After I re-read the article, I realize that Kevin Partner does not understand copyright law, nor does he understand anything that he wrote his article about. This was also commented on in the original article. The Autodesk decision, decided by a court of law and not some obscure "journalist", completely disagrees with the author.
Sure, owning one copy of an intellectual property does not provide the owner with the right to copy and distribute said property, but it does give the owner the right to use the property any way they see fit and for however long they wish.
..., then that employer owns the work the employee has done. This is not difficult to understand. If I pay some third-party to do a job for me that requires custom-made coding, then I own the code. If I pay a landscaper to landscape my property, then I own the landscaping and continue to own the property after the job is done.
It is time for everyone to realize that you own nothing that you were paid to do.
Sadly, this seems to be the way this country is moving. Too many people attempt to attach "scarlet letters" on anyone they deem bad(and I believe animal abusers to be bad people). The problem is that the intentions of this bill is one thing, but the implementation of the bill will be another.
Some idiot law maker or enforcement official will attempt to list a person, or people, who were never supposed to end up on the list and this will end up a catch all for all sorts of criminals. The fact is that, once a person serves their punishment, then they are supposed to be free of any future retribution for that particular violation. Just look at the State I live in(Georgia) and our sex offender registry.
Rather recently, non-sex offenders have ended up on the Sex Offender Registry due a change in the law here and Georgia is not the only state to do this. I applaud the legislature's intentions, but it was ended up causing a lot of extra grief and undue burden on the people who have to maintain that list. Now, many felonies that simply involves a minor(some that are even non-violent) are qualifying people for the sex offender registry. Those people have to check in with local law enforcement when the move in to the area and they have to check-in and maintain the other requirements of those on the sex offender registry.
I foresee this bill, should it become law, having major challenges and being defeated fairly quickly. It also shows the dangerous course the United States is on.
I would just like to say that I did call this one. There was a person or two who tried to say that I was an idiot and did not know what I was talking about, but I knew this would be cracked in no time.
What about the rights of the soldiers that were captures in the Memorial? The creator profited from those guys, but it is not ok for a semi-governmental corporation to honors the men that raised the flag and the men and women of the United States Military. This is just another example of judicial activism.
This is essentially propaganda to attempt to scare people away from "hacking" the game. I give the programming community about a three days and then we will see all sorts of "hacks" for the internet requirement. I expect we will see a lawsuit about a week or two from release to force Ubisoft to patch the internet requirement out of the game. Of course, it will take some time to fight the lawsuit, but I can see the courts not liking a company requiring customers to have an internet connection to use software that makes little to no use of said internet connection.
What Ubisoft fails to realize is that many customers are not going to pay for this game. This is not like the irritation that Infinity Ward put on gamers, where they took away dedicated servers, or other little irritations from other games. This is going to deeply impact customers who are hit with internet connection loss(hell, look at the northeastern United States and all that bad weather). What about all of the customers that are without any type of broadband connection? Dialup and highly unreliable.
I live out in such an area and I am stuck with using Verizon Wireless Mobile Broadband. With the 5 GB limit, I could not afford to play this game. With the other uses I have for my meager data limit, I cannot afford to have saved games transferring over the internet. This is beyond the pail. While I believe it is within Ubisoft's right to ruin their game any way they see fit, they do not have the right to dictate how the customer uses said game after purchase.
As much of an avid gamer that I am, these practices are starting to turn me off from gaming a little. I will just have to work hard to discover new game authors/producers that do not mistreat their customers that Ubisoft is.
One other thing I do not understand is Ubisoft's arrogance. World of Warcraft, one of the most successful and highly funded games that only functions online is rife with people that have written all sorts of emulators that allows a user to gain access to the game outside of Blizzard's authorized servers. What makes Ubisoft think they can create a solution to a problem that other studios with far more experience with online content cannot?
If law enforcement in that area, along with the DA, are willing to do their jobs, then I foresee serious criminal charges for the person or people involved with this mess. As agents of the government, which any government employee is, such a person or people must have a warrant in order to engage in such activities. Since this spying was going on in the student's home and not at school, the school official(s) cannot claim they were within their right to spy.
