What he was saying breaks down like this: You frequently hear leftists claiming that they'll move to Canada when something shifts to the right in the US; Trump getting elected was a big one. All these leftists are obviously implying that Canada is a great place, that would never do something so "stupid" as elect someone like Trump. This article shows, however, that Canada does some stupid things that make no sense, so it's not as great of a place as the leftists seem to think.
It's pretty obvious what he was meaning. But, as a Canadian, I'm sorry, eh?
Article talks about the RCMP, a police force in Canada.
kenh posts support of situation in article by quoting California law.
Whaaaaa?
I'm in Ontario, Canada, and earbuds are legal while driving here. I doubt this case was in Ontario, though, as the RCMP don't usually do traffic enforcement in Ontario, since we have our own provincial police force. BC bans using earbuds in both ears, and they use the RCMP. But, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Territories, and the Atlantic provinces all use the RCMP, as well. Without more details, it's really hard to say, but the fact that the battery was dead pretty much guarantees he wasn't swiping to find his next song.
If you are sitting in a normal car like mine, you can usually hear emergency vehicle sirens LONG before you can see them through the minivans and pickup trucks.
Given that lines of sight - even on congested roads - tend to substantially exceed sound transmission distances, no.
Given that some people don't drive 16 foot tall SUVs, yes. Given that some roads are curved, yes. Given that some roads have intersections with buildings at the corners, yes. Given that some roads are flat as a pancake, and straighter than the pole your mom dances on, yes. Given that some roads have hills and rises in them, and ambulances can be coming towards you from over the hill, yes.
There are plenty of situations where you can hear an emergency siren when it's physically impossible to see the vehicle, because it isn't line of sight. GP explicitly stated "in a normal care like mine." I drive "a normal car" too, and I agree with them, that it's sometimes impossible to see around the dolt ahead of you that needs to drive a jacked up Ford Excursion with 1 person in it. The problem is, "a normal car" isn't very normal anymore. The visibility out of my car is great, fuel economy is great, handling is great. But when I'm in traffic with the massive numbers of SUVs people seem to need to buy now, sometimes the only thing I can see is the rear slab of bodypanels of the SUV/minivan/truck ahead of me. Same to the sides, and same behind. I'd rather drive in a bunch of transport trucks sometimes, because I'm low enough that I can see clear under the trailers. My visibility is blocked less by an 18 wheeler than a common-as-dirt Dodge Caravan.
One thing we all need to remember, especially before posting a response to someone else's experiences, is that we're not all the same. We all have different situations, different experiences, live in different environments, and we all, in this case, drive different vehicles. Posting something telling someone they're wrong, when you obviously haven't had the experience they have, just makes you look like a douche.
The judge made a bogus call. It had nothing 2 do with sound or being able 2 hear. Since the ear buds were attached 2 the phone the man was therefore holding a hand held device while driving which is illegal in Canada.
An "ear held device" is not a "hand held device." Judge is an idiot, who probably voted for Trudeau...
No, the 9% are so bad at their job that the entire network is down all the time. When the employees can't get to data, then there is no opportunity to steal or delete it.
Yes, all members do not have the same function. But I don't take that to mean that any member is more important, or any closer to God, than any other member. Some are teachers, some are healers, some pray, some will just sit with someone when they need company. But when we're told that all can come to God, then "some will talk to God and tell you what He said" doesn't seem like it should be one of those functions that only some members have.
Although I've been doing a bit of digging, and found a document on the Vatican's website, that states that all Christians become a holy and royal priesthood.
The fact is, if you take the average person who considers themselves Christian, you get a Catholic.
You're absolutely right.
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
Sorry, it's No True Scotsman.
It's called No True Scotsman, because the same logic can be applied both directions, even if you're only applying it one direction.
I still don't agree with this, though. A Christian, by definition, is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. That makes non-Biblical Catholic dogma, by definition, not Christian.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, as some people's personalities need the ritualistic stuff to make it work for them. But saying that it's Christianity, just because the majority of Christians align themselves with the Catholic Church, isn't correct.
I'm not generalizing the definition of Christian to mean "anybody who, at least on Easter and Christmas, goes to a church that considers Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the World." I'm already being specific, in that to be called "Christian," something has to have been taught by Christ. If Christ didn't say "yes, do this" or "no, don't do this," then it's a personal choice that we are free to make ourselves. As an example, confessing sins to your priest is a personal choice, because it wasn't specified either way by Jesus. However, the idea of using your priest as a conduit to God is actually against Biblical teachings. Hebrews 4:16 tells Christians to come boldly to God, themselves. Going through your priest is not "coming boldly." If something is specifically against Christ's teachings, can we really say it's Christian, just because it's practiced by the majority of Christians?
That's not No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman would mean that nobody was the real Christian. There are Christians that get it right, but the majority get it wrong. It's humanity. We have an innate, unending tendency to fuck things up.
Nowhere did I say that anybody shouldn't use a computer unless they knew how to fix it. Nowhere did I say that people who don't know how to fix something deserve to be swindled by unscrupulous dirtbags.
I realize that was stated earlier in the thread, but I wasn't responding to that. I was simply making an aside comment about someone else who seems to be capable of fixing any piece of equipment that they may own or use. That kind of expertise is incredibly rare in today's world, enough that sometimes I think I'm the only ones are myself, my dad, and my brother.
I'll agree that it's absurd, especially looking from the outside.
However, I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity should be based on the teachings of Jesus. Anything not taught by Jesus shouldn't be in Christianity. Makes sense, right?
Well, the whole "priests as conduit to God" thing is nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. It's explicitly stated that everyone can approach God directly. So, in this case, it's Catholicism that's got it wrong. The whole reason for the Reformation was that the Catholic Church was moving further away from basic Jesus' teachings, into this kind of dogmatic crap. The Reformation wasn't to make Christianity more palatable to modern audiences. It was meant to take Christianity back to its roots, where it should have been the whole time.
Glad to see there's someone else like this out there, too. When something breaks in my house, the first thing I think is "What do I need to do to fix this?" It never crosses my mind to call someone to fix my dishwasher, stove, the blower on my furnace, or, as the GP said, the power steering on my car.
It saves untold amounts of money when you know how to fix things yourself.
And what is the original Hebrew word that was translated as "subdue" here? What does that Hebrew word imply? Any ideas? Didn't think so.....
The Hebrew word is kabash. It does mean "subdue," but only if the object of the word is hostile. So, this verse is saying "If the world is hostile and might kill you, control it so it won't." Not bad advice, really. The other part of this verse that people have problems with is the "rule" over the fish part. Before that gets anybody's knickers in a knot: The Hebrew word translated to "rule" in your example is radah. This means a kingly rule, definitely implying royalty. It doesn't expand on what that means in Genesis, but the same word is used in Psalm 72, and translated the same way. This Psalm is about the coronation of King Solomon, and expands on what a king should be like:
He delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.
That also sounds pretty good to me. If you've got a problem with someone acting the way those verses describe, then you're a bit of a psychopath, to be honest.
Ezekiel 34 has a rebuke of the kings Israel has had:
You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them.
A kingly dominion in Biblical terms is not lording power over people or your kingdom. A king accepts tributes and taxes from his subjects, so we can use the earth for sustenance. At the same time, though, the preferred kingly behaviour described in the Bible means we should be protecting the earth, preserving its natural beauty and resources, and try to bring those "lost" places that have been damaged through "force and harshness" back to their former glory. This last part, we humans definitely have trouble with; we seem to have the "clear cut the rainforest" types and the "ban all energy usage" types, both of whom are loud and have a platform, and the moderates in the middle who want some balance are mostly ignored.
They can't be all that intelligent if they believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven and whose priests tell them how to live their lives, which they do for rear of their god whose existence cannot be proven will toss them in a hell that nobody can prove exists.
All the anti-Christians in here keep saying stuff about "priests have to interpret the Bible," and "priests tell them how to live their lives." I can't help but think you're all confusing Christianity and Catholicism. There's nothing in Christianity about listening to what your priest says, or having your priest be a conduit between you and God. In fact, various places in the Bible explicitly state that all Christians are priests, so all are in the position of being "next to God," if you will.
Maybe you should all learn something about global warming...I mean... Christianity before you knock it.
