Funny, I brought up that series last week on some article about a hyperion where the kids were trying to equate it to be about Borderlands like that is the first usage of the proper name...
Considering that the places with the highest gun crime (in the US) are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws, a good way to reduce gun deaths would be to repeal all restrictions on firearms.
What the second amendment says is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", the first part of the amendment is only the reason for this part. So, do you understand english?
The thing is, the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" seems to have been misunderstood by the Democratic party to mean that regulations have to be made, and certain people should not be allowed to own firearms. As the constitution is the highest law of the land, shouldn't there be penalties for intentionally working around it?
However there were Christian activists who did kill people over abortion.
Is it wrong for the state to put a serial murderer to death? This is what Christians believe abortion doctors are, yet rarely are there cases of violence against them.
Don't forget larger scale violence using religion as the excuse; Irish separatists in Northern Ireland
I don't recall the Irish Catholics having issues with England because they were protestant, I think it might have had more to do with oppression...but I could be wrong...
the crusades,
You mean the war started by Muslims invading Spain?
You and the AC totally ignored the comment I was replying to. I didn't ask anything about what the FBI is asking for. The OP stated that iOS is available to download online, as it doesn't include Apple's signing key, it isn't terribly useful for cracking the phone.
Considering I never advocated AGAINST any power type, I am not sure who you mean to be replying to.
You must have reading comprehension issues, or you are willfully ignoring the whole thread to attack specific points with strawmen. You are arguing against a whole conversation by trying to claim that the conversation wasn't about what it clearly is about if you read the whole thing, but keep up that tilting at windmills, I am sure you will get one of them eventually.
Name the article and clause of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to compel a company to allow them into their bank safe and access to the contents of a safety deposit box.
You are being disingenuous here, this is a power the government has, it is nothing different than asking a bank to grant access to a criminal's safety deposit box, or asking for help accessing a criminal's safe.
It is not my job to question the law, it is a metro station. Do you argue against the rule that no outside food or drink is allowed in theaters? Is it your option to ignore the rules because you don't agree with them?
I was pointing out that she was arrested for choosing to ignore the police officer when being cited, it sounds like you are the one being a dunce here.
Do you get to drive off because you think stopping for stop signs is stupid? Would you expect to get out of jail by saying that all stop signs should be replaced by yield signs and that you think you shouldn't have been getting a ticket for such a stupid law?
There was no mandatory ID, she did not get arrested or ticketed for not having ID. She got ticketed for eating in the Metro after the police officer warned her that it was against the rules. She was arrested for walking away and refusing to submit to getting a ticket once the police officer had begun writing a ticket. You can't just walk away from a police officer because you think the infraction is silly, it is the law, therefore the officer has the ability to enforce the law.
Um, what constitutional protection? The FBI went through a court, that is the extent of the protection the constitution guarentees with the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Do you try to say that there isn't probable cause, there want an Oath or affirmation, or that the thing to be searched was not described well enough?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, he was a scientist, we don't exactly prize them on their strength...
That's some serious horsepower...
They have a conversion rate to African Swallows, but the conversion between Swallow types is not standardized.
I could fit that 600 lbs in the bed of my truck...now we are back to a car analogy.
What, do they all work at NASA or something?
I am surprised to see that post coming from you. I agree though, cisgender has always seemed odd to me.
Funny, I brought up that series last week on some article about a hyperion where the kids were trying to equate it to be about Borderlands like that is the first usage of the proper name...
Considering that the places with the highest gun crime (in the US) are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws, a good way to reduce gun deaths would be to repeal all restrictions on firearms.
What the second amendment says is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", the first part of the amendment is only the reason for this part. So, do you understand english?
The thing is, the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" seems to have been misunderstood by the Democratic party to mean that regulations have to be made, and certain people should not be allowed to own firearms. As the constitution is the highest law of the land, shouldn't there be penalties for intentionally working around it?
They outsourced to IBM India apparently, so I am not sure why you would think they expected same continent support.
It's been a century since the Red October
The sub that Jack Ryan helped defect?
Yeah, I was thinking that turbidostato's statement matches Sander's platform much more than Trump.
However there were Christian activists who did kill people over abortion.
Is it wrong for the state to put a serial murderer to death? This is what Christians believe abortion doctors are, yet rarely are there cases of violence against them.
Don't forget larger scale violence using religion as the excuse; Irish separatists in Northern Ireland
I don't recall the Irish Catholics having issues with England because they were protestant, I think it might have had more to do with oppression...but I could be wrong...
the crusades,
You mean the war started by Muslims invading Spain?
https://www.google.com/search?...
A Muslim is a practitioner of Islam. Islamist is akin to talking about a Christian doing something.
You and the AC totally ignored the comment I was replying to. I didn't ask anything about what the FBI is asking for. The OP stated that iOS is available to download online, as it doesn't include Apple's signing key, it isn't terribly useful for cracking the phone.
Considering I never advocated AGAINST any power type, I am not sure who you mean to be replying to.
You must have reading comprehension issues, or you are willfully ignoring the whole thread to attack specific points with strawmen. You are arguing against a whole conversation by trying to claim that the conversation wasn't about what it clearly is about if you read the whole thing, but keep up that tilting at windmills, I am sure you will get one of them eventually.
Name the article and clause of the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to compel a company to allow them into their bank safe and access to the contents of a safety deposit box.
You are being disingenuous here, this is a power the government has, it is nothing different than asking a bank to grant access to a criminal's safety deposit box, or asking for help accessing a criminal's safe.
Does a bank get to refuse to help the police search a safety deposit box? This isn't legally any different.
Does the bank get to tell the police to shove off when they are trying to search a safety deposit box?
It is not my job to question the law, it is a metro station. Do you argue against the rule that no outside food or drink is allowed in theaters? Is it your option to ignore the rules because you don't agree with them?
I was pointing out that she was arrested for choosing to ignore the police officer when being cited, it sounds like you are the one being a dunce here.
Do you get to drive off because you think stopping for stop signs is stupid? Would you expect to get out of jail by saying that all stop signs should be replaced by yield signs and that you think you shouldn't have been getting a ticket for such a stupid law?
There was no mandatory ID, she did not get arrested or ticketed for not having ID. She got ticketed for eating in the Metro after the police officer warned her that it was against the rules. She was arrested for walking away and refusing to submit to getting a ticket once the police officer had begun writing a ticket. You can't just walk away from a police officer because you think the infraction is silly, it is the law, therefore the officer has the ability to enforce the law.
I am funny looking for sure....
Does this include Apple's signing key which is required to create a firmware image that the phone will run?
Um, what constitutional protection? The FBI went through a court, that is the extent of the protection the constitution guarentees with the fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Do you try to say that there isn't probable cause, there want an Oath or affirmation, or that the thing to be searched was not described well enough?