Uh, that has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten (which is really not a right at all and would be impossible to enforce even if it were to be deemed as such as it would require a huge leap forward in technology and physiological/chemical understanding).
What gurps_npc is talking about is the right not to be slandered and/or libeled (lied about), whichever is technically correct here.
But we in the US still recognize that we have the right to speak in public about politics and to speak as much as we want. That is something you failed to get when mostly walking away from the crown.
"Prohibit members of Congress from soliciting and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate, including those industries' lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during Congressional working hours." but let them freely take money from the special interest groups clamoring for even more regulation of those industries. That's a recipe for success right there. 10 years and no more industry and then who will pay the bills.
Since right-wing radio is nearly always synonymous with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what you are rambling on about with the Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier talk. Not one of those have ever promoted Neo-Nazi, skinhead or KKK groups nor have any of them ever denied the Holocaust. However, every one of them have spend many hours talking about liberal politicians cosying up to foreign leaders who do routinely deny the Holocaust and do practice anti-Semitism. Maybe your friend was not actually listening to right-wing radio but was actually listening to Neo-Nazis and skinheads.
Well, the actual people involved in starting and running the revolution risked their lives creating and distributing advertising and even occasionally pooling their money to do so and they were generally landowners and probably considered as belonging to the wealthier part of society.
So how exactly is limiting that ability today in keeping with the ideals they practiced?
Yup, let's limit the ability of people to publish pamphlets to spread their message in the modern way and let's also limit the ability of people to pool resources to do so. That is so in keeping with the ideals of those who risked their lives to found this country. I love the irony of making it impossible (illegal) to do what some of the Founding Fathers did at the risk of their lives. At least we are only talking about taking away money or liberty for doing so this time instead of taking away life.
The legalese that surrounds the actual amendment may look ugly and all, but all amendments so far have been pretty straightforward in their wording and the quoted text is no more or less complex than those examples so why should anyone think that it will need any further work?
Ahhh, here we have the stereotypical liberal... present him with the facts and he still can't see the truth. Many of the wealthiest on the above mentioned lists were born into poverty and worked their way out. Did they receive a "free" public education? Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else in the US.
The founding fathers and writers of the federalist and anti-federalist papers were not members of the NRA as it did not exist during their lifetimes and their writings contradict your view and confirm that of the NRA, so maybe you should rethink the meaning of affirmed. Chucky Schumer, Mikey Bloomberg and Piers Morgan are really not very well versed in US history so you should not look to them as authorities in this area.
Ah yes, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros have that right because they are rich but my friends and I don't have the right to pool our money for the same purpose, at least according to the ramblings of our Senate Majority leader.
I also haven't figured out how the Koch brothers shouldn't have the same right that Bloomberg and Soros do but that is probably because my values need some clarifying.
Seriously. I have 2 shotguns, 2 3 rifles and 3 handguns. A couple are 60 - 100 years old and none have ever misfired or been dangerous to anything other than animals.
You should buy better quality guns or take better care of them if yours are unsafe.
The second amendment was about ones right to defend oneself against anyone or anything and to obtain food and to stand against tyranny (a form of protecting oneself).
That said, the overwhelming majority of gun usage in the USA is for sporting purposes. I bet an honest comparison of rounds fired compared to violent uses (hunting is not a violent use) would show that the rate of illegitimate use is far higher (probably orders of magnitude) in Europe than in the States, simply because there is such an overwhelming amount of target shooting/plinking happening in the states.
If the regulation of sales infringes upon the keeping and bearing, then it would be an infringement, wouldn't it?
For one supposedly so knowledgeable about this, why did you leave out the part about keeping? Kind of hard to keep or bear what you are not allowed to buy. The same argument has been used to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition but we all know that "bearing" a firearm is having the ability to use the firearm not just carry it around (the courts have even agreed) so not regulating ammunition is the same as regulating firearms themselves.
But many more constitutional lawyers will tell you that the second amendment conveys an individual right that has very few limitations than will tell you otherwise. The historical record is very plain about all this and one need not be a constitutional lawyer to read the constitution, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and other sources to be informed about what the founding fathers thought about gun ownership and to examine all the different places that they used "people" (in its various forms) in the constitution to recognize that "people" means individuals. Or are you under the impression that only together do we have the right to not incriminate ourselves but once isolated as an individual on the witness stand you have lost that right?
"There is no sane reason to believe the founding fathers intended everyone to be allowed carry a gun just for the heck of it."
Well, if you would actually bother to read what the founding fathers had to say about the matter, then, yes, there is a perfectly sane reason for believing exactly that.
And the definition of militia as given by the founding fathers is basically every able-bodied adult male. Modern society (women's rights and all) should expand that into every able-bodied adult. You most certainly are not very well read in this area.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, that has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten (which is really not a right at all and would be impossible to enforce even if it were to be deemed as such as it would require a huge leap forward in technology and physiological/chemical understanding).
What gurps_npc is talking about is the right not to be slandered and/or libeled (lied about), whichever is technically correct here.
A few months back I was watching a documentary where a bunch of Ukrainians were also calling it "the Ukraine".
But we in the US still recognize that we have the right to speak in public about politics and to speak as much as we want. That is something you failed to get when mostly walking away from the crown.
