That guy is a blooming idiot! The defense lawyer knew more about IP addresses, routers, networks, and MAC addresses than they guy with an PhD in computer engineering! It was pretty entertaining reading.
Way too long and way to restrictive. Constitutional Amendments should be focused on one topic and should be worded with the intent of the amendment but allow for Congress to write implementation laws.
I, for one, welcome the debate, whatever the forum. Any chance we get to set the Liberals right and teach them how to actually read the Constitution and help them to understand that it does not bestow rights but prohibits the government from infringing on them is one we have to take.
On a personal note, dude, where do you live? I think I could stand beside you and take a few out too. I got your back, man.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "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 simple sentence, framed very specifically by the framers of the Constitution, has caused much debate. The first half of the sentence gives the reason for their belief in this right. However, the second half of the sentence is not dependent on the first half. Take the following sentence as an example.
A well educated populace, being necessary to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.
People have the right to keep and bear books but is is the reason they have the right because a well educated populace is necessary to the well being of a free state or should only well educated people have the right?
The framers were not stupid people. They knew exactly what they were writing. It is only over time that we have changed the meaning of what they wrote. The vernacular of our language has changed. The Federalist Papers were quite clear that this was the right of each individual Citizen of the United States.
This really is a moot point, because a militia is defined in United States Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311. It has two components. The first is the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia." The second class of militia is "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." Just because a militia is unorganized does not mean that it is not well regulated. The fact that United States law codifies an unorganized militia makes it well regulated. I, and most slashdot readers in the United States are members of the unorganized militia by default.
Also, no court that I am aware of, has ever ruled that the term "the people", in the United States Constitution, means anything other than an individual right. Look at everywhere in the Constitution where the term is used. It is very clear that each single instance reflects an individual right. Would the framers use the same term in the Second Amendment if they did not mean to recognize an individual right?
Also, the rights in the Constitution were so clear to them and they believed that they were bestowed by their Creator that they did not even put them in the original Constitution; however, many believed that they needed to be recognized formally and the Constitution was passed with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would soon follow to acknowledge those rights, not bestow them. The Constitution does not bestow rights to the people, it acknowledges that they exist and prohibits the United States Government from infringing upon them. The United States Constitution grants power to the United States Government and specifically limits that power. It does no more than that. Any law that runs contrary to that ideal is unconstitutional. But, courts sometimes forget that. As do many of the Citizens of the United States.
I know. It is mock latin. I figure if an "s" made you pull out your hair, that phrase would send you over the edge. The real phrase should be "Noli nothis permittere te terere." Wikipedia Article
More commonly said as "Veni, vidi, vici". (note: Latin typically does not use much punctuation and in most cases it does not matter what order in which you put the words; however, "it sounds better this way" and, of course, it is the way Ceasar said it.)
Message sent to the Roman Senate by Gaius Julius Cesar about his victory in the Battle of Zela. "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this article is floating around in email again... http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/nugent.asp
Besides, they are pretty wussy when it comes to standing up to thugs and terrorists.
That guy is a blooming idiot! The defense lawyer knew more about IP addresses, routers, networks, and MAC addresses than they guy with an PhD in computer engineering! It was pretty entertaining reading.
Ok, my bet is that I'm much better at this than some Walmart drone or Geek Squad wannabe.
So next time Windows fails to start, you'll know why!
Pretty sure that's not the main reason. :-(
Then again, probably not.
It's not too bad, once you set pretty much everything to "classic view"
How about a scanner that scans for commercial software and then recommends FOSS replacements for it?
The Cylons can't win if the BSG keeps running away! j/k
I guess it is gonna take that long for Matt Damon to learn how to overact.
The old adage still seems to hold: Even numbered Star Trek movies don't totally suck.
Actually, it DOES talk about Scotty, just not Sinise playing him. BTW, I'll watch any movie Sinise is in.
they would have seen this coming.
Where are Dr. Peter Venkman, Dr. Raymond Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, and Winston Zeddmore going to get letters of recommendations?
Way too long and way to restrictive. Constitutional Amendments should be focused on one topic and should be worded with the intent of the amendment but allow for Congress to write implementation laws.
Just my $.02
I, for one, welcome the debate, whatever the forum. Any chance we get to set the Liberals right and teach them how to actually read the Constitution and help them to understand that it does not bestow rights but prohibits the government from infringing on them is one we have to take.
On a personal note, dude, where do you live? I think I could stand beside you and take a few out too. I got your back, man.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:
"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 simple sentence, framed very specifically by the framers of the Constitution, has caused much debate. The first half of the sentence gives the reason for their belief in this right. However, the second half of the sentence is not dependent on the first half. Take the following sentence as an example.
A well educated populace, being necessary to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.
People have the right to keep and bear books but is is the reason they have the right because a well educated populace is necessary to the well being of a free state or should only well educated people have the right?
The framers were not stupid people. They knew exactly what they were writing. It is only over time that we have changed the meaning of what they wrote. The vernacular of our language has changed. The Federalist Papers were quite clear that this was the right of each individual Citizen of the United States.
This really is a moot point, because a militia is defined in United States Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311. It has two components. The first is the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia." The second class of militia is "the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." Just because a militia is unorganized does not mean that it is not well regulated. The fact that United States law codifies an unorganized militia makes it well regulated. I, and most slashdot readers in the United States are members of the unorganized militia by default.
Also, no court that I am aware of, has ever ruled that the term "the people", in the United States Constitution, means anything other than an individual right. Look at everywhere in the Constitution where the term is used. It is very clear that each single instance reflects an individual right. Would the framers use the same term in the Second Amendment if they did not mean to recognize an individual right?
Also, the rights in the Constitution were so clear to them and they believed that they were bestowed by their Creator that they did not even put them in the original Constitution; however, many believed that they needed to be recognized formally and the Constitution was passed with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would soon follow to acknowledge those rights, not bestow them. The Constitution does not bestow rights to the people, it acknowledges that they exist and prohibits the United States Government from infringing upon them. The United States Constitution grants power to the United States Government and specifically limits that power. It does no more than that. Any law that runs contrary to that ideal is unconstitutional. But, courts sometimes forget that. As do many of the Citizens of the United States.
To find out more about this crackpot, check out Bad Astronomy
'nuff said.
welcome our new Soylent Green economy.
You probably should have put this in the "Steve Irwin is Dead" section rather than the "What's in Your HTML Toolbox" section.
Yeah, I know what you mean...
I know. It is mock latin. I figure if an "s" made you pull out your hair, that phrase would send you over the edge. The real phrase should be "Noli nothis permittere te terere." Wikipedia Article
Whoosh. Yep, right over.
Illegitimi Non Carborundum.
More commonly said as "Veni, vidi, vici". (note: Latin typically does not use much punctuation and in most cases it does not matter what order in which you put the words; however, "it sounds better this way" and, of course, it is the way Ceasar said it.)
Message sent to the Roman Senate by Gaius Julius Cesar about his victory in the Battle of Zela. "I came, I saw, I conquered"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici