It was covered in the part about "anything else we didn't specifically mention is reserved to the people or states" (to paraphrase) part that you must have skipped. IOW, the Constitution was written to explicitly state what the federal government was allowed to do and what powers it was able to take away. The Bill of Rights were only examples of a few specific things that some thought were such awful abuses that they needed specific mention.
intellectually, I agree that business owners should have the right to make the decision about whether to allow concealed carry on their premises and whether to allow smoking as well. However, as long as liberals demand that private business owners not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right of association by refusing to serve or hire someone based on whatever prejudice the business owner may hold, I'll fight for the business owner to be denied the right to refuse service to me based on whatever I choose to carry in my pocket.
Then everyone of them should have been arrested and the gun entered into an evidence locker and charges filed and when it was discovered that no criminal intent was meant and charges dropped, then the confiscated gun should be returned.
After all, if the TSA agent I not qualified to assess that risk, then the passenger should be arrested so it can all be sorted out later.
if 13 lbs of falling laptop won't kill, how will 1.5 lbs of handgun? And why would a concealed handgun be in an overhead bin instead of in somebodies pocket or waistband? Have you not figured out that concealed means not seen and pulling it out to set in on the shelf above your head for everyone to see is not exactly concealing it?
It is not murky at all when the airlines are not given the choice because of federal regulations and most commercial airports are government-owned and are, therefore, not private property.
I'm not sure which world you are living in that thinks otherwise.
Oh yes, because those of us who carry guns just cannot refuse pulling them and shooting holes in the walls that surround us just because it seems so much fun.
Well, considering that the US government cannot use religion as a basis for making decisions, I guess it is irrelevant what a bunch of ignorant folks who believe in magic think about the area, isn't it? At least, that has to be the perspective of the good liberal doesn't it? Or do we only ignore the religious beliefs of one or two religions?
Or you can accept that change not equal ruin. Go ahead and stamp your feet and whine about made up controversies like liberals do, or you an act like a troll about it.
You mean the far left, don't you. The only people I hear claiming that corporations are leftists. Nobody on the right has made that claim and no court within the US has ever issued such an opinion.
Oh yes, let's continue finding ways to make your personal effects not yours instead of finding ways that just because they are on a computer and the founding fathers couldn't envision it then it is completely different and fair game. The original intent of the founding fathers was that when people stored their documents and such in places where people normally store documents and such that the police need a warrant to gain access. Why is this such a difficult thing to understand? Why is everybody so willing to find ways to lose rights instead of fighting to keep them?
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that your overall theme of "we no longer need individual, private citizens to own guns to ensure a free society" and explore how we can achieve that in the US without ignoring our rights as codified in the US Constitution. First, we propose an amendment that removes the 2nd amendment from the document. This would be the same way that the 21st amendment did away with the 18th. Then, we realize that the 10th amendment mentions that many there are far too many rights to enumerate in a document and that if the constitution does not grant the federal government explicit permission to restrict a right, then the federal government does not have the ability, legally speaking, to restrict that right. Armed with this knowledge, we don't just include wording in our proposed amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment but we also add language granting the federal government the permission to restrict the right to keep and bear arms (own, carry and use).
This way, we are operating within the framework laid out by the constitution for altering the constitution and causing it to be a "living document". Simply restricting rights as we go because we think society has changed enough to warrant doing so is what causes the government to think it can read emails but not snail mail or read what you store in google docs but not what you store in your rented storage unit.
It really is that simple, yet here we are, arguing that no we can ignore the constitution here but not over there when we need do neither because the constitution tells us how to actually alter it in an orderly fashion. But thanks for being a prime example of what I was talking about and possibly helping msuave figure this out as well.
No, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because communication is delivered differently today does not mean that we should lose our rights. Email should always have been viewed the same as post mail. I think it wasn't because a large segment of society wanted to do away with guns that were newer than the muzzleloaders available circa 1800 so the mantra that if it didn't exist in 1800 then it is covered by the Constitution was born. We either expect the spirit/intent of the founding fathers to be followed or we reinterpret the words daily to fit whatever fad we find interesting; we can't do it both ways. Now guess which side of the political spectrum hates the phrase "original intent"?
