I lived in England for a time, and I can assure you that the lack of guns does not decrease violent crime. Criminals still had access to guns, and much of the violence is carried out with knifes or bats.
One friend of mine over there saw automatic weapons being dealt out of the trunk of a car.
And? That's a lot more common in the US than in Britian. So, because I have anecdotal evidence of someone speeding, there shouldn't be traffic laws?
Do you really think that should the need arise for citizens to practice violence against their government, they would give a second thought to what is legal or not in their production of weapons? Then to make the leap that an insurgency only armed with firearms has "zero chance of success" and that the second amendment cannot keep the government in check is just silly.
You fail to address how making small arms legal now aids any hypotheical revolution. As you admit, for such action to be successful, explosives will have to be illicitly manufactured. So why do legal small arms help.
Forgive me for saying so, but everyone I've ever known that supports gun control is of the "ivory tower" type.
Everyone I've every heard use a phrase like "ivory tower type" is either trying to screw over the common man through pish-poshing inconvenient facts, or activly attempting to help an elite block screw themselves over.
The CleanFlicks issue was a video store that rented the videos to people who didn't own them, and that isn't fair use.
Just like Blockbuster, NetFlicks, et al. The problem was that they modified the copies. Owning a copy of a film does not give you the legal right to even make one modified copy.
The person who modifies an MP3 buy adding "buy coke" in the middle violates copyright law. Just doesn't distribute it, so there is no practical way for them to get caught.
It reminds me of well off people stressing over giving a pan handler a dollar.. how exactly will that dollar be used ? alchohol ?, lottery tickets ?. ciggarettes ?...
Man, it would piss me off if he spent my dollar on a lottery ticket, and won, and could get in touch with me to give me my cut. That's why I always include a card with my home address and hours when I'm usually home when I give out cash to pan handlers.
The militia, in eighteenth-century terms, was every able-bodied male over a certain age. NOT the national guard
And Congress also has the authority to equip, organize and discipline the militia, and create rules for it. How does that jive with your notion that every able-bodied male is a member of the militia?
"Can I (or even a well regulated militia) have a nuke?".
Well, according to the constitution, a well-regulated militia is one that is "organized, armed and disciplined" by the federal government. So the question becomes more about the National Guard than the Michigan Militia.
"Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with."
For Gods sake why?
To be charitable, I assume his point is you cannot just ignore an inconvenient amendment, you have to overturn it. That could be true, depending on how you read the the "well-regulated militas" prefix. However, you are correct that there shouldn't be a bias towards keeping it just because it is in the constitution.
The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to explicitly reaffirm the right to do so again. Period
Every armed resistence in America worthy of the name, including the American Revolution, required stealing munitions from the military; Exception: the Whiskey Rebellion which was beaten into the ground in about as much time as it took to march troops to the battlefield.
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America
It's a strawman arguement to claim that anyone who believes outlawing guns would result in criminials not having them. The point is it would allow for identification of and arrest of criminals more easily.
And even this is a strawman of my question, in which I grant that having a weapon for personal protection makes sense. But why does is even need to be semi-automatic? Cannot a revolver work just as well? Does anyone object to the restrictions on shotguns (barrel length, grips, clipsize and folding stocks)? Why does it always have to fall into "no guns" or "any guns I damn well want to have"? Isn't there a reasonable center?
One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.
I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.
You seem to be assuming that none of the people who voted for Hillary would have voted for Obama if he had been on the ballot. Frankly, speculating about the results of a poll based on options not given and then assigning meaning to those results is not a particularly good basis for policy.
There were two options on the ballot, Hillary and an uncommitted delegation. Even if you assume everyone who wanted an uncommitted delegation (which is unlikely given that Obama, Edwards, etc. were still in the race), HRC won. Why they would vote for her and not "none of the above" seems to indicate a refusal to vote for Obama. Also, calling it a poll as opposed to a primary or election seems to be attempting to diminish via symantics what you cannot do via arguement.
In fact, I would argue that telling people that their votes won't count will grossly affect the results of an election, even if all of the options are on the ballot.
No one's votes for President, or Presidental candidate, will change teh results of an election. Too small an influence. And no one said their vote would not count. They were told that their delegates would not be seated IF the election was close. Since delegates do far more things than nominate a president, the vote still counted for all those other reasons.
