like to jointly file tax returns or share some of the benefits. Another could be for people that wish to combine assets, declare that one will inherit the goods of the other, and other such things that you now have with a marriage. Each could be easily dissolvable and should include set automatic expiration based on the level, but be as easy to renew as your car registration
This way the government no longer cares about who is in love with who, or what happens behind closed doors, and they can stick with what they should be regulating, while letting the religious leaders say who can and cannot get married within their own religion, and leave everybody else alone.
XDInd
At least, not officially.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)
That guy can't lose. No matter what he says or does he comes away with more free advertising/press.
For his next innovation, a 3D printed drone that fires a 3D printed gun...
This is where the anti-gun folks have it all wrong. Banning guns will only lead to an increase in knife crimes (ask England)
Last I checked banning guns increased gun crime in england, not knife crime.
I suggest Turgidson's Law.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Meh, it takes all kinds though doesn't it? Sure he is more provocateur than innovator but, do we really just need one and not the other? Rosa parks was an activist who provoked response purposefully with a mostly symbolic act; but knowing that she wasn't just another tired and opinionated black woman doesn't diminish my respect for her. If anything it increases my respect for her, being willing to actually be the lighting rod.
This CNC mill is not so much special technologically, whats special about it was how it was designed and marketed. Would they have become available anyway? Likely. Would they be as cheap anyway? Likely. However, the point of the whole project isn't really technical, its social.
People in general, and regulators, are used to a world where the means of production is in the hands of the few and banning things was a power that government had. I say had because, what I don't think people realize is the very core of what Defense Distributed's fight is really about..... the era of being able to ban things is coming to an end.
I think there is value in preparing people for that.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The civil rights acts from the sixties extend equal protection to individuals. The regulation of businesses in this was ruled constitutional by Supreme Court due to commerce clause.
even if it takes 2000 man hours, never underestimate the power of overtime pay. Its not like anyone is ever going to say "you spent 2000 hours on that? What the fuck is wrong with you". As long as the hours get used up for something they can put in a category, they are happy as pigs in shit.
When actual cost is completely external, nearly anything can be justified with the flimsiest of excuse.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Fuck, EVERYTHING is "Constitutional" due to the Commerce Clause.
Dumbest and most destructive interpretation ever made.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So, the answer is that you cannot, but you are willing to take the Supreme Court's word for it that it is there?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There's a difference between firing somebody for being gay, and not wanting to process payments for somebody doing something you think is illegal. Now if Stripe fired one of their employees for owning a firearm, then you might have a point.
The Supreme Court has the final say here. The only option is for a later Supreme Court to change the opinion.
Rightly or wrongly the Supreme Courts most recent ruling on the 2nd amendment essentially ignores the Militia part of the phrase.
What you interpret it to mean, or what previous precedents had ruled it to mean, has little bearing as the most recent ruling is the interpretation the courts will use.
As I said, you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be, but because the Supreme Court says it does, you are willing to accept that it does.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Or a constitutional amendment.
Marriage in the US is a government institution, not a religious one. It is a government managed contract between individuals that grants automatic extensive contractual relationships that are recognized and enforced by the government. There are people in this country that want to keep those government contracts but deny them to groups of people and pretend that there is no equal protection. Equal protection requires that everyone be treated the same.
What that means is that either we allow everyone to marry anyone they want and obtain those government contracts or we do away with government marriage entirely. The former will only impact (mostly positively) people that are now able to execute those government contracts, the latter will have broad reaching and sustained impacts on all American families, and most of those impacts will be severely negative.
Personally, I'd rather we just honor our constitution rather than dramatically unwind hundreds of years of legal precedent and automatic protections granted by government recognized marriage.
This is yet another manifestation of the tactics employed by Obama's Justice Department. Unable to outlaw a particular activity (such as ammunition sales, or escort services — or even cigar-sales) itself, they lean on banks and payment-processors threatening them with audits if they don't stop serving the "undesirable" merchants and services-providers. The name is "Operation Chokepoint" and it has been in the news for a while. About time it made it to Slashdot too.
