Because people can read, and pick up nuances others miss.
None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are absolute rights.
If you had asked the people who signed the paper back then, they would probably disagree with that statement. Of course, we could point to several laws that would prove your point. But those laws eventually were found Unconstitutional.
Or are you saying laws about libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater, and inciting violence violate the meaning of the First Amendment?
If the Constitution is amended to allow what is now violations of the Bill of Rights, then those acts would not be a violation of the Bill of Rights;
Which is why I phrased it as "break the Bill of Rights even further", not "violate the Bill of Rights".
they would be explicit exceptions as opposed to the questionable courts judgments on them.
I get your point here, but would not call them "exceptions". Slander laws are not an exception to free speech. Simply put, free speech does not mean slander goes unpunished.
And why isn't it the government's business whether the weapon that you may or may not have is lawfully owned?
There is no concept of a weapon being "lawfully owned" if the government has no authority to pass laws about ownership of weapons. (Some states ban swords and nunchucks. When was the last time you heard of a nunchuck-toting madman?) Since that is what the Second Amendment states, no law outlawing guns or other weapons should pass Constitutional muster. Unless the people of the US decide to further break the Bill of Rights.
Please note, I am not saying that the people do not have the right to break the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly. Otherwise, neither the government nor you have any business to know if I have a weapon or not.
How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?
Why turn it into a race riot? Blacks are allowed to own guns too. If the KKK had marched on the state capital bearing rifles, the same gun control proposals would have been introduced. Maybe by a different person, maybe not. Either way, they violate the Second Amendment. When white veterans took up camp outside Washington DC, in peaceful protest, they had their Constitutional rights violated also. So stop with the race baiting.
Actually I just googled that tidbit, and you are wrong on several points. The legislation was already introduced, and the Black Panthers marched in protest against it. Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything. It was named the Mulford Act, after the legislator who introduced it.
As for "the first clause" of the amendment, it is for explanation of the right. A "well regulated militia" is in no way necessary for "the right to keep and bear arms". Actually, you should realize that if you can tell that the amendment is written as two clauses. One part of the text can stand on its own as a sentence. The other part is subordinate to it. They could have easily written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They are needed for the people to keep a well regulated militia." Whether the people keep a militia or not, and whether it is well regulated or not, has no bearing on the right to own weapons.
I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.
That right existed before the Constitution specifically stated that the government cannot limit that right. Its existence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Same path as meth, crack, coke, and pot come the guns. The DEA is just doing its job, and when sensible gun regulation is passed (bringing the US up with civilized nations like England and Japan),...
How about France? Is France 'civilized'? Do they prohibit the possession of guns too?
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Since when does the government need a specific or legal reason? Guns have been taken for many reasons, and prohibited for many more.
Personally, I don't own a gun. But until you actually amend the US Constitution, and break the Bill of Rights even further, it isn't the government's business (or yours) if I have one or not.
He's just a typical lefty liberal with not a thought about reality. If it sounds good on paper, or if it makes him feel good, or if someone says "No, this time it will work. Trust me!", then he supports it whether the program actually accomplishes whatever goal he had for it or not.
It's also obvious that he and the other supporters of that idiocy don't give a damn about actually helping the poor people. "Let them eat cake!" has turned into "Let them ride the bus!". That's their contempt for individual liberty writ large.
I just picked up Chapterhouse Dune to read. I read Heretics last year, and liked it. I read the first four as a teenager, but at the time couldn't find the last two.
I reread those first four over the last couple years, and Heretics finally. I enjoy all of them. God Emperor is obviously a breaking point in the story line, but it works.
I also have The Dune Encyclopedia. Two copies actually. It is a great book in itself to go along with Herbert's work.
I read up to book 4 or 5 as they came out. Then didn't have the time or patience to wait for the next. Recently I picked up book 3 at Goodwill just to read it and reminisce. It was still a fun read. But I don't plan to read the whole series until I have a lot of time on hand.
Even if that were true, it doesn't remove the possibility to use another computer with the plot-following software Em mentioned. He could do the actual typing on an old Selectric, and still use help with consistency.