And of course the data is never perfect. But it is more perfect than no data. Caucus states lean against older people. In Texas, the caususes were dominated by young people (and some people still for whatever reason count the caucus results in the popular vote.
actually all the candidates including HRC, pledged to not campaign in MI or FL. Obama simply kept his promise, HRC of course lied like the stinking dog in lipstick that she is.
All the candidates pledged not the campaign. None of the candidates did campaign. None of the candidates pledged to remove their name from the ballot. Just some (e.g. Obama) stupidly did so.
Nope, Hillary lost the popular vote -- if you drop the two states (Michigan and Florida) that were banned for breaking the rules of the Democratic Party.
They were striped of their delegates, not their ability to have an election and vote. And even if you grant Obama all the anyone-but-Hillary vote in Michigan (even though, he likely would have only recieved a portion of it), she won the popular vote.
Obama did not even campaign in these states;
Nor did Hillary
his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan
Well, maybe that shows poor judgement. They were asked not to campaign, not remove their names from the ballot. Likely he thought it would be embarassing to lose another state. Hillary kept her name on the ballot which was smart. And like I said, even if you assume that every person who did not vote for Hillary (but voted in the primary) wanted Obama, she still wins.
She wins the popular vote only if you allow her to lie about her earlier rejection of the banned states.
Popular vote != delegate count.
I only hope the superdelegates will be democratic and obey the popular vote.
Eddie Murpy was actually funny in the 80s on SNL before he started acting in movies. He'd probably make one hell of a president. We need to stop electing lawyers.
Heaven forbid that the person charged with enforcing the laws know something about them. It would be better if they were just funny!
So, Ron Paul exudes common sense because, although he based his campaign on ideas that even you seem to not support, his inability to make changes based on his campaign ideas makes him harmless. Wouldn't it be better to say his plans would a) have hurt the country, b) failed to achieve fruition. Thus showing two lapses of common sense.
Social Issues have no purposes except being rallying points for the uninformed. "I'll vote for person X because he's pro-life regradless of what else he may stand for". It has become a standard that we are no longer voting for a person, we are voting for a list of what that person thinks they should think in order to get nominated by their party. Quite frankly, I find it disgusting.
I don't know. I consider social issues (such as Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security) fairly important, esp. when compared to nonsense issues like "gun rights".
The Constitution does not specify any qualifications to be Vice President.
Fixed in version 1.12 That is, the version with the 12th amendment, which reads:... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Everyone recognizes that the length of the contest has hurt the eventual nominee's chances because they're fighting each other instead of McCain.
Every news story was about Clinton or Obama. During the nomination, McCain was practically religated to third party status. If I was Obama, I would want to keep the fracas alive as long as possible, as it makes McCain look like nothing after Clinton is out of the way.?
Slashdot Mirror
And? That's a lot more common in the US than in Britian. So, because I have anecdotal evidence of someone speeding, there shouldn't be traffic laws?
You fail to address how making small arms legal now aids any hypotheical revolution. As you admit, for such action to be successful, explosives will have to be illicitly manufactured. So why do legal small arms help.
Everyone I've every heard use a phrase like "ivory tower type" is either trying to screw over the common man through pish-poshing inconvenient facts, or activly attempting to help an elite block screw themselves over.
General rule of thumb, its a fucking magazine if it arrives in your (snail) mailbox or you pick it up at a store, and a clip if you download it.
Just like Blockbuster, NetFlicks, et al. The problem was that they modified the copies. Owning a copy of a film does not give you the legal right to even make one modified copy.
The person who modifies an MP3 buy adding "buy coke" in the middle violates copyright law. Just doesn't distribute it, so there is no practical way for them to get caught.
IANAL
Wouldn't one person be able to pay of the extortion, and then give out the key to everyone else?
You'll need a firedome or firesphere to protect yourself now.
Man, it would piss me off if he spent my dollar on a lottery ticket, and won, and could get in touch with me to give me my cut. That's why I always include a card with my home address and hours when I'm usually home when I give out cash to pan handlers.
Networked printer needs paper, badly.
And Congress also has the authority to equip, organize and discipline the militia, and create rules for it. How does that jive with your notion that every able-bodied male is a member of the militia?