This — "the most technologically-advanced Administration in history" — is what all the cool kids (not a few /.-ers among them) voted for in 2008 and 2012...
Note, the DoJ is not even alleging any illegality — only "high likelihood" thereof. Nor are they threatening actual prosecution — only an audit. Unfortunately, the audits themselves — even if you end up fully clean at the end — are sufficiently painful and expensive, that banks choose to drop the few clients to avoid the experience.
It is particularly evil, because it is not the result of a prosecution, that is used to cow the victims to comply with the government's whim, but the very process itself. Results, you see, require the Executive to argue its point in front of the skeptical Judiciary. The process, however, can be made very painful without any repercussions — DoJ don't need to prove anything to cause a person or a company as much pain as they please.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"I'm not afraid to go for a walk or jog at night....All too many Americans are living in fear, and it's mostly due to gun violence."
Living in fear? Really? Could have fooled me. Perception is not reality. Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for a generation now, and yet, every year people are polled they claim to believe the trend is exactly the opposite....every year.
Sure around some cities there are bad neighborhoods, mostly ones ravaged by the drug war which has created a number of violent drug gangs. The much of this gun violence as you call it is actually gang violence and usually gang member on gang member, with occasional others.
Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem, that was done by a mix of poverty, the drug war, and general boneheaded inability to admit a policy is bad and rather unchecked fetish for conflict escalation amongst policy makers.
Do you have private prisons and owners of private prisons who basically can write the law? Do you have people doing ungodly amounts of time for simple non-violent drug crime? Do you offer addicts little to no viable treatment paths unless they are at least middle class or better?
Do you combine all that with swat raids at the drop of a hat? How many "million dollar blocks" do you have in your cities?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I think your argument is flawed in that you say we "would rather have a non-zero number of kids and adults die each year from gun violence than give up hand guns and other firearms." since the option of having zero people of any age die of gun violence is not and never was actually an option that even could be honestly on the table.
Its really just not correct to put it in those terms at all.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Oh I agree there is a place for both, but I think it is important to not confuse one for the other. My original premise was that they guy and his company is kinda a nothing. A star within a narrow, mostly online community, but I question if he is even on the radar of government officials.
As for the era of being able to ban things coming to an end? Not really. I think a lot of people in that community tend to confuse the ease of breaking a law being equivalent to the law being unenforceable. You see this a lot in BTC rhetoric, the idea that because it makes payments hard to track it makes taxes go away and money laundering fine, but in general bans and enforcement are not rooted in tracking every single source. They are enforced via getting caught, usually due to some other investigation.
For instance, if this tech gets good enough, sure you can build more and more stuff at home, but if you build things that are illegal and something goes wrong or you commit another crime, you will probably get in trouble for that too. One current example would be conversion of semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic. You are not supposed to do it, you can physically do it at home, but if you get caught with a converted rifle you still get arrested even though they had no dragnet checking every home to see what people were building.
Another fun example is that kid who built a breeder reactor in his shed. The raw materials were all (ok, with some exceptions) legally sourced and he did all the work himself. Anyone can do it, but we are not living in a time where bans on home fission reactors simply went 'poof' or are impossible to enforce.
I think there is a certain techie appeal to the dragnet imagry, it is a very technological problem with very technological solutions. Humans on the ground investigating crimes on the other hand, is much softer and the solutions to that are not nearly as sexy.
Only applies to Putin.
Right now it's legal for every homeowner in Iraq to own automatic weapons. Not just handguns, but freaking AK-74s. So how has that helped them against ISIS?
No, he pointed to the place it says as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Ignorance is no defense.
Cheap storage VM.
Give him a break, he's obviously slow (to embrace change, conservative).
Cheap storage VM.
you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be
Well, let's go through what you quoted:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The beginning declares that we are talking about private citizens, defined as all person born or naturalized in the US. It also states everybody is affected by this clause.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
This part is saying the state can't make or enforce laws that abridge privileges or immunities of citizens. At first glance, telling a baker he has to sell wedding cakes to gays. But it actually isn't, because of the next part.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
It says here the state can't force you unless there was due process. It doesn't mean the state can't force you to give up some of your life, liberty, property, etc. never ever.