The same book also says that Earth was given to Man to care for. And yet somehow worrying about global warming is anti-God because nobody actually thinks that responsibility means anything.
That's not it. Responsibility means everything in Christianity. But the way we're approaching global warming is anything but. Al Gore lives in a gajillion square foot mansion, and flies around the world in private jets, while telling us we need to cut our carbon footprint from our 1400 square foot house.
Canada's PM, Justin Trudeau, is hugely into trying to fix climate change, has brought in a carbon tax, and regularly shames Canadians for their energy usage. He was on vacation in Florida recently, and only two days after arriving, flew back to Canada for 3 or so hours of meetings one morning, before heading back to Florida to continue his vacation. Roughly 5 1/2 hours of travel in a government jet, for 3-4 hours of meetings. The Bombardier Challenger jet in question uses something like 1325 litres of fuel per hour. This hypocrite burned 7500 litres of fuel for meetings that could have waited until he was back, or been held over a secure telecom link if they were urgent, all the while telling us that we should be walking and taking public transit.
Talking about global warming is fine. Even doing something about global warming is fine. But "I'm going to tax you because you're warming the planet, but in the meantime I've got a personal carbon footprint the size of a small town" just doesn't cut it. Especially when there have been lies, damned lies, and statistics from AGW alarmists for years, with virtually nothing to show for it.
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian." Catholicism has a lot of this "your priest is better than you" kind of thing. I can't stand it, myself, and I'm a Christian. That's not a central tenet of Christianity. It's a central tenet of Catholicism. Christianity is very much about you and God. Nobody else is involved. It's your personal choice, and your personal responsibility.
I interpret it myself, and every Protestant I've ever met does the same thing. That's not to say we don't look for advice on particularly troublesome bits*, but everybody searches for help on every subject if they don't understand something. Either that, or they defer to experts. That's what you do with climate change, after all. You haven't done all the experiments, set up temperature monitoring stations and satellites, correlated all the data, etc, yourself. So, you defer to experts, or at the very least, seek advice from experts.
There's a huge difference between "seeking advice to help understand" and "priests must interpret the words for you." Don't confuse the two.
* I've got an Israeli friend who I can go to for help with the original Hebrew wording of the Old Testament. It helps a lot with understanding if you know the original wording, and what implications were in it that don't translate well, if at all. I know a couple of Greeks who can help with the same for a lot of the original New Testament. Assuming a modern translation has the exact same meanings and implications as the original is where a lot of our problems come from.
See, the left calls conservatives crazy gun nuts, and then they come out with something outright murderously evil like this, and somehow don't see the hypocrisy of it all......
What does an electrical regulator do? It makes power levels smooth. What does a regulator on a steam engine do? It makes the speed of the engine consistent and smooth.
In neither case does the regulator prevent anyone from using the device.
Government style regulations is a relatively new meaning of the word. In 1776, "well regulated" meant something more akin to the modern phrase "smoothly functioning."
The well regulated (which means "smoothly functioning" in 1776 English) militia was necessary for a free state. Because of this, the right of the people to own arms is protected. Notice how it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"?
There's no evidence that they were caused by video games, but for all we know Mario Kart is a mental time bomb.
I see what you did there. Let me help you along:
There's no evidence they were caused by liberals, but for all we know progressivism is a mental time bomb. There's no evidence they were caused by immigrants, but for all we know Mexicans are a mental time bomb. There's no evidence they were caused by Microsoft, but for all we know Azure is a mental time bomb. There's no evidence they were caused by Putin, but for all we know Siberia is a mental time bomb.
You can "what if" till you're blue in the face, but for all the studies that have been done attempting to prove a link between video game and real life violence, the fact that there has been no evidence found is rather telling. I'd be more tempted to believe one of the ones (just one) I listed than your video game violence link...
Slashdot Mirror
potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
wut?
check ur neck.
Hey, I listen to MP3s on my 1991 6 lb bag phone, you insensitive clod!
What he was saying breaks down like this:
You frequently hear leftists claiming that they'll move to Canada when something shifts to the right in the US; Trump getting elected was a big one.
All these leftists are obviously implying that Canada is a great place, that would never do something so "stupid" as elect someone like Trump.