Looking a computer logs, while a stretch itself, might be legal in some circumstances, actively spying on a person's activities in their home is highly illegal. This should get very interesting, if the people involved with bringing the lawsuit are willing to go the distance with the case.
Wow, you are in serious need of a proper education in discussing topics with people. I am not sure where you learned your manners, but it is obvious that you are in need of some assistance in improving your interpersonal skills. You are obviously in need of a good dictionary, and possibly a thesaurus.
I am not "pushing the creationists' wedge", nor am I "trying to subvert the nation to a Christian viewpoint"(as it already has one). I am also not destroying the education of the children in the U.S., as people like you have already done that. I also do not want or need hugs and cuddles.
Perhaps you should rethink this approach to Christians when engaging in arguments. While you may think it is something that is "new and hip", it is really a tired and overused rant that does little to help your cause. You certain could use some self-reflection time, as it seems you have a lot of built up anger and that you are focusing this anger in the direction. There is nothing that you will ever be able to say to me that will cause me to be defeated.
You can try and act like some bad ass, but there is nothing that you can say, type, draw, video, or smoke signal to me that will impress me. If you want to be impressive, then how about you premise your argument a little better. A third grader could argue his or her point far better than you have.
My post was, in no way, flame bait or a trolling attempt. Just because I say something that someone or multiple people disagree with, it does not make it flame bait. I guess you, and others, should be less sensitive when having arguments(I am talking about discussions, not "flame wars").
I am scared of nothing. I live my life the way I wish to live my life. I am also not scared to discuss issues that others consider "controversial" just because it might hurt someone's feelings. I do not go out of my way to say something that will upset someone, but I will not pussyfoot my way around saying what I am thinking. If we had more people like this, the world would be a better place.
I personally do not believe that your disbelief is from a mental disorder, just as my belief in God is not from a mental disorder. I really do not understand what non-believers are so worried about. If I am so crazy or mentally retarded, then why do people fall over themselves so much to discredit me? Why not just ignore me, if everything I believe in is so wrong?
If you do not wish to believe in God, then that is between you and God. It takes a really blind person to believe that we are only here and when we die it is all over. Perhaps you read too much Tolstoy, Camus, etc. Perhaps denomination nuts bashed you or those you know for not singing loud enough. If you had a bad experience with a Christian, then I apologize for that.
While I am a Christian, I am not a "social" Christian. I do not attend church, as I am not worried about who sees me in church. I do not beat people over the head with a Bible. I actually am friends with Christians and non-Christians alike. I do not get hung up with such titles. If my non-Christians friends want to become a Christian, then I am there to help.
I do not associate myself with being a baptist, catholic, methodist, etc. I follow the Bible and what I feel God wants for me(many times, I make mistakes in trying to understand such things). In the end, I hope that I do the right thing with myself. The mistakes I make I will deal with between God and myself.
I have a fear of heights myself, but I push through my fears. I had to push through a lot of my fears while serving in law enforcement. I disregarded fear and ended up losing most of the use of one leg because of it. I do not regret it and it actually opened up a new opportunity for me: College. I now have a double major and I am working on graduate school.
I have no trouble tolerating you. I disagree with your views, but it does not mean that I am intolerant of you. In the end, this discussion will go nowhere. Such arguments are lacking, as it is extremely hard to premise an argument properly in text on anonymous discussion boards.
That does not mean that such discussions cannot take place, but they are just extremely difficult to execute properly. We can fight forever, but it will get us nowhere. Changing people's minds is not within my power and I am not arrogant enough to believe that it is.
Regardless, I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe in.
So, you consider me your foe for saying something that you disagree with? You are a rather sad individual and should not be the one discussing "neutral evaluation". Of course, this is the "liberal" way of dealing with opposition.
Instead of respecting a person's right to hold certain views, that person must become the enemy.
It is not a theory; it is a fact. A majority of humans believe in a stronger, outside force. Essentially, they believe in God or something similar to God. This is not difficult to understand, as you can search online to find such information.
