We get handguns and few shitty rifles. Good luck throwing off a government armed with drones and tactical nuclear devices. Firearms are absolutely fucking useless to that point.
Untrue. You'll always need ground troops to conquer territory, and to that extent, small arms are sufficient for fending off even the most well armed invasion force.
Ideologically (and logically) that would make sense, but US v Miller established the "common use test".
Really there are three different questions:
1) Should they be constitutionally protected? 2) Are they constitutionally protected if one interprets the 2A ignoring legal precedent? 3) Are they constitutionally protected given the current legal understanding (post US v Miller) of the 2A?
When somebody gives their opinion on the topic, always try to figure out which of the three they are attempting to answer.
But in the absence of cooperation from Apple and Google, regulators and lawmakers in our nations must now find an appropriate balance between the marginal benefits of full-disk encryption and the need for local law enforcement to solve and prosecute crimes. The safety of our communities depends on it.
Ah, just like the marginal benefits of a free society. Why bother with any components of a free society if all of them endanger the "safety of our communities"?
Is there going to be legislation introduced that allows drivers to ignore the instructions of CHP officers that tell them to do unforgivably dumb things?
Like stay parked on a freeway with a wildfire raging nearby?
Oh, no, of course not. Let's find a more convenient scapegoat for the CHP's utter incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you want a universal rights discussion on this topic?
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2...
"regulation" != "well-regulated".
And "well-regulated" means "well armed, equipped, and trained".
Bet you anything the tards repeating "well-regulated" as if it doesn't mean "well armed, equipped, and trained" have no idea ;)
"well-regulated" meaning, what? Be specific.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
Cops carry both lethal and (only sometimes) non-lethal weapons for a reason.
Can you guess why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We get handguns and few shitty rifles. Good luck throwing off a government armed with drones and tactical nuclear devices. Firearms are absolutely fucking useless to that point.
Untrue. You'll always need ground troops to conquer territory, and to that extent, small arms are sufficient for fending off even the most well armed invasion force.
See also Afghanistan vs USSR.
"well-regulated" != "regulated"
You do know what "well-regulated" meant in the time of the phrase's contemporary use, right?
usually injures, maims, or kills its victim?
You mean like cars?
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2...
modern militaries have leaps and bounds better weapons than anything civilians could possess.
Infantry small arms have not significantly changed in a very long time, and of course civilians can posses small arms commonly borne by infantry.
1) Define "assault weapon" (I doubt you are capable)
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And your definition of "well regulated" is what? Are you sure it means what you think it means?
Again, you should probably review US v Miller.
Also, ask yourself, where was Mr. Miller when the decision was handed down?
Ideologically (and logically) that would make sense, but US v Miller established the "common use test".
Really there are three different questions:
1) Should they be constitutionally protected?
2) Are they constitutionally protected if one interprets the 2A ignoring legal precedent?
3) Are they constitutionally protected given the current legal understanding (post US v Miller) of the 2A?
When somebody gives their opinion on the topic, always try to figure out which of the three they are attempting to answer.
What's so hard about being active on social media and GitHub?
We all live in a "state of permanent preemptive counterrevolution."
But in the absence of cooperation from Apple and Google, regulators and lawmakers in our nations must now find an appropriate balance between the marginal benefits of full-disk encryption and the need for local law enforcement to solve and prosecute crimes. The safety of our communities depends on it.
Ah, just like the marginal benefits of a free society. Why bother with any components of a free society if all of them endanger the "safety of our communities"?
I mean, the benefits are just so marginal.
There is no way you're going to get fatties off their asses.
Are you saying if a I'm on "BUS" and it comes to "STOP" I'm riding a bus stop?
If it happens, you can thank /. in part for that.
Is there going to be legislation introduced that allows drivers to ignore the instructions of CHP officers that tell them to do unforgivably dumb things?
Like stay parked on a freeway with a wildfire raging nearby?
Oh, no, of course not. Let's find a more convenient scapegoat for the CHP's utter incompetence.