This article shows, however, that Canada does some stupid things that make no sense, so it's not as great of a place as the leftists seem to think.
It's pretty obvious what he was meaning. But, as a Canadian, I'm sorry, eh?
Article talks about the RCMP, a police force in Canada.
kenh posts support of situation in article by quoting California law.
Whaaaaa?
I'm in Ontario, Canada, and earbuds are legal while driving here. I doubt this case was in Ontario, though, as the RCMP don't usually do traffic enforcement in Ontario, since we have our own provincial police force.
BC bans using earbuds in both ears, and they use the RCMP. But, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Territories, and the Atlantic provinces all use the RCMP, as well. Without more details, it's really hard to say, but the fact that the battery was dead pretty much guarantees he wasn't swiping to find his next song.
If you are sitting in a normal car like mine, you can usually hear emergency vehicle sirens LONG before you can see them through the minivans and pickup trucks.
Given that lines of sight - even on congested roads - tend to substantially exceed sound transmission distances, no.
Given that some people don't drive 16 foot tall SUVs, yes. Given that some roads are curved, yes. Given that some roads have intersections with buildings at the corners, yes. Given that some roads are flat as a pancake, and straighter than the pole your mom dances on, yes. Given that some roads have hills and rises in them, and ambulances can be coming towards you from over the hill, yes.
There are plenty of situations where you can hear an emergency siren when it's physically impossible to see the vehicle, because it isn't line of sight. GP explicitly stated "in a normal care like mine." I drive "a normal car" too, and I agree with them, that it's sometimes impossible to see around the dolt ahead of you that needs to drive a jacked up Ford Excursion with 1 person in it. The problem is, "a normal car" isn't very normal anymore. The visibility out of my car is great, fuel economy is great, handling is great. But when I'm in traffic with the massive numbers of SUVs people seem to need to buy now, sometimes the only thing I can see is the rear slab of bodypanels of the SUV/minivan/truck ahead of me. Same to the sides, and same behind. I'd rather drive in a bunch of transport trucks sometimes, because I'm low enough that I can see clear under the trailers. My visibility is blocked less by an 18 wheeler than a common-as-dirt Dodge Caravan.
One thing we all need to remember, especially before posting a response to someone else's experiences, is that we're not all the same. We all have different situations, different experiences, live in different environments, and we all, in this case, drive different vehicles. Posting something telling someone they're wrong, when you obviously haven't had the experience they have, just makes you look like a douche.
The earbuds!!! They do NOTHING!!!
The judge made a bogus call. It had nothing 2 do with sound or being able 2 hear. Since the ear buds were attached 2 the phone the man was therefore holding a hand held device while driving which is illegal in Canada.
An "ear held device" is not a "hand held device." Judge is an idiot, who probably voted for Trudeau...
No, the 9% are so bad at their job that the entire network is down all the time.
When the employees can't get to data, then there is no opportunity to steal or delete it.
Yes, all members do not have the same function.
But I don't take that to mean that any member is more important, or any closer to God, than any other member.
Some are teachers, some are healers, some pray, some will just sit with someone when they need company.
But when we're told that all can come to God, then "some will talk to God and tell you what He said" doesn't seem like it should be one of those functions that only some members have.
We may have to agree to disagree.
Although I've been doing a bit of digging, and found a document on the Vatican's website, that states that all Christians become a holy and royal priesthood.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...
I haven't read the entire thing, but it's got some interesting bits....
The fact is, if you take the average person who considers themselves Christian, you get a Catholic.
You're absolutely right.
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.
Sorry, it's No True Scotsman.
It's called No True Scotsman, because the same logic can be applied both directions, even if you're only applying it one direction.
I still don't agree with this, though.
A Christian, by definition, is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. That makes non-Biblical Catholic dogma, by definition, not Christian.
I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, as some people's personalities need the ritualistic stuff to make it work for them. But saying that it's Christianity, just because the majority of Christians align themselves with the Catholic Church, isn't correct.
I'm not generalizing the definition of Christian to mean "anybody who, at least on Easter and Christmas, goes to a church that considers Jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the World."
I'm already being specific, in that to be called "Christian," something has to have been taught by Christ.
If Christ didn't say "yes, do this" or "no, don't do this," then it's a personal choice that we are free to make ourselves.