While I respect someone's decision to not believe in God, I do not respect people's decision to falsify information to demean another person's or group's beliefs. I expect people to respect my right to believe that God is real and for them to do so without trying to claim I suffer from retardation.
While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit. Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status". This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people. What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma? I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.
Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.
You do understand that Bill Clinton was doing the exact same thing that Bush had been and Obama is doing, right? Bill Clinton started a lot of the phone monitoring that Bush increased. The fact is that any president is going to push the envelop on what is possible, as will anyone that is engaged in any activity. It is only when a person is slapped with an order to stop fucking around that they will actually consider it. Probably.
The fact that the Justice Department is claiming this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a real problem. Yeah, they may continually violate people's right, but it is humorous that the government would be dumb enough to use such a stupid, untrue argument. Thank god for this "Hope" and "Change".
Since you obviously do not have a degree in any sort of history, political science, or any other type of relevant degree, then I would suggest that you refrain from talking on the subject. While you are entitled to you opinion, it is not based on fact. Here, allow me you educate you, if only a little.
You see, Lincoln believe that just because secession was not written into the U.S. Constitution, no state could secede. That is all well and good, except that such a view point has no basis in reality. You see, the framers, being the geniuses that they are, knew that some bureaucratic assholes would try to tell be that if a given "right" was not in "black and white", then people and/or other entities would not have it.
The Tenth Amendment stands in the most strictest of oppositions to anything you might try to put into print. I do not care what the courts try to tell people, they cannot overturn the Constitution, nor any of the amendments attached to it. If the south had been more power than the rest of the Union, then the United States would have lost the confederate states. Would I want such a thing to occur? No, has it makes all the states weak and it weakens the Federal Government and it would have made an even weaker Confederate government.
The thing I am tired of is the Federal Government becoming something that it was never intended to be. The states were to be the higher power and the Federal Government was simply supposed to be a consolidation of the states' power to focus on issues that lay outside of the United States, as well as a check and balance on every state. If you had actually read all of the Federalist papers, which I have, and also acquired a good understanding of the papers, which I have, then you would know how messed up the Federal Government is.
Of course, the state governments are not without their own blame. No matter how much anyone believes we have become more "sophisticated" as a civilization, nothing could really be further from the truth. Hell, there are many people around me, here in the south, that believe the Civil War is still raging.
Some elsewhere in the Union, are deluded into the same belief.
I suggest that Jorge tell Rick McCallum to go away and hire Mr. Plinkett: http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia At least the guy can point the series in the proper direction.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.
That is not legal, as no person or other entity has the constitutional right to force anything to claim allegiance to any person or entity(within the United States, of course). Since I doubt North Carolina would have the balls to do any of that today(as most of the first half on that document came out of Reconstruction), I doubt anyone will try to challenge it in court.
As a "F.Y.I." moment, did you know that Texas has it written in their Constitution(sort of) the right to secession from the Union? Lincoln did believe that secession never occurred, because it was not covered in the Constitution, but since entrance into the Union was and still is voluntary and really any state could secede. The problem is that most states have written an allegiance to the Constitution and the U.S Government, whereas Texas only swears allegiance to the Constitution alone.
Now, go forth and impress your history teacher/professor.
The United States is not a democracy and it never was. It is a representative democratic republic. I am not trying to be an ass, I am just tell you what anyone(in the United States) would know, if they had taken an Intro to American Government course in college. Politicians are the elected representatives that we put into power. They are elected to make decisions for us and it is our job to make sure they are doing what we want. Our only recourse is to discuss the issues with the politician, or elect the out of office.
We do not need a revolution and it is highly doubtful that another one will occur. Our governments(federal, state, and local) are working as they are supposed to, more or less. The problem is that there have been too many idiots that have taken the majority of the vote and swung it into their wants and needs. If you want change, then you have to go after it.
Pinpoint the problems in your governmental representatives and campaign against them. That is how change will occur. Ranting about it on some internet site will change nothing.
Oh, here we go. Throwing around unfounded "facts" about death rates in the US, compared to countries that outright ban or highly restrict citizen ownership of firearms. Do you think that just because the government forbids citizens from owning firearms criminals will listen? So, I guess that Australia has no crime and no death that arise from criminal activity. I guess Australia is the ultimate utopia.
