"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"
The fear of a slippery slope is not irrational when you have top anti-gun politicians on record as saying that eliminating ALL gun ownership is their true aim. Check out some of Dianne Feinstein's own remarks.
You raise some good points and I agree with your sentiment that as a country and society we should do much more to address mental health.
The tricky part for guns, and even universal healthcare in some respects, are those pesky Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Many argue that the federal government does not have the power (because of the 10th Amendment) to enact universal healthcare -- even if the majority thought it would be beneficial.
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment right belongs to the 'individual', even with the wording of 'militia'. Whether you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court, that's the current state of U.S. law. We do have an established process to amend the Constitution and if there are enough people to attempt amending it with respect to guns, go ahead and follow that process. Even if everyone agreed with your interpretation of 'militia', from a practical standpoint -- what would be realistically done with the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence? Wish them away?
Nicely put. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the individual right to gun ownership. Then taking into account the millions of existing guns, many of the knee-jerkers on slashdot cannot provide practical solutions with these realities in mind.
Yes, what happened today is a tragedy. It's terrible beyond words. I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on that community. But, despite the tragedy of today we cannot pretend that: (a) we have the reality of the 2nd Amendment, and (b) millions and millions of existing guns. All you knee-jerkers who have simple solutions to these problems, please address these realities in a practical and legal way.
You say "Remove the f****** guns and the legality for owning them...". 2 questions that I'd love to hear your answer for: (1) From a practical standpoint, how do we deal with the 2nd Amendment? (remember, we have an established process for changing the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court has already acknowledged the individual right to own a "gun"), and (2) From a practical standpoint, what do you do with the hundreds of millions (or however many there are) of guns that are already out in circulation?
The comparison with other countries often does not take into account the 2 questions that I posed above. So, your answers?
Agreed. The reality of the 2nd Amendment can't be ignored. We (United States) have an established process for amending the Constitution. If you think we should change the Constitution, fine -- but follow the law. And it's not okay to disregard the parts of the Constitution that you don't agree with.
Nicely worded. You nailed the reality that the anti-gun crowd has no practical answer to -- the existence of the millions of guns already out there. As you state, we could pass countless new laws, but what does any of that do with the guns already in existence? And then we have the issue of the 2nd Amendment -- regardless of how one feels about guns. It would not surprise me to see a 'clarification' of the 2nd Amendment regarding certain types of weapons (AR-15 type weapons) in my lifetime. However, even if that were to happen, there are still 200M+ guns out there. Any no matter what we do (or don't do), there will still be murders (sadly). It's not as if there were no murders before guns came into existence (even if we could magically eliminate all existing guns).
Your post provides a compact summary of a big part of the disagreements between the pro-gun and anti-gun sides -- the tradeoffs involved between government controls and individual freedoms.
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. The thing that I suspect is tricky in comparisons (of many kinds) between the US and countries like Japan is that I strongly suspect that their society/culture/values are much more homogenous (this is a guess on my part) than what exists in the US. I've also heard that, generally speaking, the Japanese are very polite people -- more so than the average American (probably true of many countries).
You've made a ton of comments in this thread, so you obviously have strong thoughts on this topic and appear to 'have all the answers'. By your own admission, "criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what the laws are" yet you also say (in the same post) "Making guns patently illegal is simply the only option that works". So, if you've already taken it that criminals will get guns no matter what you do, then the answer is to make guns illegal? You make absolutely no sense. Re-read your own words. Indisputable fact: there are millions and millions of guns (old, new, handguns, shotguns, rifles, legal ones, illegal ones, etc.) in possession of folks (some legally, and some illegally) in the United States. From a practical standpoint, what are you proposing?
I wouldn't call those good examples. Seatbelts come with all modern vehicles and not everyone even owns a car. Although motorcycle helmets must be worn in many states for street riders, not everyone owns or rides street motorcycles. Your examples are similar, but not a "good example".
Not really. The government doesn't mandate that you buy clothes -- just that you wear them. Probably not a meaningful difference for most people, but it may be for the Amish.
Indeed IBM was one of the pioneers (and still is) in virtualization. IBM still has VM (now called z/VM) and some shops use it to run Linux on zSeries (mainframe).
IBM also has some very impressive virtualization technology in their POWER series (combined pSeries and iSeries). Too bad they don't know how to market and compete as well as they should.
Additionally, most of these companies may have been better off writing their apps in VB or whatever other client/server (pre-web) development tool. At least they would likely be able to move to Windows 7 with more ease.
Slashdot Mirror
This part?
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"
or "I dropped it"
and affordable!
More violence and killings is the answer???
How well did prohibition work with banning alcohol? Ever hear of a speak easy?
How can any person "prove that they are a stable and responsible citizen"? Especially the 'stable' part.
The fear of a slippery slope is not irrational when you have top anti-gun politicians on record as saying that eliminating ALL gun ownership is their true aim. Check out some of Dianne Feinstein's own remarks.