As an example, confessing sins to your priest is a personal choice, because it wasn't specified either way by Jesus.
However, the idea of using your priest as a conduit to God is actually against Biblical teachings.
Hebrews 4:16 tells Christians to come boldly to God, themselves. Going through your priest is not "coming boldly."
If something is specifically against Christ's teachings, can we really say it's Christian, just because it's practiced by the majority of Christians?
That's not No True Scotsman.
No True Scotsman would mean that nobody was the real Christian.
There are Christians that get it right, but the majority get it wrong.
It's humanity. We have an innate, unending tendency to fuck things up.
Nowhere did I say that anybody shouldn't use a computer unless they knew how to fix it.
Nowhere did I say that people who don't know how to fix something deserve to be swindled by unscrupulous dirtbags.
I realize that was stated earlier in the thread, but I wasn't responding to that. I was simply making an aside comment about someone else who seems to be capable of fixing any piece of equipment that they may own or use.
That kind of expertise is incredibly rare in today's world, enough that sometimes I think I'm the only ones are myself, my dad, and my brother.
I'll agree that it's absurd, especially looking from the outside.
However, I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity should be based on the teachings of Jesus. Anything not taught by Jesus shouldn't be in Christianity.
Makes sense, right?
Well, the whole "priests as conduit to God" thing is nowhere in the teachings of Jesus. It's explicitly stated that everyone can approach God directly.
So, in this case, it's Catholicism that's got it wrong.
The whole reason for the Reformation was that the Catholic Church was moving further away from basic Jesus' teachings, into this kind of dogmatic crap.
The Reformation wasn't to make Christianity more palatable to modern audiences. It was meant to take Christianity back to its roots, where it should have been the whole time.
Glad to see there's someone else like this out there, too.
When something breaks in my house, the first thing I think is "What do I need to do to fix this?"
It never crosses my mind to call someone to fix my dishwasher, stove, the blower on my furnace, or, as the GP said, the power steering on my car.
It saves untold amounts of money when you know how to fix things yourself.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
So now we've gone from the fake-but-marginally-believable 97%, to a mind-boggling "all"?
Let me ask you this: What, exactly, do 97% (or "all") of climate scientists agree on?
And what is the original Hebrew word that was translated as "subdue" here? What does that Hebrew word imply? Any ideas? Didn't think so.....
The Hebrew word is kabash. It does mean "subdue," but only if the object of the word is hostile. So, this verse is saying "If the world is hostile and might kill you, control it so it won't."
Not bad advice, really.
The other part of this verse that people have problems with is the "rule" over the fish part. Before that gets anybody's knickers in a knot:
The Hebrew word translated to "rule" in your example is radah.
This means a kingly rule, definitely implying royalty. It doesn't expand on what that means in Genesis, but the same word is used in Psalm 72, and translated the same way. This Psalm is about the coronation of King Solomon, and expands on what a king should be like:
He delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.
That also sounds pretty good to me. If you've got a problem with someone acting the way those verses describe, then you're a bit of a psychopath, to be honest.
Ezekiel 34 has a rebuke of the kings Israel has had:
You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them.
A kingly dominion in Biblical terms is not lording power over people or your kingdom. A king accepts tributes and taxes from his subjects, so we can use the earth for sustenance. At the same time, though, the preferred kingly behaviour described in the Bible means we should be protecting the earth, preserving its natural beauty and resources, and try to bring those "lost" places that have been damaged through "force and harshness" back to their former glory.
This last part, we humans definitely have trouble with; we seem to have the "clear cut the rainforest" types and the "ban all energy usage" types, both of whom are loud and have a platform, and the moderates in the middle who want some balance are mostly ignored.
They can't be all that intelligent if they believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven and whose priests tell them how to live their lives, which they do for rear of their god whose existence cannot be proven will toss them in a hell that nobody can prove exists.
All the anti-Christians in here keep saying stuff about "priests have to interpret the Bible," and "priests tell them how to live their lives." I can't help but think you're all confusing Christianity and Catholicism.
There's nothing in Christianity about listening to what your priest says, or having your priest be a conduit between you and God. In fact, various places in the Bible explicitly state that all Christians are priests, so all are in the position of being "next to God," if you will.