Wisconsin does. I found that out when i got pulled over for having an expired license (license not tags). i managed to forget to renew it and the plate scanner flagged that the registered owners license was expired.
That is patently false. Warrants have always been used to access storage units and safe deposit boxes. Have there been exceptions? Certainly as there are always exceptions but those exceptions also generally get thrown out.
The real problem is that too many people have been way too happy to promote the thinking that if it didn't exist the late 1700's, then it wasn't covered in the Bill of Rights. The first example of this is guns and liberals are still making this claim on a daily basis.
Personal effects should no be limited to where they are stored or what they are stored on.
The guys that argue that everything should be free are now complaining that they aren't getting paid? That is how I interpret this. And it is hilarious.
Yes, I do actually have an idea. Many people complain that they must buy from the grid at retail but can only sell back at wholesale and a variety of other complaints that they believe prove that they are getting screwed over by the evil, greedy utilities. I'll agree that most probably don't produce more than they use but the general meme I was arguing against is that those who do produce an excess are selling to the grid. I would argue that even if net usage is pulling from the grid that anytime a residential system is over-producing (pushing to the grid) they should be considered and treated no differently than any other generator at whatever scale and their production cost is not offset by their purchasing cost as whatever electricity they use is not used for the purpose of producing electricity to sell to the grid. They should be allowed to deduct the installation and maintenance costs just like large generators.
Why do I bring up OSHA? Those that complain they are getting ripped off by not getting retail prices for selling to the grid need to have many things pointed out to them. Selling to the grid should mean that you are a producer (a generating plant). Commercial generating plants are subject to all kinds of OSHA inspections. They are also subject to income taxes on the profits of what they sell to the grid. Why should small producers be any less regulated? Isn't regulation a good thing as it "levels the playing field" and "keeps everyone honest" and "keeps the big guys from squeezing out the little guy" and all that?
Slashdot Mirror
It was covered in the part about "anything else we didn't specifically mention is reserved to the people or states" (to paraphrase) part that you must have skipped. IOW, the Constitution was written to explicitly state what the federal government was allowed to do and what powers it was able to take away. The Bill of Rights were only examples of a few specific things that some thought were such awful abuses that they needed specific mention.
intellectually, I agree that business owners should have the right to make the decision about whether to allow concealed carry on their premises and whether to allow smoking as well. However, as long as liberals demand that private business owners not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right of association by refusing to serve or hire someone based on whatever prejudice the business owner may hold, I'll fight for the business owner to be denied the right to refuse service to me based on whatever I choose to carry in my pocket.
Then everyone of them should have been arrested and the gun entered into an evidence locker and charges filed and when it was discovered that no criminal intent was meant and charges dropped, then the confiscated gun should be returned.
After all, if the TSA agent I not qualified to assess that risk, then the passenger should be arrested so it can all be sorted out later.
if 13 lbs of falling laptop won't kill, how will 1.5 lbs of handgun? And why would a concealed handgun be in an overhead bin instead of in somebodies pocket or waistband? Have you not figured out that concealed means not seen and pulling it out to set in on the shelf above your head for everyone to see is not exactly concealing it?
It is not murky at all when the airlines are not given the choice because of federal regulations and most commercial airports are government-owned and are, therefore, not private property.
I'm not sure which world you are living in that thinks otherwise.
Not exactly true... They may ask you to open it so they can search it and you will have to do so if asked but they do not always do so.
Oh yes, because those of us who carry guns just cannot refuse pulling them and shooting holes in the walls that surround us just because it seems so much fun.
Damn Americans going to Iceland and trashing the place.
Next time she goes to the ER and has DNA collected, I'll start to believe that she considers it rape instead of a good time.
Well, considering that the US government cannot use religion as a basis for making decisions, I guess it is irrelevant what a bunch of ignorant folks who believe in magic think about the area, isn't it? At least, that has to be the perspective of the good liberal doesn't it? Or do we only ignore the religious beliefs of one or two religions?
Or you can accept that change not equal ruin. Go ahead and stamp your feet and whine about made up controversies like liberals do, or you an act like a troll about it.
How could a worker's paradise not have 10-gig lines to every single room of every single house and apartment?
You mean the far left, don't you. The only people I hear claiming that corporations are leftists. Nobody on the right has made that claim and no court within the US has ever issued such an opinion.