Or have them reside in separate states -- which would probably just be a precursor to civil war 2.0.
You raise some good points and I agree with your sentiment that as a country and society we should do much more to address mental health.
The tricky part for guns, and even universal healthcare in some respects, are those pesky Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Many argue that the federal government does not have the power (because of the 10th Amendment) to enact universal healthcare -- even if the majority thought it would be beneficial.
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment right belongs to the 'individual', even with the wording of 'militia'. Whether you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court, that's the current state of U.S. law. We do have an established process to amend the Constitution and if there are enough people to attempt amending it with respect to guns, go ahead and follow that process. Even if everyone agreed with your interpretation of 'militia', from a practical standpoint -- what would be realistically done with the hundreds of millions of guns already in existence? Wish them away?
Nicely put. And the U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the individual right to gun ownership. Then taking into account the millions of existing guns, many of the knee-jerkers on slashdot cannot provide practical solutions with these realities in mind.
Yes, what happened today is a tragedy. It's terrible beyond words. I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on that community. But, despite the tragedy of today we cannot pretend that: (a) we have the reality of the 2nd Amendment, and (b) millions and millions of existing guns. All you knee-jerkers who have simple solutions to these problems, please address these realities in a practical and legal way.
You say "Remove the f****** guns and the legality for owning them...". 2 questions that I'd love to hear your answer for: (1) From a practical standpoint, how do we deal with the 2nd Amendment? (remember, we have an established process for changing the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court has already acknowledged the individual right to own a "gun"), and (2) From a practical standpoint, what do you do with the hundreds of millions (or however many there are) of guns that are already out in circulation?
The comparison with other countries often does not take into account the 2 questions that I posed above. So, your answers?
Agreed. The reality of the 2nd Amendment can't be ignored. We (United States) have an established process for amending the Constitution. If you think we should change the Constitution, fine -- but follow the law. And it's not okay to disregard the parts of the Constitution that you don't agree with.
Nicely worded. You nailed the reality that the anti-gun crowd has no practical answer to -- the existence of the millions of guns already out there. As you state, we could pass countless new laws, but what does any of that do with the guns already in existence? And then we have the issue of the 2nd Amendment -- regardless of how one feels about guns. It would not surprise me to see a 'clarification' of the 2nd Amendment regarding certain types of weapons (AR-15 type weapons) in my lifetime. However, even if that were to happen, there are still 200M+ guns out there. Any no matter what we do (or don't do), there will still be murders (sadly). It's not as if there were no murders before guns came into existence (even if we could magically eliminate all existing guns).
Your post provides a compact summary of a big part of the disagreements between the pro-gun and anti-gun sides -- the tradeoffs involved between government controls and individual freedoms.
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. The thing that I suspect is tricky in comparisons (of many kinds) between the US and countries like Japan is that I strongly suspect that their society/culture/values are much more homogenous (this is a guess on my part) than what exists in the US. I've also heard that, generally speaking, the Japanese are very polite people -- more so than the average American (probably true of many countries).
You've made a ton of comments in this thread, so you obviously have strong thoughts on this topic and appear to 'have all the answers'. By your own admission, "criminals will get their hands on guns no matter what the laws are" yet you also say (in the same post) "Making guns patently illegal is simply the only option that works". So, if you've already taken it that criminals will get guns no matter what you do, then the answer is to make guns illegal? You make absolutely no sense. Re-read your own words. Indisputable fact: there are millions and millions of guns (old, new, handguns, shotguns, rifles, legal ones, illegal ones, etc.) in possession of folks (some legally, and some illegally) in the United States. From a practical standpoint, what are you proposing?
Das Packard Bell -- ist nicht jus fur Walmart anymur
Like operator[]?
std::vector<int> myNumbers;
myNumbers.push_back(1);
myNumbers.push_back(2);
myNumbers.push_back(3);
int theValueTwo = myNumbers[1];
I wouldn't call those good examples. Seatbelts come with all modern vehicles and not everyone even owns a car. Although motorcycle helmets must be worn in many states for street riders, not everyone owns or rides street motorcycles. Your examples are similar, but not a "good example".
Not really. The government doesn't mandate that you buy clothes -- just that you wear them. Probably not a meaningful difference for most people, but it may be for the Amish.
Indeed IBM was one of the pioneers (and still is) in virtualization. IBM still has VM (now called z/VM) and some shops use it to run Linux on zSeries (mainframe).
IBM also has some very impressive virtualization technology in their POWER series (combined pSeries and iSeries). Too bad they don't know how to market and compete as well as they should.
Dear DOJ,
Each step you take like this causes us to take one step closer to a revolution.
Sincerely,
Cranky citizens
Sounds like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already done just that.
Well said!
Additionally, most of these companies may have been better off writing their apps in VB or whatever other client/server (pre-web) development tool. At least they would likely be able to move to Windows 7 with more ease.