The fact remains that criminals will always have access to weapons(firearms, knives, etc) and no matter how fast someone calls for police assistance, the victim will always obtain great injury or death. The fact also remains that it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to provide assistance to an individual citizen. Sure, most will, but they are not required to(many country's courts have held this fact to be true).
When you are faced with a criminal or an angry acquaintance that has a deadly weapon, would you rather be in possession of a phone or a firearm? Sure, you will probably give me some "politically correct" response, but I will bet that, in that situation, you would give everything you have for a weapon. There are few intelligent people that would choose the phone in such an instance.
Given the fact that I was in law enforcement for a number of years and have experience with such issues, I feel my point has a good standing in reality. Just because I carry a firearm, it does not mean I "worship" it. I carry money, and do not worship that either.
I was simply drawing a connection to both events, but you seemed to find is a good time to kick up some argument on firearms. You cannot even premise your argument well enough to get me more interested in bothering with it. I could write 100 pages on how flawed your ideology is, but I doubt anyone would read it.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but keep it on topic.
I do enjoy shooting gun and I enjoy owning them. I enjoy carrying them and learning more about them. Saying that a person that stands up for their rights is completely stupid. Owning firearms is not just about being able to assist during an invasion; it is about providing yourself with proper protection from any enemy.
Regardless, this is off-topic and I can see that you are simply an idiot looking to start an argument.
While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical, such a law would not stop me from saying what I want. It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law. Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups?
This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country. First, they made the citizens register all the weapons, then they forced them to give the weapons up. Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to "get real" and to deal with "living in a modern society" did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next. Well, let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs. When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights, they will take them away.
Slashdot Mirror
After I re-read the article, I realize that Kevin Partner does not understand copyright law, nor does he understand anything that he wrote his article about. This was also commented on in the original article. The Autodesk decision, decided by a court of law and not some obscure "journalist", completely disagrees with the author.
Sure, owning one copy of an intellectual property does not provide the owner with the right to copy and distribute said property, but it does give the owner the right to use the property any way they see fit and for however long they wish.
..., then that employer owns the work the employee has done. This is not difficult to understand. If I pay some third-party to do a job for me that requires custom-made coding, then I own the code. If I pay a landscaper to landscape my property, then I own the landscaping and continue to own the property after the job is done.
It is time for everyone to realize that you own nothing that you were paid to do.
Sadly, this seems to be the way this country is moving. Too many people attempt to attach "scarlet letters" on anyone they deem bad(and I believe animal abusers to be bad people). The problem is that the intentions of this bill is one thing, but the implementation of the bill will be another.
Some idiot law maker or enforcement official will attempt to list a person, or people, who were never supposed to end up on the list and this will end up a catch all for all sorts of criminals. The fact is that, once a person serves their punishment, then they are supposed to be free of any future retribution for that particular violation. Just look at the State I live in(Georgia) and our sex offender registry.
Rather recently, non-sex offenders have ended up on the Sex Offender Registry due a change in the law here and Georgia is not the only state to do this. I applaud the legislature's intentions, but it was ended up causing a lot of extra grief and undue burden on the people who have to maintain that list. Now, many felonies that simply involves a minor(some that are even non-violent) are qualifying people for the sex offender registry. Those people have to check in with local law enforcement when the move in to the area and they have to check-in and maintain the other requirements of those on the sex offender registry.
I foresee this bill, should it become law, having major challenges and being defeated fairly quickly. It also shows the dangerous course the United States is on.
I would just like to say that I did call this one. There was a person or two who tried to say that I was an idiot and did not know what I was talking about, but I knew this would be cracked in no time.
No, if it takes them longer, then it takes them longer. Just what the fuck was the point of your comment?
You would do better to keep these comments to yourself.
What about the rights of the soldiers that were captures in the Memorial? The creator profited from those guys, but it is not ok for a semi-governmental corporation to honors the men that raised the flag and the men and women of the United States Military. This is just another example of judicial activism.
I see that you are too much of a coward to post this shit under your username.