And we know there has been a due process. Last story I heard about the bakery case was that the bakery owner is going to appeal, so the process may actually be still on going
This is where you might rephrase the question: why did government intervene on behalf of the gay couple? That's the last part of the quote.
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The state cannot deny everybody equal protection under the law. Under the law, everybody's money is as good as anybody else. Your money can buy a cake. So can mine. So should the gay's. When a bakery owner arbitrarily decided the gay's money isn't as good as everybody else's, and the state does nothing about it, everybody's money is no longer equal under the law.
Anything can be a weapon if placed in the right hands in the right situation.
I'd still rather have murderous psycopaths with lumps of rock than nuclear weapons.
I'd rather have murderous psychopaths with belt-fed machine guns that fired nuclear warheads. Fuck yeah.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
This is almost unbelievable, you can write in complete and coherent sentences. You didn't have a reply to that question did you? Would you be so kind as to actually express complete thoughts? I'd love to see it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Dude, frownie face. Many of my posts are short and to-the-point cuz I write them on my phone when I'm on the crapper.
Fuck, EVERYTHING is "Constitutional" due to the Commerce Clause.
NOT TRUE! In United States v. Morrison the Supreme Court specifically ruled that sexual assault is NOT a form of interstate commerce.
| Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem
Guns of course increase the substantial collateral damage from the gang problem.
Where does it end is not an argument.
"We won't let 3 year olds drive cars? Where does it end?"
"Old man yells at systemd"
Yes there is. It's called the Equal Rights Clause, which is contained in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Wikipedia.
Note also that Hitler and the Nazis came to power democratically. So there wasn't a moral majority who would have resisted had they only had weapons.
Democracy is more than just having an election. But like I said, the early rise of the Nazis was in part because of their thuggery. I agree that once they were in power it wasn't like a bunch of people with guns were going to stop them.
Ah, so because the Supreme Court said that African Americans could not be citizens of the U.S., that should have settled the issue of slavery? No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That makes perfect sense and explains the quality of your post. You just grab a handful and fling...
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He should outright sue. It isn't anything except a very high quality micro-CNC machine. It's called a Ghost Gunner because of one of the intended purposes. As such, they just breached agreement on their end without cause and he has cause.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That is quite literally the role of the Supreme Court. See Article III.
Or perhaps they got a call from someone with the government, explaining that they are beholden (says someone, as they metaphorically caress their sidearm) to certain informal definitions, which is what persuaded this seemingly-for-profit company to decide to live without whatever transaction fees they might have gained from doing this business.
We sure have been seeing a lot of .. voluntary cooperation .. from payment-processing companies when it comes to various "gray" markets. It's almost as though somebody wants to get more people interested in Bitcoin.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. And for that matter, if you look at the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for considering the Supreme Court as arbiter of constitutionality what it says is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are obligated to overturn unconstitutional laws by their oaths of office. A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I often find introducing the high-end of armaments appropriate. Is a nuclear weapon an armament? Does the government have laws that infringe upon the right of citizens to keep and bear it? Do you believe those regulations are Constitutional? If you answer "Yes" to all of those, then there's already a line, and you're just bickering over where the line goes -- we've already given up the protections of the Second Amendment. If you answer "No" to either of the first two, I'm usually confused. If you answer "No" to just the last one, you're at least consistent in your position.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Actually, this is where the law gets interesting. You can build a program to rip a DVD to your hard drive, and you can build a program to decode the CSS encoding to allow it on commercial discs, and you are allowed - though fair use - to rip discs you purchase to your home computer. BUT it is illegal to sell that program to anyone else - it's considered trafficking. It's a catch-22 in the law - it's legal to do (ripping/decoding), but you must do it yourself; nobody can help you.
If you'd like an example, you can look up the woes of Kaleidescape. What they do is perfectly legal for the end user, and has been determined to be illegal if you sell it, even though what the end user does is actually legal.
Note that this is a particular law, and is not involved in firearms, but the CONCEPT is nearly identical.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
and general welfare, don't forget general welfare.
