It's time to get rid of EULAs. They are counter to five thousand years of contract law. They are counter to one thousand years of common law. They are counter to both the Commercial Code and Copyright Law (in the US).
EULAs are based on the unwarranted proposition that the author of the software has the exclusive right to use and install the software. This is not true. According to 17 USC 117, the owner of the copy of the software has the right to utilize the software, including adapting it in such a way as to be able to utilize it (e.i. installation). Since the user has the right to use the software, such use cannot be taken as a form of assent to be bound by the license.
But enough of that. What really bugs me is why these turkeys even need EULAs. Pretend you're a proprietary developer wanting to restrict your software. What do you want to restrict? Let's see... No unauthorized copying. No unauthorized distribution. No unauthorized derivative works. In short, just the same stuff a proprietary novelist wants. So why a EULA? Wouldn't a simple copyright statement be just as good? In just about every EULA I've seen (discounting those monstrosities from Microsoft) the only thing they restrict are copying, distribution and modification.
Audio CDs and DVDs don't have EULAs. But if software EULAs get legitimized, it's only a matter of time before the MPAA and RIAA (those scum) get on the gravy train. We don't want that. We don't want to watch a movie in a theater only to see a EULA two hours later saying that be watching the movie we have agreed to post no negative reviews...
If you're a proprietary developer, stop using End User License Agreements. Start using simple copyright statements. You won't lose anything. Your users will thank you.
But the fact of the matter is that you are agreeing to give up said rights.
I haven't agreed to any such thing. You cannot consider my use of the software (including its installation) to be evidence of acceptance, since I already possess the right to use (and install) the software by virtue of purchased it commercially. You haven't rented, leased or licensed it to me. You sold it to me.
Imagine you just purchased a new car for zero down and zero percent interest. Sounds like a good deal? So you sign the papers and go to your new car. But there stuck to the steering wheel is a piece of paper that says "by driving this car you agree to immediately refinance you car for $10,000 down and 10% interest. Just an "agreement" wouldn't last five seconds in a court of law. Yet this is essentially what EULAs are doing. You have made an commercial transaction to obtain the software, which grants you the right to use and install the software according to both the US Commercial Code and Title 17 Copyright Law. But upon attempting to use and install the software you are presented with a different agreement which is in opposition to the commercial transaction.
BUT, you didn't buy the product. The only thing you OWN is the media on which the product is carried.
So the software is free then? After all, I'm only paying for the media. The software I get for zero cost. I'm starting to wonder why the WinXP box is so much more expensive than the WinXP Upgrade box. After all, the media, manuals and box are virtually IDENTICAL! One give you an install floppy and the other doesn't. That's a pretty expensive floppy.
But here's what I think is really happening. The software manufacturers are taking advantage of narcoleptic judges. They go through all the motions of a commercial transaction, including a bill of sale, then claim that it wasn't a commercial transaction so that the USC doesn't apply. This is bullshit. It's blatant fraud.
Finally, you understand that Yoda, although frail physically, has the ability to channel the Force in ways that no other Jedi can
But that's not what Yoda did. He and Dooku figured out that neither could defeat the other through mastery of the force, so they agreed to settle the dispute through mundane methods. Did you even see the movie?
It wasn't the force. If it was, here is what would have happened: Dooku would have swung fast and furiously with the light saber, and Yoda would have parried every blow with his mind and a minute wave of his fingers. He would have thrown off those attacks just as if they were the earlier stones and lightning bolts. If that were the way the scene would have been done, it would have been awesome! It would have put fear on the face of Dooku.
The difference is called clear thinking, logic untainted by preconceptions, and intellectual honesty. Remember, in case you have forgotten, that the original question that started this thread was "Was this really sponsored my Microsoft?" A positive answer to that question implies that Microsoft specifically requested and paid for that paper. There is no proof of that, and the only evidence is extremely coincidental.