This is essentially propaganda to attempt to scare people away from "hacking" the game. I give the programming community about a three days and then we will see all sorts of "hacks" for the internet requirement. I expect we will see a lawsuit about a week or two from release to force Ubisoft to patch the internet requirement out of the game. Of course, it will take some time to fight the lawsuit, but I can see the courts not liking a company requiring customers to have an internet connection to use software that makes little to no use of said internet connection.
What Ubisoft fails to realize is that many customers are not going to pay for this game. This is not like the irritation that Infinity Ward put on gamers, where they took away dedicated servers, or other little irritations from other games. This is going to deeply impact customers who are hit with internet connection loss(hell, look at the northeastern United States and all that bad weather). What about all of the customers that are without any type of broadband connection? Dialup and highly unreliable.
I live out in such an area and I am stuck with using Verizon Wireless Mobile Broadband. With the 5 GB limit, I could not afford to play this game. With the other uses I have for my meager data limit, I cannot afford to have saved games transferring over the internet. This is beyond the pail. While I believe it is within Ubisoft's right to ruin their game any way they see fit, they do not have the right to dictate how the customer uses said game after purchase.
As much of an avid gamer that I am, these practices are starting to turn me off from gaming a little. I will just have to work hard to discover new game authors/producers that do not mistreat their customers that Ubisoft is.
One other thing I do not understand is Ubisoft's arrogance. World of Warcraft, one of the most successful and highly funded games that only functions online is rife with people that have written all sorts of emulators that allows a user to gain access to the game outside of Blizzard's authorized servers. What makes Ubisoft think they can create a solution to a problem that other studios with far more experience with online content cannot?
If law enforcement in that area, along with the DA, are willing to do their jobs, then I foresee serious criminal charges for the person or people involved with this mess. As agents of the government, which any government employee is, such a person or people must have a warrant in order to engage in such activities. Since this spying was going on in the student's home and not at school, the school official(s) cannot claim they were within their right to spy.
Looking a computer logs, while a stretch itself, might be legal in some circumstances, actively spying on a person's activities in their home is highly illegal. This should get very interesting, if the people involved with bringing the lawsuit are willing to go the distance with the case.
Wow, you are in serious need of a proper education in discussing topics with people. I am not sure where you learned your manners, but it is obvious that you are in need of some assistance in improving your interpersonal skills. You are obviously in need of a good dictionary, and possibly a thesaurus.
I am not "pushing the creationists' wedge", nor am I "trying to subvert the nation to a Christian viewpoint"(as it already has one). I am also not destroying the education of the children in the U.S., as people like you have already done that. I also do not want or need hugs and cuddles.
Perhaps you should rethink this approach to Christians when engaging in arguments. While you may think it is something that is "new and hip", it is really a tired and overused rant that does little to help your cause. You certain could use some self-reflection time, as it seems you have a lot of built up anger and that you are focusing this anger in the direction. There is nothing that you will ever be able to say to me that will cause me to be defeated.
You can try and act like some bad ass, but there is nothing that you can say, type, draw, video, or smoke signal to me that will impress me. If you want to be impressive, then how about you premise your argument a little better. A third grader could argue his or her point far better than you have.
My post was, in no way, flame bait or a trolling attempt. Just because I say something that someone or multiple people disagree with, it does not make it flame bait. I guess you, and others, should be less sensitive when having arguments(I am talking about discussions, not "flame wars").
I am scared of nothing. I live my life the way I wish to live my life. I am also not scared to discuss issues that others consider "controversial" just because it might hurt someone's feelings. I do not go out of my way to say something that will upset someone, but I will not pussyfoot my way around saying what I am thinking. If we had more people like this, the world would be a better place.
I personally do not believe that your disbelief is from a mental disorder, just as my belief in God is not from a mental disorder. I really do not understand what non-believers are so worried about. If I am so crazy or mentally retarded, then why do people fall over themselves so much to discredit me? Why not just ignore me, if everything I believe in is so wrong?
If you do not wish to believe in God, then that is between you and God. It takes a really blind person to believe that we are only here and when we die it is all over. Perhaps you read too much Tolstoy, Camus, etc. Perhaps denomination nuts bashed you or those you know for not singing loud enough. If you had a bad experience with a Christian, then I apologize for that.