Oh yes, let's continue finding ways to make your personal effects not yours instead of finding ways that just because they are on a computer and the founding fathers couldn't envision it then it is completely different and fair game. The original intent of the founding fathers was that when people stored their documents and such in places where people normally store documents and such that the police need a warrant to gain access. Why is this such a difficult thing to understand? Why is everybody so willing to find ways to lose rights instead of fighting to keep them?
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that your overall theme of "we no longer need individual, private citizens to own guns to ensure a free society" and explore how we can achieve that in the US without ignoring our rights as codified in the US Constitution. First, we propose an amendment that removes the 2nd amendment from the document. This would be the same way that the 21st amendment did away with the 18th. Then, we realize that the 10th amendment mentions that many there are far too many rights to enumerate in a document and that if the constitution does not grant the federal government explicit permission to restrict a right, then the federal government does not have the ability, legally speaking, to restrict that right. Armed with this knowledge, we don't just include wording in our proposed amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment but we also add language granting the federal government the permission to restrict the right to keep and bear arms (own, carry and use).
This way, we are operating within the framework laid out by the constitution for altering the constitution and causing it to be a "living document". Simply restricting rights as we go because we think society has changed enough to warrant doing so is what causes the government to think it can read emails but not snail mail or read what you store in google docs but not what you store in your rented storage unit.
It really is that simple, yet here we are, arguing that no we can ignore the constitution here but not over there when we need do neither because the constitution tells us how to actually alter it in an orderly fashion. But thanks for being a prime example of what I was talking about and possibly helping msuave figure this out as well.
That is basically the definition every dictator wants to use.
No, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because communication is delivered differently today does not mean that we should lose our rights. Email should always have been viewed the same as post mail. I think it wasn't because a large segment of society wanted to do away with guns that were newer than the muzzleloaders available circa 1800 so the mantra that if it didn't exist in 1800 then it is covered by the Constitution was born. We either expect the spirit/intent of the founding fathers to be followed or we reinterpret the words daily to fit whatever fad we find interesting; we can't do it both ways. Now guess which side of the political spectrum hates the phrase "original intent"?
Wisconsin does. I found that out when i got pulled over for having an expired license (license not tags). i managed to forget to renew it and the plate scanner flagged that the registered owners license was expired.
He did. We are all hoping for a change to occur.
That is patently false. Warrants have always been used to access storage units and safe deposit boxes. Have there been exceptions? Certainly as there are always exceptions but those exceptions also generally get thrown out.
The real problem is that too many people have been way too happy to promote the thinking that if it didn't exist the late 1700's, then it wasn't covered in the Bill of Rights. The first example of this is guns and liberals are still making this claim on a daily basis.
Personal effects should no be limited to where they are stored or what they are stored on.
Shhh. Don't start pointing out facts, they are frowned upon in these parts.
The guys that argue that everything should be free are now complaining that they aren't getting paid? That is how I interpret this. And it is hilarious.
Ah yes, reveling in ungratefulness, so hip.
Compared to what Europeans had already given up or compared to what North Koreans never had?
Yes, I do actually have an idea. Many people complain that they must buy from the grid at retail but can only sell back at wholesale and a variety of other complaints that they believe prove that they are getting screwed over by the evil, greedy utilities. I'll agree that most probably don't produce more than they use but the general meme I was arguing against is that those who do produce an excess are selling to the grid. I would argue that even if net usage is pulling from the grid that anytime a residential system is over-producing (pushing to the grid) they should be considered and treated no differently than any other generator at whatever scale and their production cost is not offset by their purchasing cost as whatever electricity they use is not used for the purpose of producing electricity to sell to the grid. They should be allowed to deduct the installation and maintenance costs just like large generators.
Why do I bring up OSHA? Those that complain they are getting ripped off by not getting retail prices for selling to the grid need to have many things pointed out to them. Selling to the grid should mean that you are a producer (a generating plant). Commercial generating plants are subject to all kinds of OSHA inspections. They are also subject to income taxes on the profits of what they sell to the grid. Why should small producers be any less regulated? Isn't regulation a good thing as it "levels the playing field" and "keeps everyone honest" and "keeps the big guys from squeezing out the little guy" and all that?