Your argument is that the founders included the second amendment in the bill of rights to protect the government's right to assemble a militia because they were afraid that the government would limit the government's ability to raise an armed force? That's nonsensical.
Japanese Americans are just as American as anyone else, yet they manage to have as low a crime rate in this nation, that's awash with guns, as their counterparts who remained in Japan.
You, sir, haven't been shopping in a while. 91-30s have gone up to about $140 and M44s are over $200. The cheapest Mosin Nagants around now are the Chinese Type 53s. Those can be had for about $119.
Since Obama took office, Americans have been buying a gun every 1.85 seconds. Think about that for a minute. In the time it took me to type this message, that's 20 guns into distribution. In the time it took you to read it, that's 10 guns. In the time it takes you to check the math, that's another 6 guns.
It's going to take a lot to disarm this country. Thank God for that.
"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."
Learn what you're talking about before you opine.
I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Only if the general population becomes as ignorant as you.
Explain something to me. Why would the government need to add an entry into the "Bill of rights" to protect its own right to arm its soldiers? It goes without saying that soldiers would be armed. That's the entire fucking point of having soldiers. Why would they have to enshrine that ability in the "Bill of rights"?
Haven't you ever considered where this "living document" bullshit about the Constitution came from? If they can convince a critical mass of people that it's true, they won't have to amend the Constitution. They'll evolve it in the public mind and ignore they parts they don't like.
The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.
^This. Very much this.
If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.
You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?
Because the impracticality of enforcement is why we don't have more ridiculous, privacy invading laws.
What's to stop a politician from claiming an "open window loophole" that allows people to evade the tax on electricity for using air conditioning? So there is a $0.10 per hour per day per window tax on exploiting the open window loophole. They couldn't do this because enforcement would be impossible. Thousands of drones would make this possible. There is no constitutional right to having open windows. Since the outside of your house is in plain view of the public, you have no right to privacy to protect you from the observation of the outside of your house.
These technologies enable government to reach into more aspects of our lives. That's why I oppose any expansion of government power.
Not that anyone asked but I'm in favor of an "all of the above" approach. Continue to exploit current hydrocarbon sources, use nuclear, use solar, use wind, use geothermal and use emerging technologies to make other methods more environmentally friendly.
There is a lot of oil right here in North America, the advantage that OPEC has is that their countries tend to be brutal regimes that shut down environmental activism.
Evolution would select for people who are less susceptible to the negative effects of an illness. If people who believe in God get better results, they would be more likely to pass on their genes (including the ones that make belief in the unknowable possible, I have heard it called the God Gene) and their offspring would carry that trait.
Full disclosure, I'm a believer. I am also a scientist. I know that there is no rational basis for my belief. I know that the existence of God can not be scientifically or objectively proven but I believe anyway. The subjective experiences of my life have led me to my worldview.
A little over 1% of the US population make up the membership of the NRA. Love them or hate them, it's obvious that even a small group of people who unite to work for a cause can get a lot done. Something like a Fair Play Alliance, call it the FPA, would have to be organized and stage some high visibility events. Perhaps a few well places campaign donations could get some Senators and Congressmen on board. Petitions, phone campaigns, letter writing and publicity stunts would help but only if there was an organization behind them.
I don't care what two people want to call themselves. The effort to arrange, by judicial fiat, societal recognition of their relationship as a marriage is forcing the rest of us to not only acknowledge but to subsidize them.
If, when and where societies decide to change the definition of marriage, that's their prerogative. Our objection is to the use of judicial activism to force such things against the will of society. If a court decides that society doesn't have the ability to define marriage as it sees fit, then marriage becomes meaningless. If it's too arbitrary to limit marriage to one man and one woman, then it's also too arbitrary to limit it to two people.
In my country, when the question is put to the voters, we're pretty evenly split with only a sought advantage to those who are opposed. That will most likely change but until it does, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
No, they want to 'be the cool kid with the gun'. The rest is just the excuse.
If that were the case, they'd just go buy them. Before December, one could get an AR-15 lower receiver for under $100. That price is likely to return to being the norm in a few months. That's far less than the cost of even the cheapest 3D printer. This is obviously about principle, even if it's one that you don't agree with.
They also don't believe in freedom, like the freedom to marry whoever you want regardless of gender.
I prefer the freedom of not being forced to call your boyfriend your husband.
Clearly, you are are free to come to whatever conclusions you wish but I prefer the consequences of widespread firearms ownership to the consequences of widespread firearms prohibition.
In this country, we have thousands of people who are murdered with firearms. In Europe and Asia, we had millions of people who were murdered by their own governments. As much as I prefer it to be zero people murdered, thousands are better than millions.
So why do you think that advocating for the legalization of child porn possession makes them anti-freedom?
That's not my argument.
The ACLU is for an expansive interpretation of some parts of the constitution while at the same time arguing for a restricted interpretation of others.
The ACLU is a bunch of hypocritical assholes, pro "freedom" or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is that the founders included the second amendment in the bill of rights to protect the government's right to assemble a militia because they were afraid that the government would limit the government's ability to raise an armed force? That's nonsensical.
LK
Reading is fundamental.
Japanese Americans are just as American as anyone else, yet they manage to have as low a crime rate in this nation, that's awash with guns, as their counterparts who remained in Japan.
LK
That doesn't explain why they took the time and effort to codify the second amendment. The government doesn't need a bill of rights.