So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
and this is my argument against constitutionalism.
I'm not saying the US Constitution is bad, but I'm just saying not only is it ineffective, its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.
In the history of the United States, since day one,(or at least since the Alien and Sedition acts), the government has blatantly ignored or re-interpreted the constitution to fit whatever they wanted to do anyway.
On the other side of the coin, the constitution gets used as a banner and an excuse against needed change.
If by "consistent in your position" you mean "given to reductio ad absurdum" then sure.
I don't think anybody will agree that it's self-defense to use a nuke to defend one person, because the collateral damage unless you're in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere is hideously, exponentially higher than anything you're hoping to accomplish. In the same way, I could take the other side of that argument and argue that you're saying that if anybody tells you to give them your wallet, you take them down to your bank, withdraw your life savings to give to them, and then go door-to-door to help them rustle up further income. Because we can't possibly fight them!
Or if you get criticized at work, then obviously the only course of action is to quit on the spot because it's inevitable you'd get fired anyway.
Or if somebody honks at you in traffic, you should obviously go down to the DMV and hand in your driver's license again. Because obviously you don't know how to drive and are just a danger to everyone else.
P.S: A nuke maybe be an armament but it is certainly not an arm in the vernacular of the Founding Fathers' day. I kind of doubt they considered a fully crewed man o' war an "arm" either.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I thought "people" was a protected class.
Learn to love Alaska
I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,"
There is One supreme Court for being the final arbiter of legal challenges regarding the United States. That you refuse to accept clear facts that challenge your opinions doesn't change the facts.
A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.
Yes, More than one president (from both parties) has signed laws, knowing they (or parts therein) were unconstitutional. They should be impeached for perjury, for violating their oath of office. That the government doesn't police itself well isn't proof the courts don't have jurisdiction. All three branches should challenge anything unconstitutional. That 2 of the 3 refuse to exercise that power doesn't mean the 3rd loses that power.
Your logic doesn't work.
Learn to love Alaska
So, you're supporting the idea that certain rights are for certain people are more important than other rights for everyone.
That's *always* true, under all conceived frameworks. Can you mow your lawn at 2 a.m.? You are putting someone's right to be a jackass against someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness (sleeping, at a reasonable time). Any framework someone comes up with will have the capacity for rights to conflict.
Learn to love Alaska
You must be between 18 and 55 (or is it 65?) to be protected. Elderly and children can be legally discriminated against.
Learn to love Alaska
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This constrains the US Government. It does NOT constrain Stripe.
So you have no rights at all. They are protections from the government, but not actual rights. You don't have the right to bear arms. Everyone can take away those rights, so long as they aren't paid by the government to take away those rights.
That's the pure Libertarian ideal. Property has rights, but not people.
Learn to love Alaska
To a lot of Americans, it's significant that the government has to check itself and it's actions for fear of causing a shooting war with it's own citizens. That alone is worth whatever number of kids and other people die in gun violence.
Yes, your wet dream of an armed revolt is worth thousands of dead every year from guns.
Learn to love Alaska
Living in fear? Really? Could have fooled me. Perception is not reality. Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for a generation now, and yet, every year people are polled they claim to believe the trend is exactly the opposite....every year.
Read your statement again.
People perceive crime to be getting worse all the time (despite it going down), seems to support the idea that people fear it.
Quite simply, guns did not create our gang problem, that was done by a mix of poverty, the drug war, and general boneheaded inability to admit a policy is bad and rather unchecked fetish for conflict escalation amongst policy makers.
If there were no guns, what would the gangs look like?
Learn to love Alaska
No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.
It was settled until the 13,14, and 15 amendments were passed.
Because that's what amendments DO: they change the Constitution.
Is a nuclear weapon an armament?
If you answer "No" to either of the first two, I'm usually confused.
No. In the context of "arms" as defined in the constitution, the word "bear" hold meaning to me. "Keep or bear" would mean "own or carry" to me. So I take the arms in question to be ones that can be carried. If you can't carry it, then why would you be explicitly given the right to carry something you are incapable of carrying?