Here's an analogy. I donate money to the Republicrat party. Somewhere in Southern North Dakota the Republicrats put an asshole on the ballot. Do I support the asshole? No. Did my donation influence the selection of the asshole? No. Is part of my donation going to the asshole's campaign? Maybe. But you cannot conclude that I have sponsored the asshole.
Citizens should be able to know if the program works the way the policy says. The only way this is possible is through open source software.
I'm really confused here. For some software (voting tabulators), it makes sense to have a specific policy. But in most cases (MS Word) it's silly. It's not the government's job to dictate policy on how MS Word works. The last thing the Open Source community needs are reams of government specs that they have to follow before their software gets used. If the feds issue policies so detailed that you need to source code to figure out if it's being followed, then that will kill Open Source for government, because no one will be following it. The last thing Linus Torvalds (as an example) wants to do when deciding on which VM model to use is to consult some government policy manual.
File formats are not a simple situation, either. The problem with Microsoft Word, for example, is that the file format is not only in the format itself
But MS Word files are not in open file formats. Government documents should not be in Word format. I think you missed my whole point.
Take a simple ASCII file. Does it really matter that the file was created with Emacs, vi, Notepad or Word? No! Who bloody cares what program created it. One hundred years from now you will still be able to read that file without having to have the program that created it.
It proves nothing. I seriously doubt that the chairman of the GOP specified IIS, or the chairman of the Dems specied Apache. I suspect, instead, that either their webmaster, or their web hosting service, made that decision for them.
p.s. Go find out what OS is running www.stallman.org. It wasn't GNU/Linux last time I checked. Again, proves nothing.
Proprietary software hides the workings of government from the citizens.
Are you sure you don't mean "proprietary formats"? Who gives a rat's ass what program created the document so long as the document is in an open format?
Furthermore you have not remotely refuted the assertion that the government *should* GPL all their software.
Here's one refutation: Microsoft, Sun, Apple, et al, also paid for that research. By placing the software under an unrestricted license like BSD or MIT, everyone who paid for the software gets to use it for any purpose.
Their assumption is correct if they are trying to make money off of the software. The GPL makes it very hard to do this. Very hard. It's damned difficult to get someone to pay you for what they can download for free. They could make money, on the other hand, bmaking the software a loss leader for their real product, such as support, hardware, etc.
You have the analogy wrong, because toys are finite in number, whereas software is near infinitely reproducible. Here is a more accurate analogy, though still flawed:
Proprietary: I have one million slinkies. I'll let you play with one slinky if you pay me. If you don't pay me I will take you to court.
GPL: I have one million rubber balls. If you play with any of my balls I get to play with yours. If you don't let me play with your balls I will take you to court.
BSD: I have one million kazoos. I don't need one million kazoos. Here, take one.
That's not proof, that's merely evidence. The evidence is sufficient to assume conflict of interest on the part of the ADTI, but is insufficient to prove that Microsoft paid for this specific study.
Because it is. It's not backward compatible, meaning you can't license a derivative of GPL software under the BSD license, but it is indeed forward compatible, so that you can license a derivative of BSD software under the GPL. The *only* license that is both forward and backward compatible with the GPL is the GPL and LGPL (which is automatically converted irrevocably to pure GPL as necessary).
No it can't be true! This is impossible. Everyone here on Slashdot knows that the United States is the only nation that violates the civil liberties of it's citizens. It's the US that has the evil DMCA, houses the RIAA and MPAA, and arrests foreign developers for attending LV conferences.
I mean geez, if Alan Cox refuses to visit the US because it's so evil, you know damn well that his home nation cannot be. This story must be fake.
Yup, something fishy. Chris got all these submissions saying that FreeBSD-4.6 had been released. They could not have all been wrong. Maybe one or two, but not all of them. I mean, at least one of them had to be right. Something's fishy over at FreeBSD. I think they're just trying to make Slashdork look bad.
Since when have you ever seen a pile of volunteered contributions without a fishy or off one in the stack? Even over and over.
Slashdot may get a million submissions a day, but they only post about ten or twenty of them. That gives them plenty of time to actually check out the story.