LK
He's a self-described anarchist.
LK
You, sir, haven't been shopping in a while. 91-30s have gone up to about $140 and M44s are over $200. The cheapest Mosin Nagants around now are the Chinese Type 53s. Those can be had for about $119.
LK
Since Obama took office, Americans have been buying a gun every 1.85 seconds. Think about that for a minute. In the time it took me to type this message, that's 20 guns into distribution. In the time it took you to read it, that's 10 guns. In the time it takes you to check the math, that's another 6 guns.
It's going to take a lot to disarm this country. Thank God for that.
LK
"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."
Learn what you're talking about before you opine.
I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.
Only if the general population becomes as ignorant as you.
Explain something to me. Why would the government need to add an entry into the "Bill of rights" to protect its own right to arm its soldiers? It goes without saying that soldiers would be armed. That's the entire fucking point of having soldiers. Why would they have to enshrine that ability in the "Bill of rights"?
LK
But Obama and Biden said so. It MUST be true!
LK
Haven't you ever considered where this "living document" bullshit about the Constitution came from? If they can convince a critical mass of people that it's true, they won't have to amend the Constitution. They'll evolve it in the public mind and ignore they parts they don't like.
LK
The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.
^This. Very much this.
If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.
LK
Like cocaine possession? Yeah, that worked out very well.
LK
You're worried that drones would allow them perfect enforcement of laws? How is this a bad thing exactly?
Because the impracticality of enforcement is why we don't have more ridiculous, privacy invading laws.
What's to stop a politician from claiming an "open window loophole" that allows people to evade the tax on electricity for using air conditioning? So there is a $0.10 per hour per day per window tax on exploiting the open window loophole. They couldn't do this because enforcement would be impossible. Thousands of drones would make this possible. There is no constitutional right to having open windows. Since the outside of your house is in plain view of the public, you have no right to privacy to protect you from the observation of the outside of your house.
These technologies enable government to reach into more aspects of our lives. That's why I oppose any expansion of government power.
LK
Not that anyone asked but I'm in favor of an "all of the above" approach. Continue to exploit current hydrocarbon sources, use nuclear, use solar, use wind, use geothermal and use emerging technologies to make other methods more environmentally friendly.
LK
There is a lot of oil right here in North America, the advantage that OPEC has is that their countries tend to be brutal regimes that shut down environmental activism.
LK
Evolution would select for people who are less susceptible to the negative effects of an illness. If people who believe in God get better results, they would be more likely to pass on their genes (including the ones that make belief in the unknowable possible, I have heard it called the God Gene) and their offspring would carry that trait.
Full disclosure, I'm a believer. I am also a scientist. I know that there is no rational basis for my belief. I know that the existence of God can not be scientifically or objectively proven but I believe anyway. The subjective experiences of my life have led me to my worldview.
LK
A little over 1% of the US population make up the membership of the NRA. Love them or hate them, it's obvious that even a small group of people who unite to work for a cause can get a lot done. Something like a Fair Play Alliance, call it the FPA, would have to be organized and stage some high visibility events. Perhaps a few well places campaign donations could get some Senators and Congressmen on board. Petitions, phone campaigns, letter writing and publicity stunts would help but only if there was an organization behind them.
LK
This isn't a legal thing or a government thing; it's a social and linguistic thing.
It's legal and it's political. Hence the recent cases before the Supreme Court.
LK
I don't care what two people want to call themselves. The effort to arrange, by judicial fiat, societal recognition of their relationship as a marriage is forcing the rest of us to not only acknowledge but to subsidize them.
That, sir or madame, is the crux of the fight.
LK
If, when and where societies decide to change the definition of marriage, that's their prerogative. Our objection is to the use of judicial activism to force such things against the will of society. If a court decides that society doesn't have the ability to define marriage as it sees fit, then marriage becomes meaningless. If it's too arbitrary to limit marriage to one man and one woman, then it's also too arbitrary to limit it to two people.
In my country, when the question is put to the voters, we're pretty evenly split with only a sought advantage to those who are opposed. That will most likely change but until it does, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
LK
Society.
The institution that defines such things.
LK
No, they want to 'be the cool kid with the gun'. The rest is just the excuse.
If that were the case, they'd just go buy them. Before December, one could get an AR-15 lower receiver for under $100. That price is likely to return to being the norm in a few months. That's far less than the cost of even the cheapest 3D printer. This is obviously about principle, even if it's one that you don't agree with.
They also don't believe in freedom, like the freedom to marry whoever you want regardless of gender.
I prefer the freedom of not being forced to call your boyfriend your husband.
LK
I guess that explains why Joe Biden is always talking about his shotgun.
LK
And they are used by children, most recently one that was 15, to protect their families from home invaders.
I'll take my chances this way. I prefer being armed to being a victim.
LK
Clearly, you are are free to come to whatever conclusions you wish but I prefer the consequences of widespread firearms ownership to the consequences of widespread firearms prohibition.
In this country, we have thousands of people who are murdered with firearms. In Europe and Asia, we had millions of people who were murdered by their own governments. As much as I prefer it to be zero people murdered, thousands are better than millions.
LK
So why do you think that advocating for the legalization of child porn possession makes them anti-freedom?
That's not my argument.
The ACLU is for an expansive interpretation of some parts of the constitution while at the same time arguing for a restricted interpretation of others.
The ACLU is a bunch of hypocritical assholes, pro "freedom" or otherwise.
LK