So I'd consider "arms" in this context to be man-portable ones only.
Congress may not prevent you from carrying a battle ship. Of course they won't prevent it. Physics prevents it.
I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't a legal definition, but it makes sense from the context that the arms are relating personal arms. I know many cannons were privately owned around the time the Constitution was written.
But then, I also think it was more establishing the National Guard than about private ownership of firearms. We should have followed every other war after WWII and disbanded the military. We'd have 30% lower taxes (not having to pay interest on the debt) and a balanced budget, plus a more productive nation. Let the states constitute the military through National Guard, with everyone being members, owning their military weapons, and being held responsible for their care and use. Lower cost, more weapons, and a violation of what both the conservatives and liberals say the 2nd means.
Learn to love Alaska
Yet the Dredd Scott decision is generally considered to be an incorrect reading of the Constitution.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President. That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional. Both are oath bound to reject unconstitutional laws, but that does not mean they always do so.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional. I know that many people have trouble understanding that this is an important distinction. The failure of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional does NOT mean that the law is constitutional. It merely means that those arguing the case before the Court failed to convince those on the Court that it was unconstitutional. There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President.
What you don't realize is that I realize that, and you look like an ignorant fool for lecturing others.
That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional.
I'm saying that if the legislature, executive, and judicial agree it's Constitutional, then it is, de facto Constitutional. Your opinion won't change legal fact. It takes any one of the branches to block something, and it's unconstitutional. Even if only the Executive tries to block it and the veto is overridden, most things take some enforcement, and the Executive controls the enforcement organizations.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional.
Rhetorical games won't change reality. Something ruled "not unconstitutional" is the same as "constitutional". Much like people incorrectly say found "innocent" when someone is found "not guilty" Incorrect, but not inaccurate.
There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.
Even worse are idiots who assert their ignorant opinion as "better" than that of everyone in the US government, and 90% of the people they argue the points about.
Learn to love Alaska
> People perceive crime to be getting worse all the time (despite it going down), seems to support the idea
> that people fear it.
Yes but living in fear? Not going outside? Sorry, I just don't see that. I can't think of the last time I had a person express that much fear about it. Yes, in polls people think its increasing....that doesn't mean they actually dwell on it that much.
> If there were no guns, what would the gangs look like?
They would still have guns, because it is ridiculous to even pose the question of what things would be like without guns, they are far too trivial to make. Almost nobody actually does manufacture their own or do illegal small scale manufacture, but, the best you could do is incentivise more of that to happen.
Sure you may be able to then arrest more people, and pat yourself on the back for that....but arresting the criminals you created with bad policy is at best a jobs program.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Unfortunately, this discussion won't make it to the supreme court for clarification, so we can only look at existing decisions and say they are settled, because they are settled. That's what the court does, it verifies that the law is being implemented correctly based on what was written.
Cheap storage VM.
Ah yes, because only what our high priests have said is true is true. I love your faith in the infallibility of the Supreme Court.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Just because the Supreme Court rules a particular way, doesn't mean it is right. Supreme Court changes it mind all the time.
I always laugh when Liberals use the Supreme Court as final authority when it is convenient (gay marriage) and call for all sorts of things when it is not (Campaign Contributions).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
its impossible for a document, any document to serve the role as an iron clad guaruntee of rights, or to protect the people.
That is the role of a well armed citizenry. Documents describe the goal, it is up to the people guaranty the goals.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Wrong, as usual, AK Marc.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
AGE LIMITS
SEC. 631. [Section 12]
(a) Individuals of at least 40 years of age
The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
That's the big one, but plenty of other examples exist (though I doubt you'd bother to look them up or read them). They're almost all designed protect old people only.
Marriage is not a right. I cannot marry anyone that I choose. I cannot marry my daughter, is our civil rights being violated? Before you go down the road of "eww gross" or "Incest" or whatever, please consider this ... Equal protection means equal protection, and it applies to all or it doesn't. If you insist that gay people can marry, under equal protection, then you must also support all other forms of marriage you disagree with, including Polygamy and Incestuous.