This is the third time this has happened with a FreeBSD release, and it's happened to Linux distro releases as well. Is Slashdot deliberately trying to destroy their credibility?
Remember: Open-Source does not mean FREE software, it doesnt even mean "Libre" software, it just means that you can see the code. That is _ALL_ it means.
When will you nutbags stop propogating this ridiculous fiction. Some of these Slashdot clowns are starting to believe it.
Go read the OSI's Open Source Definition. Then go read the FSF's Free Software Definition. The definitions are of course different, having been written by different people, but the spirit and intent of both definitions are identical: to classify a particular category of software having particular attributes.
Both allow the software to be used, copied, modified, the original distributed, and the deriviatives distributed. To say that Open Source merely means you can see the source code is either a result of your ignorance or your deception. Either get informed or stop lying.
Remember, significant portions of their OS are built upon BSD-licensed code.
Actually, it's more like insignificant portions of their OS. There's a TCP/IP stack, but rumour has it that it has mostly been removed. Then there's MS's implementation of Kerberos, which became a laughing stock of the IT community. Other than that, I can't think of much.
It's nice to say that "BSD is a license to steal" because that earns you points in the GNUlitia. But it's simply not true.
Copyright is restrictive, the GPL operates under copyright, therefore the GPL is restrictive.
Here are the restrictions that the GPL imposes on me. Granted, they're pretty trivial, but they're still restrictions: I must give the source code to anyone I gave the executable to if they ask for it; I must license my derivative works under the GPL; I must keep the license and warranty disclaimer attached to the package; and some other minor stuff.
There is ONE thing in the GPL that is restrictive over and above copyright. Actually, it's the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but let's not quibble: dynamic linking is considered to be the creation of a derivative work, even though nothing in copyright law even comes close to asserting this. Thus, there are things that that copyright law lets me do that the GPL won't, such as dynamically linking my wholly original application to a GPLd library. But that's really a minor point, considering the extreme rarity of GPL libraries.
Absolutely. It's funny that these same people crying that the GPL doesn't let them do whatever they want with their derivative product are the first ones to defend the restrictive proprietary licenses requiring royalties. There's a double standard here, and these nuts are too stupid to see it.
Do they think they can use RogueWave Tools++ without paying for it with money? Then why do they think they can use GPLd code without paying for it by releasing their source? A price is a price. For a lot of developers, the price of the GPL is much cheaper than the price of a typical proprietary library.
I don't use the GPL, and there have been times where I have wanted to use a GPL code snippet but couldn't. But you don't see me crying about it and issuing white papers.
These guys aren't programmers. They aren't developers, hackers, or coders. In a nutshell, they don't know what they're talking about.
Their claims are so ridiculous it's mind boggling. They start out by stating that "Completed (written) software is often locked by its programmer, hiding the underlying code from its user." Truth is, nothing is locked, sealed or hidden away. It's only been translated.
That they can't even comprehend the basic nature of software taints this entire piece. These guys aren't programmers, and have about as much business commenting on software development as my physician or auto mechanic.
I fully understand you don't owe me a thing. That's why I'm not asking. That's why I don't charge for my software. That's why I let the whole fucking world download it for free, modify it, and redistribute it to anyone they like, without any damn strings attached.
But go check out the start of this thread. The assertion is that there's a lot of money to be made by writing Free Software. I just don't see a lot of money here outside of a few niches.
If the government becomes 'tyrannical' (whatever that is) then you just accept it.
If my government ever becomes tyrannical (and it's getting pretty damn close), make sure you stay out of my way or you'll get seriously hurt.
Don't tell me the stupid saying of "if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns" because it's really stupid.
How will the law abiding citizens have guns if they're illegal? Won't they be outlaws instead? It may be a stupid saying, but it's true. If guns are outlawed then I will become an outlaw.
Just because a criminal may attack you with a gun (or knife, baseball bat, etc, etc) does *NOT* give you the right of self defense.