While I am a Christian, I am not a "social" Christian. I do not attend church, as I am not worried about who sees me in church. I do not beat people over the head with a Bible. I actually am friends with Christians and non-Christians alike. I do not get hung up with such titles. If my non-Christians friends want to become a Christian, then I am there to help.
I do not associate myself with being a baptist, catholic, methodist, etc. I follow the Bible and what I feel God wants for me(many times, I make mistakes in trying to understand such things). In the end, I hope that I do the right thing with myself. The mistakes I make I will deal with between God and myself.
I have a fear of heights myself, but I push through my fears. I had to push through a lot of my fears while serving in law enforcement. I disregarded fear and ended up losing most of the use of one leg because of it. I do not regret it and it actually opened up a new opportunity for me: College. I now have a double major and I am working on graduate school.
I have no trouble tolerating you. I disagree with your views, but it does not mean that I am intolerant of you. In the end, this discussion will go nowhere. Such arguments are lacking, as it is extremely hard to premise an argument properly in text on anonymous discussion boards.
That does not mean that such discussions cannot take place, but they are just extremely difficult to execute properly. We can fight forever, but it will get us nowhere. Changing people's minds is not within my power and I am not arrogant enough to believe that it is.
Regardless, I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe in.
So, you consider me your foe for saying something that you disagree with? You are a rather sad individual and should not be the one discussing "neutral evaluation". Of course, this is the "liberal" way of dealing with opposition.
Instead of respecting a person's right to hold certain views, that person must become the enemy.
It is not a theory; it is a fact. A majority of humans believe in a stronger, outside force. Essentially, they believe in God or something similar to God. This is not difficult to understand, as you can search online to find such information.
While I respect someone's decision to not believe in God, I do not respect people's decision to falsify information to demean another person's or group's beliefs. I expect people to respect my right to believe that God is real and for them to do so without trying to claim I suffer from retardation.
While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit. Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status". This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people. What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma? I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.
Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.
You do understand that Bill Clinton was doing the exact same thing that Bush had been and Obama is doing, right? Bill Clinton started a lot of the phone monitoring that Bush increased. The fact is that any president is going to push the envelop on what is possible, as will anyone that is engaged in any activity. It is only when a person is slapped with an order to stop fucking around that they will actually consider it. Probably.
The fact that the Justice Department is claiming this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a real problem. Yeah, they may continually violate people's right, but it is humorous that the government would be dumb enough to use such a stupid, untrue argument. Thank god for this "Hope" and "Change".
The Autodesk opinion is calling you a fucking idiot liar. When you purchase software, you OWN that copy of the software forever.
http://bit.ly/ct8D08 (that is to lawupdates.com)
Where do you people come up with this foolishness? So, you put up your corporation and I will raise you an opinion that really matters.
Since you obviously do not have a degree in any sort of history, political science, or any other type of relevant degree, then I would suggest that you refrain from talking on the subject. While you are entitled to you opinion, it is not based on fact. Here, allow me you educate you, if only a little.
You see, Lincoln believe that just because secession was not written into the U.S. Constitution, no state could secede. That is all well and good, except that such a view point has no basis in reality. You see, the framers, being the geniuses that they are, knew that some bureaucratic assholes would try to tell be that if a given "right" was not in "black and white", then people and/or other entities would not have it.
The Tenth Amendment stands in the most strictest of oppositions to anything you might try to put into print. I do not care what the courts try to tell people, they cannot overturn the Constitution, nor any of the amendments attached to it. If the south had been more power than the rest of the Union, then the United States would have lost the confederate states. Would I want such a thing to occur? No, has it makes all the states weak and it weakens the Federal Government and it would have made an even weaker Confederate government.
The thing I am tired of is the Federal Government becoming something that it was never intended to be. The states were to be the higher power and the Federal Government was simply supposed to be a consolidation of the states' power to focus on issues that lay outside of the United States, as well as a check and balance on every state. If you had actually read all of the Federalist papers, which I have, and also acquired a good understanding of the papers, which I have, then you would know how messed up the Federal Government is.
