Mining was largely improved by technology and economic development, not regulation. If it was regulated out of existence mass suffering for all of society would have increased. Similarly, ban porn, and the suffering of performers increases.
I've posted this before, but the original language was
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
In my non-expert opinion the militia "preamble" is sort of relict of the language describing the right to be a conscientious objector. But, let's leave the quibbling over language to lawyers. The question is whether citizens should be considered too irresponsible to defend themselves, and the government should have an absolute monopoly on force. People on the left think so, though they are often reluctant to explicitly present their beliefs. Maybe because their conflict with the Constitution would be too obvious (Listen to their utter contempt for the "privileged white men" who created this country and this isn't really a surprise). The right at least talks about wanting to limit government, which was certainly the spirit of the Constitution, though they don't often live up to their role-models' example, since their kind of conservatism still values external control
And courts have ruled stop and frisk is a "reasonable" limitation to 4th Amendment rights, kind of like how gun registration, waiting periods, concealment limits, magazine limits, fees, etc., etc. are "reasonable" to the point where it's hard to find what freedom you are left with. Once you start balancing "government interests" with human interests, it's over, because government is obviously very very important .
The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia
No, it's not. Just like the 4th prohibits the government from searching the people the 2nd prohibits disarming the people. You get the lowest level of freedom you accept: you probably support NYC stop-and-frisk because you are scared of guns, so stop resisting government control and relax.
These "loopholes" are intended to be closed by a total firearms ban. They ban large magazines, but then "discover" that this requires banning guns that can accept magazines. Note that they didn't want to ban guns, they just had to in order to have reasonable controls on magazines!
"Rights free" might be more accurate since without freedom from arbitrary search/seizure/detention you really don't have any kind of person-hood. I guess you're right that extreme claims are less believable (though that's kind of like telling an anti-Nazi activist that no one will believe Jews are being exterminated so they should just publicize how they are being fed poorly or something), but on the other hand most people don't understand the significance of the Bill of Rights. Talk about government searches and 3/4 will drone on about "having nothing to hide". And meanwhile the government will be telling lurid tales of terrorists, drug-crazed maniacs, child sex slaves, etc. that will make your concerns seem extremely petty. Really, it doesn't matter how the objection is stated, because there are just too many malicious people.
Being in favour of higher taxes and a strong social welfare/benefit system really has almost nothing to do with your policies on gun control, which in turn usually has nothing to do with your policy on immigration.
Maybe not with logical necessity, but pretty much everyone who supports collective solutions will be opposed to individual rights like self-defense or even citizenship. They also believe in group ideology, so while comrades might stray from the message, they'll instantly retract their opinion if consensus requires it. Not because they were wrong or right, but because they realized they were being disobedient.
higher taxes may seem to be the opposite of "liberty"; but it's viewed in context of using the money to promote the liberty of those who have less without impinging TOO greatly on those who have more, increasing the baseline liberty enjoyed by citizens overall
Movies are still censored, because ratings are censorship. They aren't there to help audiences make informed choices, they are there to prevent audiences from seeing content. You can't make any movie you want, because it won't be advertised or shown unless it follows the guidelines. Scandinavia has degenerated into feminist extremism, and the goal is to prevent men from seeing sexual content as a way of controlling their thoughts and behavior. A ratings system that constrained the availability of porn to unshaven chubby lesbian soft-core might be implemented, but it wouldn't be about giving viewers choice.
USPS had to freeze some rates for years, and is only increasing stamps by.01 because of the US government's pretense that inflation doesn't exist anymore. Of course volume also fell a lot, and it's possible that raising rates too much would hurt it further, but they probably could be collecting at least a few billion more in revenue
The drone program is the best we can do in terms of precision right now; it leads to the least loss of innocent life that we can manage and still be effective against those who would destroy us.
Obama is not saying that assassinations will be limited to such camps, if such a camps even exist. At least for now staying locked with US borders should be safe, though "a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government" best characterizes the Democrat party, so I would stay away from them!
Pretty sure they took prisoners in the Civil War... They didn't just kill every person with a Southern drawl, they actually had to be shooting Northwards.
A show trial isn't legal, therefore no trial is? We have no idea who is being killed or why or what kind of danger these politicians sitting in their bunkers are putting us in in the name of unspecified "national interests"
Maybe you can say he's hijacked the moniker, but when all the "progressives" in office supported by most of the "progressive" voters aren't really progressive, you're going to need to come up with a different word to describe yourself.