Are you saying that the Swedish people, as a prerequisite for having nation-wide broadband, pay for fiber optic cables to run to every farmstead in every country in Europe? Or at least every country in the European Union?
Well, I don't use google docs. But it would seem to be similar 'openess', as far as files from strangers online go.
If I did use google docs, I don't know that I would want to give access to it to every other stranger online either.
I had uploaded it to another file sharing site, that had it as a simple download, but that isn't active now, and I didn't have the time to do that again before posting. The site I listed still has the file active.
After repeatedly having the same reaction to these situations, I made a spreadsheet that compares the populations and sizes of US states and European countries. The first sheet is population, second is land area in square miles, and the third is population density per square mile. It also has columns on each page showing which countries are in the European Union, and which use the Euro as their currency.
Here is a link to it. They will send a link to your email address. Use it as you wish.
2- it is a citizen's civic duty to pay his taxes. you like roads? you like a military? you like civilization in general? guess what. your taxes or GTFO my streets.
So the famous 47% who don't pay taxes don't get to use your streets? You elitist snob.
He wasn't asking about fraud or the full responsibility of the IRS. He was asking if their work lessens with a bad economy. Fewer people working does mean fewer people filing taxes. Level of fraud is immaterial to that point.
for every dollar spent on the IRS, government takes in 5-7 dollars.
Just because it collects the revenue does not mean it generates the revenue. You need to demonstrate that reducing the IRS's budget will, in fact, mean that people pay fewer taxes, which is a specious argument.
Also, dywolf, you say that as if it is the government's job to take money from private citizens. Some of us believe it takes too many dollars from citizens already. So your argument fails on two counts.
EXACTLY. As long as the tax code is ridiculously complicated, we're going to need ridiculously complicated bureaucracy and IT systems to manage and enforce that complexity. Let's see how well our new GOP overlords in Congress manage to legislate an actual reduction in tax code complexity, now that they have the gavel all to themselves in both the house and the senate.
Let's not bring the cart before the horse. If you want an IRS that can run on a shoestring budget, make a shoestring tax code that I can print on my home inkjet printer -- THE WHOLE CODE -- in under 5 minutes.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and fund the IRS so they can do what they are required to do by law.
I posted my plan above, but I'll copy it here for your perusal:
I think there should be one one federal income tax rate, and only one exemption. Make the rate whatever you want it to be, I don't care.
The one exemption will be the amount equal to 5 times the level of poverty for a person or family, at the location they live. Use the federal Cost of Living Allowance to factor the difference between poverty levels in California and Arkansas.
Anyone who reasonably believes their income for the year will fall below that level (five times their local poverty level for their family size), does not even have to have income tax removed from their paycheck. They still have FICA amount removed, but not the rest. Since they don't have any taxes removed, and they are under the exemption, they also don't have to file for a refund in the spring.
For those above that income level, they pay accordingly on the overage, with the correct percentage removed either each time for obvious cases, or once the limit is reached for the close cases. Cases of births, deaths, loss of job, etc will be worked out individually as needed.
Again, this covers Federal income tax. The states are free to do whatever they choose.
================== End of above post.
The main points that would be needed to add would be A) Income from investments, particularly when they are paid in lieu of a large salary such as Warren Buffet has popularized. B) Business owners filling as individuals, deducting cost of business items (quick fix, incorporate or pay the tax). C) Corporate taxes. But I bet I could reduced them to a single line of (Revenue - Expenses = Net). Not saying it's optimal, but it will print in under five minutes. D) Individuals can form groups without having to ask permission from the government. Period.
That's all I got. Feel free to fine tune it and submit the bill to the House of Representatives.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't accept that people spoke differently centuries ago, there's little hope of educating you about anything before the 1970s.
How is this modded 'Insightful'?
Because people can read, and pick up nuances others miss.
None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are absolute rights.
If you had asked the people who signed the paper back then, they would probably disagree with that statement. Of course, we could point to several laws that would prove your point. But those laws eventually were found Unconstitutional.
Or are you saying laws about libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater, and inciting violence violate the meaning of the First Amendment?