The moment you proposed gay marriage, under equal protection, you opened up all forms of marriage you find "icky" or "distasteful" or whatever. The problem here is that the proponents of gay marriage have no idea what they have actually done, because they are myopic.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I will prove to you marriage is not a right. Can you marry your sibling? Equal protection clause doesn't work on gay marriage, plain and simple, because it already doesn't apply to all. Care to try again?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Let me know when I can marry my daughter or sibling for "government benefits". Equal protection applies to all or it doesn't apply to anyone. This here is the problem with using equal protection clause.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Some people have more rights than others. Animal Farm .
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Selling smithing tools vs selling wedding cakes. Can i discriminate on selling something that is legal or not based on how I feel or not? It is hypocritical to support one class and not another, simply because you agree with that class and not the other.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This guy is not selling gun parts. He is selling machining equipment. A license is not needed. Selective re-organization of facts trying to support your case only shows that you care about "rights" you care about, and not "rights" for everyone. Good job.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The same "rights" apply to both classes. If you only care about one class, you're just hypocrite.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You didn't answer the questions as asked. Equal protection applies to everyone or it is meaningless.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Last I checked there were 10 amendments just in the bill of rights protecting their rights.
Remember, gay citizens are still citizens, and so are dark skinned citizens. Unfortunately the founding fathers began violating the constitution as soon as it was ratified.
That is something I can get behind.
He is selling it preprogrammed to produce lower receivers, and explicitly advertised as such. To any passer-by, it screams "gun nut". I can totally see why the payment processor might want to stay away, and I am a gun nut myself. Don't expect private entities to conform to your political views, they have their own.
Yes, no true scotsman pops out whenever libertarianism is insulted here. But no coward is forward enough to describe what it is to the point anyone can discuss it. Just what it isn't. It doesn't exist, for all I can tell.
Learn to love Alaska
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think you have confused faith and fact, sorry.
Cheap storage VM.
Most of the households in Iraq have weapons (usually guns, though). Has that helped them against ISIS?
It isn't reductio ad absurdum, as your examples are. It is accepting the definition of the word. "Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. If you're ok with infringing on that right in this case, you're bickering over where to draw the line between "arms you're allowed to keep and bear" and "arms you're not allowed to keep and bear."
The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.
P.S. A fully crewed man'o'war would comprise several arms (each cannon is a single armament, and cannons were and still are definitely covered by the Second Amendment). The ship itself, and the individual weapons on it, would certainly have been something a private citizen could own if they chose to do so.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I can't bear a cannon, but I can have it pulled by a horse. You noted yourself that they were accepted and protected by the Second Amendment at the time the Constitution was written, and they would have been amongst the most destructive weapons known at the time. The context around it was that each township needed their own militia to protect against attacks as it could take weeks or even months for word of such an event to reach any central location. It was also in there because they felt they needed to be able to fight the government's army on equal terms should it ever be necessary again.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
"Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms." In a nutshell, they at least have to be usable by a single person. If a single person can launch a nuke...we have problems. Can the President launch any nukes without at least the physical assistance of other operators?
The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.
A model I kind of wish we'd go back to, at this point.* Military-Industrial Complex--Eisenhower was right.
*Although I have no idea whether a halfway-plausible argument can be made for that. Would it be survivable? Discuss.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The true spirit is held with the National Guard. Local armories, for quick arming of the population in the event of an invasion.
There should be more effort put forth for raising the level of the Guard, and lowering the funding for the standing military.
We could survive (and balance the budget without cutting any pork) by cutting the standing army. We'll keep the guard for the lunatics who claim that without a standing army with 600+ bases and a military presence in (roughly) half of the countries in the world would result in an immediate invasion of the US by China and ISIS.
Learn to love Alaska
Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms."
"1. weapons and ammunition; armaments."
They're the same word. There is no difference between "armaments" and "arms" when referring to weapons.
They were referred to as "Arms" by such entities as the United States and the Soviet Union when they signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It's the common noun used when discussing things such as the Nuclear Arms race. Of the two, I'd say "Nuclear Armaments" is less used. "Nuclear Weapons" is probably more common than either of those.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.