Sounds like you're going to need a truck and repair skills. Let's say it's not that hard to find deals, but how many buyers could enter that market before prices increased or the supply became critically limited?
Well, he is probably over-protected, but if we're OK with hiring thousands of bodyguards for an expendable public servant (because it would look bad if he was killed) it's basically impossible to have too much protection for own lives, which actually matter to us. Yet the guy with thousands of free bodyguards wants to take away the protection we've provided for ourselves? That's the mentality of a king, who owns the country's resources, and has absolute control over his subjects.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
Really "well regulated militia" is only brought up in the context of reluctantly giving conscientious objectors a right not to be drafted, and is kind of superfluous after that part was left out during the revision process. Congress probably kept it because they liked the phrasing, though maybe there was some intent to protect organized militias.
What is that "bit about the militia"? Does it say that only mercenaries armed by the government are allowed guns by the government? Obviously not, it says that no government can interfere with citizens' right to be armed, because armed citizens are necessary to defend the nation's freedom. That we are "already restricting" arms doesn't prove that those restrictions are legitimate. The government cannot overturn the Bill of rights through regulations. And if licensing is a restriction in the dictionary, and in practice is used to almost completely prohibit automatic weapons, well then in what sense isn't it a restriction? You're looking for rabbit holes so hard you got you head stuck in one. But yeah, there can be no debate as long as you argue in bad faith by pretending you support the Bill of Rights.
Have you really lived until you've been arrested at gunpoint? Personally I hope they have a canine unit with them because I've always wanted to wrestle with a police dog.
Maybe when we have 1Gb/s. Otherwise you can't rely on open wifi to do much, because the first thing anyone who intentionally opens their AP is going to look into when there is a slowdown is freeloaders' throughput. Really the router should have some bandwidth limit or possibly a daily time limit per guest MAC address, though that wouldn't be considered a "solution" by the ISPs since there is no gun pointed at your head forcing you to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Mining was largely improved by technology and economic development, not regulation. If it was regulated out of existence mass suffering for all of society would have increased. Similarly, ban porn, and the suffering of performers increases.
If you can sample them, how about just liberate those kidnapped women? Oh, that's right, they're back working within a few days.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
In my non-expert opinion the militia "preamble" is sort of relict of the language describing the right to be a conscientious objector. But, let's leave the quibbling over language to lawyers. The question is whether citizens should be considered too irresponsible to defend themselves, and the government should have an absolute monopoly on force. People on the left think so, though they are often reluctant to explicitly present their beliefs. Maybe because their conflict with the Constitution would be too obvious (Listen to their utter contempt for the "privileged white men" who created this country and this isn't really a surprise). The right at least talks about wanting to limit government, which was certainly the spirit of the Constitution, though they don't often live up to their role-models' example, since their kind of conservatism still values external control
And courts have ruled stop and frisk is a "reasonable" limitation to 4th Amendment rights, kind of like how gun registration, waiting periods, concealment limits, magazine limits, fees, etc., etc. are "reasonable" to the point where it's hard to find what freedom you are left with. Once you start balancing "government interests" with human interests, it's over, because government is obviously very very important .
The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia
No, it's not. Just like the 4th prohibits the government from searching the people the 2nd prohibits disarming the people. You get the lowest level of freedom you accept: you probably support NYC stop-and-frisk because you are scared of guns, so stop resisting government control and relax.
These "loopholes" are intended to be closed by a total firearms ban. They ban large magazines, but then "discover" that this requires banning guns that can accept magazines. Note that they didn't want to ban guns, they just had to in order to have reasonable controls on magazines!
"Rights free" might be more accurate since without freedom from arbitrary search/seizure/detention you really don't have any kind of person-hood. I guess you're right that extreme claims are less believable (though that's kind of like telling an anti-Nazi activist that no one will believe Jews are being exterminated so they should just publicize how they are being fed poorly or something), but on the other hand most people don't understand the significance of the Bill of Rights. Talk about government searches and 3/4 will drone on about "having nothing to hide". And meanwhile the government will be telling lurid tales of terrorists, drug-crazed maniacs, child sex slaves, etc. that will make your concerns seem extremely petty. Really, it doesn't matter how the objection is stated, because there are just too many malicious people.
Being in favour of higher taxes and a strong social welfare/benefit system really has almost nothing to do with your policies on gun control, which in turn usually has nothing to do with your policy on immigration.