If the Constitution is amended to allow what is now violations of the Bill of Rights, then those acts would not be a violation of the Bill of Rights;
Which is why I phrased it as "break the Bill of Rights even further", not "violate the Bill of Rights".
they would be explicit exceptions as opposed to the questionable courts judgments on them.
I get your point here, but would not call them "exceptions". Slander laws are not an exception to free speech. Simply put, free speech does not mean slander goes unpunished.
And why isn't it the government's business whether the weapon that you may or may not have is lawfully owned?
There is no concept of a weapon being "lawfully owned" if the government has no authority to pass laws about ownership of weapons. (Some states ban swords and nunchucks. When was the last time you heard of a nunchuck-toting madman?) Since that is what the Second Amendment states, no law outlawing guns or other weapons should pass Constitutional muster. Unless the people of the US decide to further break the Bill of Rights.
Please note, I am not saying that the people do not have the right to break the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly. Otherwise, neither the government nor you have any business to know if I have a weapon or not.
How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?
Why turn it into a race riot? Blacks are allowed to own guns too. If the KKK had marched on the state capital bearing rifles, the same gun control proposals would have been introduced. Maybe by a different person, maybe not. Either way, they violate the Second Amendment. When white veterans took up camp outside Washington DC, in peaceful protest, they had their Constitutional rights violated also. So stop with the race baiting.
Actually I just googled that tidbit, and you are wrong on several points. The legislation was already introduced, and the Black Panthers marched in protest against it. Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything. It was named the Mulford Act, after the legislator who introduced it.
As for "the first clause" of the amendment, it is for explanation of the right. A "well regulated militia" is in no way necessary for "the right to keep and bear arms". Actually, you should realize that if you can tell that the amendment is written as two clauses. One part of the text can stand on its own as a sentence. The other part is subordinate to it. They could have easily written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They are needed for the people to keep a well regulated militia." Whether the people keep a militia or not, and whether it is well regulated or not, has no bearing on the right to own weapons.
I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.
That right existed before the Constitution specifically stated that the government cannot limit that right. Its existence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Same path as meth, crack, coke, and pot come the guns. The DEA is just doing its job, and when sensible gun regulation is passed (bringing the US up with civilized nations like England and Japan),...
How about France? Is France 'civilized'? Do they prohibit the possession of guns too?
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Since when does the government need a specific or legal reason? Guns have been taken for many reasons, and prohibited for many more.
Personally, I don't own a gun. But until you actually amend the US Constitution, and break the Bill of Rights even further, it isn't the government's business (or yours) if I have one or not.
What part of your post has any relation to what I posted, other than we both mention a woman and taxis?
Because vocking it just once isn't enough.
The woman could have hired a "real taxi" instead of paying less money in exchange for the greater chance of being attacked.
He still lives in the glory of the Soviet State, apparently.
Retirees will expect more from the government because, you know, because they'
ve paid into the plan their whole working lives, with the promise they will see reasonable benefits at the end.
But fuck them for believing in a federal government and social fairness.
Great post.
He's just a typical lefty liberal with not a thought about reality. If it sounds good on paper, or if it makes him feel good, or if someone says "No, this time it will work. Trust me!", then he supports it whether the program actually accomplishes whatever goal he had for it or not.
It's also obvious that he and the other supporters of that idiocy don't give a damn about actually helping the poor people. "Let them eat cake!" has turned into "Let them ride the bus!". That's their contempt for individual liberty writ large.
You need to stop sneaking into your grandmother's closet.
I just picked up Chapterhouse Dune to read. I read Heretics last year, and liked it. I read the first four as a teenager, but at the time couldn't find the last two.
I reread those first four over the last couple years, and Heretics finally. I enjoy all of them. God Emperor is obviously a breaking point in the story line, but it works.
I also have The Dune Encyclopedia. Two copies actually. It is a great book in itself to go along with Herbert's work.
I read up to book 4 or 5 as they came out. Then didn't have the time or patience to wait for the next. Recently I picked up book 3 at Goodwill just to read it and reminisce. It was still a fun read. But I don't plan to read the whole series until I have a lot of time on hand.