State forbid that I should try to protect myself. After all, my body doesn't belong to me, so it's not mine to protect. It belongs to the Almighty State, and if they don't see fit to protect it, who am I to argue?
That's what the police are there for.
Yeah right. The police are useful as a deterent against crime, but they do nothing to prevent a crime in progress.
Just deal with it and talk to the police if you ever are attacked.
Hah! If I live that is. I don't know if you've checked recently, but there's a lot of nutcases out there. Sometimes they don't let their victims live long enough to talk to the police.
The second amendment is there to protect the government's right to bear arms.
Go read the constitution again. The entire document, particularly the bill of rights, is a limitation on the government. The right to bear arms is an attribute of the people. Your statement is a ridiculous as saying the first ammendment is there to protect the government's right to spread propaganda.
Private ownership of firearms is not politically correct in today's society.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about political correctness. It's irrelevant to me. The term itself is a mantra and recognition phrase for the Worshippers of the State.
This isn't the wild west!!
The wild west as portrayed in Hollywood movies and cheap fiction never existed. The real "wild" west of the late 19th century was quite tame compared to the modern day big city. I would much rather live unarmed and defenseless in Dodge City circa 1888 than armed in Washington D.C. circa 2002.
Slashdot Mirror
It's time to get rid of EULAs. They are counter to five thousand years of contract law. They are counter to one thousand years of common law. They are counter to both the Commercial Code and Copyright Law (in the US).
EULAs are based on the unwarranted proposition that the author of the software has the exclusive right to use and install the software. This is not true. According to 17 USC 117, the owner of the copy of the software has the right to utilize the software, including adapting it in such a way as to be able to utilize it (e.i. installation). Since the user has the right to use the software, such use cannot be taken as a form of assent to be bound by the license.
But enough of that. What really bugs me is why these turkeys even need EULAs. Pretend you're a proprietary developer wanting to restrict your software. What do you want to restrict? Let's see... No unauthorized copying. No unauthorized distribution. No unauthorized derivative works. In short, just the same stuff a proprietary novelist wants. So why a EULA? Wouldn't a simple copyright statement be just as good? In just about every EULA I've seen (discounting those monstrosities from Microsoft) the only thing they restrict are copying, distribution and modification.
Audio CDs and DVDs don't have EULAs. But if software EULAs get legitimized, it's only a matter of time before the MPAA and RIAA (those scum) get on the gravy train. We don't want that. We don't want to watch a movie in a theater only to see a EULA two hours later saying that be watching the movie we have agreed to post no negative reviews...
If you're a proprietary developer, stop using End User License Agreements. Start using simple copyright statements. You won't lose anything. Your users will thank you.
But the fact of the matter is that you are agreeing to give up said rights.
I haven't agreed to any such thing. You cannot consider my use of the software (including its installation) to be evidence of acceptance, since I already possess the right to use (and install) the software by virtue of purchased it commercially. You haven't rented, leased or licensed it to me. You sold it to me.
Imagine you just purchased a new car for zero down and zero percent interest. Sounds like a good deal? So you sign the papers and go to your new car. But there stuck to the steering wheel is a piece of paper that says "by driving this car you agree to immediately refinance you car for $10,000 down and 10% interest. Just an "agreement" wouldn't last five seconds in a court of law. Yet this is essentially what EULAs are doing. You have made an commercial transaction to obtain the software, which grants you the right to use and install the software according to both the US Commercial Code and Title 17 Copyright Law. But upon attempting to use and install the software you are presented with a different agreement which is in opposition to the commercial transaction.
BUT, you didn't buy the product. The only thing you OWN is the media on which the product is carried.
So the software is free then? After all, I'm only paying for the media. The software I get for zero cost. I'm starting to wonder why the WinXP box is so much more expensive than the WinXP Upgrade box. After all, the media, manuals and box are virtually IDENTICAL! One give you an install floppy and the other doesn't. That's a pretty expensive floppy.
But here's what I think is really happening. The software manufacturers are taking advantage of narcoleptic judges. They go through all the motions of a commercial transaction, including a bill of sale, then claim that it wasn't a commercial transaction so that the USC doesn't apply. This is bullshit. It's blatant fraud.