Maybe you should all learn something about global warming...I mean... Christianity before you knock it.
The same book also says that Earth was given to Man to care for. And yet somehow worrying about global warming is anti-God because nobody actually thinks that responsibility means anything.
That's not it. Responsibility means everything in Christianity. But the way we're approaching global warming is anything but. Al Gore lives in a gajillion square foot mansion, and flies around the world in private jets, while telling us we need to cut our carbon footprint from our 1400 square foot house.
Canada's PM, Justin Trudeau, is hugely into trying to fix climate change, has brought in a carbon tax, and regularly shames Canadians for their energy usage. He was on vacation in Florida recently, and only two days after arriving, flew back to Canada for 3 or so hours of meetings one morning, before heading back to Florida to continue his vacation.
Roughly 5 1/2 hours of travel in a government jet, for 3-4 hours of meetings. The Bombardier Challenger jet in question uses something like 1325 litres of fuel per hour.
This hypocrite burned 7500 litres of fuel for meetings that could have waited until he was back, or been held over a secure telecom link if they were urgent, all the while telling us that we should be walking and taking public transit.
Talking about global warming is fine. Even doing something about global warming is fine. But "I'm going to tax you because you're warming the planet, but in the meantime I've got a personal carbon footprint the size of a small town" just doesn't cut it. Especially when there have been lies, damned lies, and statistics from AGW alarmists for years, with virtually nothing to show for it.
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
Catholicism has a lot of this "your priest is better than you" kind of thing. I can't stand it, myself, and I'm a Christian.
That's not a central tenet of Christianity. It's a central tenet of Catholicism.
Christianity is very much about you and God. Nobody else is involved. It's your personal choice, and your personal responsibility.
I interpret it myself, and every Protestant I've ever met does the same thing. That's not to say we don't look for advice on particularly troublesome bits*, but everybody searches for help on every subject if they don't understand something. Either that, or they defer to experts. That's what you do with climate change, after all. You haven't done all the experiments, set up temperature monitoring stations and satellites, correlated all the data, etc, yourself.
So, you defer to experts, or at the very least, seek advice from experts.
There's a huge difference between "seeking advice to help understand" and "priests must interpret the words for you."
Don't confuse the two.
* I've got an Israeli friend who I can go to for help with the original Hebrew wording of the Old Testament. It helps a lot with understanding if you know the original wording, and what implications were in it that don't translate well, if at all. I know a couple of Greeks who can help with the same for a lot of the original New Testament. Assuming a modern translation has the exact same meanings and implications as the original is where a lot of our problems come from.
See, the left calls conservatives crazy gun nuts, and then they come out with something outright murderously evil like this, and somehow don't see the hypocrisy of it all......
What does an electrical regulator do? It makes power levels smooth.
What does a regulator on a steam engine do? It makes the speed of the engine consistent and smooth.
In neither case does the regulator prevent anyone from using the device.
Government style regulations is a relatively new meaning of the word. In 1776, "well regulated" meant something more akin to the modern phrase "smoothly functioning."
Are you kidding me? What rock have you been under? Or do you get all your news from Facebook?
I'm a Canadian, living in Canada, and even I've heard of Alfie Evans....
"well regulated militia"
Reading comprehension fail.
The well regulated (which means "smoothly functioning" in 1776 English) militia was necessary for a free state. Because of this, the right of the people to own arms is protected.
Notice how it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"?
There's no evidence that they were caused by video games, but for all we know Mario Kart is a mental time bomb.
I see what you did there. Let me help you along:
There's no evidence they were caused by liberals, but for all we know progressivism is a mental time bomb.
There's no evidence they were caused by immigrants, but for all we know Mexicans are a mental time bomb.
There's no evidence they were caused by Microsoft, but for all we know Azure is a mental time bomb.
There's no evidence they were caused by Putin, but for all we know Siberia is a mental time bomb.
You can "what if" till you're blue in the face, but for all the studies that have been done attempting to prove a link between video game and real life violence, the fact that there has been no evidence found is rather telling. I'd be more tempted to believe one of the ones (just one) I listed than your video game violence link...
Sure, but then you have to live in the same city as all those politicians.....