"Prohibit members of Congress from soliciting and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate, including those industries' lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during Congressional working hours." but let them freely take money from the special interest groups clamoring for even more regulation of those industries. That's a recipe for success right there. 10 years and no more industry and then who will pay the bills.
Since right-wing radio is nearly always synonymous with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what you are rambling on about with the Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier talk. Not one of those have ever promoted Neo-Nazi, skinhead or KKK groups nor have any of them ever denied the Holocaust. However, every one of them have spend many hours talking about liberal politicians cosying up to foreign leaders who do routinely deny the Holocaust and do practice anti-Semitism. Maybe your friend was not actually listening to right-wing radio but was actually listening to Neo-Nazis and skinheads.
Well, the actual people involved in starting and running the revolution risked their lives creating and distributing advertising and even occasionally pooling their money to do so and they were generally landowners and probably considered as belonging to the wealthier part of society.
So how exactly is limiting that ability today in keeping with the ideals they practiced?
Yup, let's limit the ability of people to publish pamphlets to spread their message in the modern way and let's also limit the ability of people to pool resources to do so. That is so in keeping with the ideals of those who risked their lives to found this country. I love the irony of making it impossible (illegal) to do what some of the Founding Fathers did at the risk of their lives. At least we are only talking about taking away money or liberty for doing so this time instead of taking away life.
The legalese that surrounds the actual amendment may look ugly and all, but all amendments so far have been pretty straightforward in their wording and the quoted text is no more or less complex than those examples so why should anyone think that it will need any further work?
Ahhh, here we have the stereotypical liberal... present him with the facts and he still can't see the truth. Many of the wealthiest on the above mentioned lists were born into poverty and worked their way out. Did they receive a "free" public education? Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else in the US.
oh the horror! An entertainment company has insinuated themselves into the entertainment industry.
You've been watching some damn slow cars if it took 10 seconds to make a pass.
And 75 senators and 329 representatives before that process even starts. At least that would be the honest route for them to take.
The founding fathers and writers of the federalist and anti-federalist papers were not members of the NRA as it did not exist during their lifetimes and their writings contradict your view and confirm that of the NRA, so maybe you should rethink the meaning of affirmed. Chucky Schumer, Mikey Bloomberg and Piers Morgan are really not very well versed in US history so you should not look to them as authorities in this area.
Then push for an amendment to the constitution instead of constantly pushing for laws that ignore the constitution.
Because Michael Bloomberg told him.
Ah yes, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros have that right because they are rich but my friends and I don't have the right to pool our money for the same purpose, at least according to the ramblings of our Senate Majority leader.
I also haven't figured out how the Koch brothers shouldn't have the same right that Bloomberg and Soros do but that is probably because my values need some clarifying.
So, are we comparing straight numbers or are we comparing rates?
Are we including criminal-on-criminal violence in the comparison? I think most people would like to know and would see a difference.
No, the tyrant to which Jefferson was referring was what our government could become if we aren't careful.
The NRA owns no patents or designs for any gun or related technology. They exist mainly to represent me to various governments.
Seriously. I have 2 shotguns, 2 3 rifles and 3 handguns. A couple are 60 - 100 years old and none have ever misfired or been dangerous to anything other than animals.
You should buy better quality guns or take better care of them if yours are unsafe.
You pointed out that they are less free to go out and practice some fine motor control skills in the same way that I am.
The second amendment was about ones right to defend oneself against anyone or anything and to obtain food and to stand against tyranny (a form of protecting oneself).
That said, the overwhelming majority of gun usage in the USA is for sporting purposes. I bet an honest comparison of rounds fired compared to violent uses (hunting is not a violent use) would show that the rate of illegitimate use is far higher (probably orders of magnitude) in Europe than in the States, simply because there is such an overwhelming amount of target shooting/plinking happening in the states.
If the regulation of sales infringes upon the keeping and bearing, then it would be an infringement, wouldn't it?
For one supposedly so knowledgeable about this, why did you leave out the part about keeping? Kind of hard to keep or bear what you are not allowed to buy. The same argument has been used to heavily regulate the sale of ammunition but we all know that "bearing" a firearm is having the ability to use the firearm not just carry it around (the courts have even agreed) so not regulating ammunition is the same as regulating firearms themselves.
But many more constitutional lawyers will tell you that the second amendment conveys an individual right that has very few limitations than will tell you otherwise. The historical record is very plain about all this and one need not be a constitutional lawyer to read the constitution, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and other sources to be informed about what the founding fathers thought about gun ownership and to examine all the different places that they used "people" (in its various forms) in the constitution to recognize that "people" means individuals. Or are you under the impression that only together do we have the right to not incriminate ourselves but once isolated as an individual on the witness stand you have lost that right?
"There is no sane reason to believe the founding fathers intended everyone to be allowed carry a gun just for the heck of it."
Well, if you would actually bother to read what the founding fathers had to say about the matter, then, yes, there is a perfectly sane reason for believing exactly that.
And the definition of militia as given by the founding fathers is basically every able-bodied adult male. Modern society (women's rights and all) should expand that into every able-bodied adult. You most certainly are not very well read in this area.