Maybe not with logical necessity, but pretty much everyone who supports collective solutions will be opposed to individual rights like self-defense or even citizenship. They also believe in group ideology, so while comrades might stray from the message, they'll instantly retract their opinion if consensus requires it. Not because they were wrong or right, but because they realized they were being disobedient.
higher taxes may seem to be the opposite of "liberty"; but it's viewed in context of using the money to promote the liberty of those who have less without impinging TOO greatly on those who have more, increasing the baseline liberty enjoyed by citizens overall
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
Movies are still censored, because ratings are censorship. They aren't there to help audiences make informed choices, they are there to prevent audiences from seeing content. You can't make any movie you want, because it won't be advertised or shown unless it follows the guidelines. Scandinavia has degenerated into feminist extremism, and the goal is to prevent men from seeing sexual content as a way of controlling their thoughts and behavior. A ratings system that constrained the availability of porn to unshaven chubby lesbian soft-core might be implemented, but it wouldn't be about giving viewers choice.
USPS had to freeze some rates for years, and is only increasing stamps by .01 because of the US government's pretense that inflation doesn't exist anymore. Of course volume also fell a lot, and it's possible that raising rates too much would hurt it further, but they probably could be collecting at least a few billion more in revenue
The Lenovo screen is probably borderline crap, so it's specs aren't really better, though I'll agree that it's a better value unless you are rich
The drone program is the best we can do in terms of precision right now; it leads to the least loss of innocent life that we can manage and still be effective against those who would destroy us.
Sure, if by "us" you mean the House of Saud.
Obama is not saying that assassinations will be limited to such camps, if such a camps even exist. At least for now staying locked with US borders should be safe, though "a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government" best characterizes the Democrat party, so I would stay away from them!
Pretty sure they took prisoners in the Civil War... They didn't just kill every person with a Southern drawl, they actually had to be shooting Northwards.
A show trial isn't legal, therefore no trial is? We have no idea who is being killed or why or what kind of danger these politicians sitting in their bunkers are putting us in in the name of unspecified "national interests"
Barack Obama: I am someone who is no doubt progressive
Maybe you can say he's hijacked the moniker, but when all the "progressives" in office supported by most of the "progressive" voters aren't really progressive, you're going to need to come up with a different word to describe yourself.
Sounds like you're going to need a truck and repair skills. Let's say it's not that hard to find deals, but how many buyers could enter that market before prices increased or the supply became critically limited?
Well, he is probably over-protected, but if we're OK with hiring thousands of bodyguards for an expendable public servant (because it would look bad if he was killed) it's basically impossible to have too much protection for own lives, which actually matter to us. Yet the guy with thousands of free bodyguards wants to take away the protection we've provided for ourselves? That's the mentality of a king, who owns the country's resources, and has absolute control over his subjects.
We're the ones who decide how much security our representative needs
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
Really "well regulated militia" is only brought up in the context of reluctantly giving conscientious objectors a right not to be drafted, and is kind of superfluous after that part was left out during the revision process. Congress probably kept it because they liked the phrasing, though maybe there was some intent to protect organized militias.
What is that "bit about the militia"? Does it say that only mercenaries armed by the government are allowed guns by the government? Obviously not, it says that no government can interfere with citizens' right to be armed, because armed citizens are necessary to defend the nation's freedom. That we are "already restricting" arms doesn't prove that those restrictions are legitimate. The government cannot overturn the Bill of rights through regulations. And if licensing is a restriction in the dictionary, and in practice is used to almost completely prohibit automatic weapons, well then in what sense isn't it a restriction? You're looking for rabbit holes so hard you got you head stuck in one. But yeah, there can be no debate as long as you argue in bad faith by pretending you support the Bill of Rights.
Have you really lived until you've been arrested at gunpoint? Personally I hope they have a canine unit with them because I've always wanted to wrestle with a police dog.
Tuition probably doesn't cover the cost of education. My private college at least boasted that they spent 2x the tuition per student.
What about the many al-Qeada operatives who were educated at Western universities?
Maybe when we have 1Gb/s. Otherwise you can't rely on open wifi to do much, because the first thing anyone who intentionally opens their AP is going to look into when there is a slowdown is freeloaders' throughput. Really the router should have some bandwidth limit or possibly a daily time limit per guest MAC address, though that wouldn't be considered a "solution" by the ISPs since there is no gun pointed at your head forcing you to do it.
They could label it as "Mad Cow Safe" if it wasn't tainted with beef...