Of course, the state governments are not without their own blame. No matter how much anyone believes we have become more "sophisticated" as a civilization, nothing could really be further from the truth. Hell, there are many people around me, here in the south, that believe the Civil War is still raging.
Some elsewhere in the Union, are deluded into the same belief.
I suggest that Jorge tell Rick McCallum to go away and hire Mr. Plinkett: http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia At least the guy can point the series in the proper direction.
There is a big issue with this portion:
Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.
That is not legal, as no person or other entity has the constitutional right to force anything to claim allegiance to any person or entity(within the United States, of course). Since I doubt North Carolina would have the balls to do any of that today(as most of the first half on that document came out of Reconstruction), I doubt anyone will try to challenge it in court.
As a "F.Y.I." moment, did you know that Texas has it written in their Constitution(sort of) the right to secession from the Union? Lincoln did believe that secession never occurred, because it was not covered in the Constitution, but since entrance into the Union was and still is voluntary and really any state could secede. The problem is that most states have written an allegiance to the Constitution and the U.S Government, whereas Texas only swears allegiance to the Constitution alone.
Now, go forth and impress your history teacher/professor.
I mean, it is just easier to keep lying to people to get them to believe what you want them to believe. It works for politicians.
The United States is not a democracy and it never was. It is a representative democratic republic. I am not trying to be an ass, I am just tell you what anyone(in the United States) would know, if they had taken an Intro to American Government course in college. Politicians are the elected representatives that we put into power. They are elected to make decisions for us and it is our job to make sure they are doing what we want. Our only recourse is to discuss the issues with the politician, or elect the out of office.
We do not need a revolution and it is highly doubtful that another one will occur. Our governments(federal, state, and local) are working as they are supposed to, more or less. The problem is that there have been too many idiots that have taken the majority of the vote and swung it into their wants and needs. If you want change, then you have to go after it.
Pinpoint the problems in your governmental representatives and campaign against them. That is how change will occur. Ranting about it on some internet site will change nothing.
Oh, here we go. Throwing around unfounded "facts" about death rates in the US, compared to countries that outright ban or highly restrict citizen ownership of firearms. Do you think that just because the government forbids citizens from owning firearms criminals will listen? So, I guess that Australia has no crime and no death that arise from criminal activity. I guess Australia is the ultimate utopia.
The fact remains that criminals will always have access to weapons(firearms, knives, etc) and no matter how fast someone calls for police assistance, the victim will always obtain great injury or death. The fact also remains that it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to provide assistance to an individual citizen. Sure, most will, but they are not required to(many country's courts have held this fact to be true).
When you are faced with a criminal or an angry acquaintance that has a deadly weapon, would you rather be in possession of a phone or a firearm? Sure, you will probably give me some "politically correct" response, but I will bet that, in that situation, you would give everything you have for a weapon. There are few intelligent people that would choose the phone in such an instance.
Given the fact that I was in law enforcement for a number of years and have experience with such issues, I feel my point has a good standing in reality. Just because I carry a firearm, it does not mean I "worship" it. I carry money, and do not worship that either.
I was simply drawing a connection to both events, but you seemed to find is a good time to kick up some argument on firearms. You cannot even premise your argument well enough to get me more interested in bothering with it. I could write 100 pages on how flawed your ideology is, but I doubt anyone would read it.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but keep it on topic.
I do enjoy shooting gun and I enjoy owning them. I enjoy carrying them and learning more about them. Saying that a person that stands up for their rights is completely stupid. Owning firearms is not just about being able to assist during an invasion; it is about providing yourself with proper protection from any enemy.
Regardless, this is off-topic and I can see that you are simply an idiot looking to start an argument.
While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical, such a law would not stop me from saying what I want. It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law. Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups?
This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country. First, they made the citizens register all the weapons, then they forced them to give the weapons up. Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to "get real" and to deal with "living in a modern society" did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next. Well, let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs. When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights, they will take them away.
I believe that the NFL is gearing up the black helicopters and heading to your house. I should know, as I was hired to kil....re-educate you.