They will be filling the shelf at the local Goodwill for a number of years. Does that count?
Even if that were true, it doesn't remove the possibility to use another computer with the plot-following software Em mentioned. He could do the actual typing on an old Selectric, and still use help with consistency.
Are you saying that the Swedish people, as a prerequisite for having nation-wide broadband, pay for fiber optic cables to run to every farmstead in every country in Europe? Or at least every country in the European Union?
Well, I don't use google docs. But it would seem to be similar 'openess', as far as files from strangers online go.
If I did use google docs, I don't know that I would want to give access to it to every other stranger online either.
I had uploaded it to another file sharing site, that had it as a simple download, but that isn't active now, and I didn't have the time to do that again before posting. The site I listed still has the file active.
Do those Swedish people have to subsidize the people of the Hungarian countryside?
Your argument is also old and busted.
After repeatedly having the same reaction to these situations, I made a spreadsheet that compares the populations and sizes of US states and European countries. The first sheet is population, second is land area in square miles, and the third is population density per square mile. It also has columns on each page showing which countries are in the European Union, and which use the Euro as their currency.
Here is a link to it. They will send a link to your email address. Use it as you wish.
http://www.filehosting.org/fil...
2- it is a citizen's civic duty to pay his taxes. you like roads? you like a military? you like civilization in general? guess what. your taxes or GTFO my streets.
So the famous 47% who don't pay taxes don't get to use your streets? You elitist snob.
He wasn't asking about fraud or the full responsibility of the IRS. He was asking if their work lessens with a bad economy. Fewer people working does mean fewer people filing taxes. Level of fraud is immaterial to that point.
for every dollar spent on the IRS, government takes in 5-7 dollars.
Just because it collects the revenue does not mean it generates the revenue. You need to demonstrate that reducing the IRS's budget will, in fact, mean that people pay fewer taxes, which is a specious argument.
Also, dywolf, you say that as if it is the government's job to take money from private citizens. Some of us believe it takes too many dollars from citizens already. So your argument fails on two counts.
EXACTLY. As long as the tax code is ridiculously complicated, we're going to need ridiculously complicated bureaucracy and IT systems to manage and enforce that complexity. Let's see how well our new GOP overlords in Congress manage to legislate an actual reduction in tax code complexity, now that they have the gavel all to themselves in both the house and the senate.
Let's not bring the cart before the horse. If you want an IRS that can run on a shoestring budget, make a shoestring tax code that I can print on my home inkjet printer -- THE WHOLE CODE -- in under 5 minutes.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and fund the IRS so they can do what they are required to do by law.
I posted my plan above, but I'll copy it here for your perusal:
I think there should be one one federal income tax rate, and only one exemption. Make the rate whatever you want it to be, I don't care.
The one exemption will be the amount equal to 5 times the level of poverty for a person or family, at the location they live. Use the federal Cost of Living Allowance to factor the difference between poverty levels in California and Arkansas.
Anyone who reasonably believes their income for the year will fall below that level (five times their local poverty level for their family size), does not even have to have income tax removed from their paycheck. They still have FICA amount removed, but not the rest. Since they don't have any taxes removed, and they are under the exemption, they also don't have to file for a refund in the spring.
For those above that income level, they pay accordingly on the overage, with the correct percentage removed either each time for obvious cases, or once the limit is reached for the close cases. Cases of births, deaths, loss of job, etc will be worked out individually as needed.
Again, this covers Federal income tax. The states are free to do whatever they choose.
==================
End of above post.
The main points that would be needed to add would be
A) Income from investments, particularly when they are paid in lieu of a large salary such as Warren Buffet has popularized.
B) Business owners filling as individuals, deducting cost of business items (quick fix, incorporate or pay the tax).
C) Corporate taxes. But I bet I could reduced them to a single line of (Revenue - Expenses = Net). Not saying it's optimal, but it will print in under five minutes.
D) Individuals can form groups without having to ask permission from the government. Period.
That's all I got. Feel free to fine tune it and submit the bill to the House of Representatives.