Well, according to the constitution, a well-regulated militia is one that is "organized, armed and disciplined" by the federal government. So the question becomes more about the National Guard than the Michigan Militia.
Walk away? Wait for him to take a swing at me and hit him back?
What are you going to do, shoot him and go to jail for manslaughter/murder/?? (IANAL, so I leave the proper names to those who are)
To be charitable, I assume his point is you cannot just ignore an inconvenient amendment, you have to overturn it. That could be true, depending on how you read the the "well-regulated militas" prefix. However, you are correct that there shouldn't be a bias towards keeping it just because it is in the constitution.
Every armed resistence in America worthy of the name, including the American Revolution, required stealing munitions from the military; Exception: the Whiskey Rebellion which was beaten into the ground in about as much time as it took to march troops to the battlefield.
It's a strawman arguement to claim that anyone who believes outlawing guns would result in criminials not having them. The point is it would allow for identification of and arrest of criminals more easily.
And even this is a strawman of my question, in which I grant that having a weapon for personal protection makes sense. But why does is even need to be semi-automatic? Cannot a revolver work just as well? Does anyone object to the restrictions on shotguns (barrel length, grips, clipsize and folding stocks)? Why does it always have to fall into "no guns" or "any guns I damn well want to have"? Isn't there a reasonable center?
One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.
I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.
There were two options on the ballot, Hillary and an uncommitted delegation. Even if you assume everyone who wanted an uncommitted delegation (which is unlikely given that Obama, Edwards, etc. were still in the race), HRC won. Why they would vote for her and not "none of the above" seems to indicate a refusal to vote for Obama. Also, calling it a poll as opposed to a primary or election seems to be attempting to diminish via symantics what you cannot do via arguement.
No one's votes for President, or Presidental candidate, will change teh results of an election. Too small an influence. And no one said their vote would not count. They were told that their delegates would not be seated IF the election was close. Since delegates do far more things than nominate a president, the vote still counted for all those other reasons.
And of course the data is never perfect. But it is more perfect than no data. Caucus states lean against older people. In Texas, the caususes were dominated by young people (and some people still for whatever reason count the caucus results in the popular vote.
All the candidates pledged not the campaign. None of the candidates did campaign. None of the candidates pledged to remove their name from the ballot. Just some (e.g. Obama) stupidly did so.
I need to learn to preview.
Err... that hardly matters. Give me the distance to London in meters all you like, just make sure to give me miles per liter as opposed to km.
Is given where/
Well, the median and mode would be 0 per week. The mean would be 400 * 12 / 365.2425 * 7 = 91.99...
I question your ability to identify the hard parts of, or even intelligently ask, the questions.
They were striped of their delegates, not their ability to have an election and vote. And even if you grant Obama all the anyone-but-Hillary vote in Michigan (even though, he likely would have only recieved a portion of it), she won the popular vote.
Nor did Hillary
Well, maybe that shows poor judgement. They were asked not to campaign, not remove their names from the ballot. Likely he thought it would be embarassing to lose another state. Hillary kept her name on the ballot which was smart. And like I said, even if you assume that every person who did not vote for Hillary (but voted in the primary) wanted Obama, she still wins.
Popular vote != delegate count.
I only hope the superdelegates will be democratic and obey the popular vote.
Heaven forbid that the person charged with enforcing the laws know something about them. It would be better if they were just funny!
So, Ron Paul exudes common sense because, although he based his campaign on ideas that even you seem to not support, his inability to make changes based on his campaign ideas makes him harmless. Wouldn't it be better to say his plans would a) have hurt the country, b) failed to achieve fruition. Thus showing two lapses of common sense.
I don't know. I consider social issues (such as Welfare, Medicaid, Social Security) fairly important, esp. when compared to nonsense issues like "gun rights".
Fixed in version 1.12 That is, the version with the 12th amendment, which reads: ... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
That actually isn't a requirement. In fact, more of a detrement in this day and age.
Not voting is chalked up to laziness. Leaving your vote for president blank is a statement against the candidates.
Every news story was about Clinton or Obama. During the nomination, McCain was practically religated to third party status. If I was Obama, I would want to keep the fracas alive as long as possible, as it makes McCain look like nothing after Clinton is out of the way.?