Finally, you understand that Yoda, although frail physically, has the ability to channel the Force in ways that no other Jedi can
But that's not what Yoda did. He and Dooku figured out that neither could defeat the other through mastery of the force, so they agreed to settle the dispute through mundane methods. Did you even see the movie?
It wasn't the force. If it was, here is what would have happened: Dooku would have swung fast and furiously with the light saber, and Yoda would have parried every blow with his mind and a minute wave of his fingers. He would have thrown off those attacks just as if they were the earlier stones and lightning bolts. If that were the way the scene would have been done, it would have been awesome! It would have put fear on the face of Dooku.
What's the difference?
The difference is called clear thinking, logic untainted by preconceptions, and intellectual honesty. Remember, in case you have forgotten, that the original question that started this thread was "Was this really sponsored my Microsoft?" A positive answer to that question implies that Microsoft specifically requested and paid for that paper. There is no proof of that, and the only evidence is extremely coincidental.
Here's an analogy. I donate money to the Republicrat party. Somewhere in Southern North Dakota the Republicrats put an asshole on the ballot. Do I support the asshole? No. Did my donation influence the selection of the asshole? No. Is part of my donation going to the asshole's campaign? Maybe. But you cannot conclude that I have sponsored the asshole.
Citizens should be able to know if the program works the way the policy says. The only way this is possible is through open source software.
I'm really confused here. For some software (voting tabulators), it makes sense to have a specific policy. But in most cases (MS Word) it's silly. It's not the government's job to dictate policy on how MS Word works. The last thing the Open Source community needs are reams of government specs that they have to follow before their software gets used. If the feds issue policies so detailed that you need to source code to figure out if it's being followed, then that will kill Open Source for government, because no one will be following it. The last thing Linus Torvalds (as an example) wants to do when deciding on which VM model to use is to consult some government policy manual.
File formats are not a simple situation, either. The problem with Microsoft Word, for example, is that the file format is not only in the format itself
But MS Word files are not in open file formats. Government documents should not be in Word format. I think you missed my whole point.
Take a simple ASCII file. Does it really matter that the file was created with Emacs, vi, Notepad or Word? No! Who bloody cares what program created it. One hundred years from now you will still be able to read that file without having to have the program that created it.
What does this prove?
It proves nothing. I seriously doubt that the chairman of the GOP specified IIS, or the chairman of the Dems specied Apache. I suspect, instead, that either their webmaster, or their web hosting service, made that decision for them.
p.s. Go find out what OS is running www.stallman.org. It wasn't GNU/Linux last time I checked. Again, proves nothing.
Proprietary software hides the workings of government from the citizens.
Are you sure you don't mean "proprietary formats"? Who gives a rat's ass what program created the document so long as the document is in an open format?
Furthermore you have not remotely refuted the assertion that the government *should* GPL all their software.
Here's one refutation: Microsoft, Sun, Apple, et al, also paid for that research. By placing the software under an unrestricted license like BSD or MIT, everyone who paid for the software gets to use it for any purpose.
Their assumption is correct if they are trying to make money off of the software. The GPL makes it very hard to do this. Very hard. It's damned difficult to get someone to pay you for what they can download for free. They could make money, on the other hand, bmaking the software a loss leader for their real product, such as support, hardware, etc.
You have the analogy wrong, because toys are finite in number, whereas software is near infinitely reproducible. Here is a more accurate analogy, though still flawed:
Proprietary: I have one million slinkies. I'll let you play with one slinky if you pay me. If you don't pay me I will take you to court.
GPL: I have one million rubber balls. If you play with any of my balls I get to play with yours. If you don't let me play with your balls I will take you to court.
BSD: I have one million kazoos. I don't need one million kazoos. Here, take one.
That's not proof, that's merely evidence. The evidence is sufficient to assume conflict of interest on the part of the ADTI, but is insufficient to prove that Microsoft paid for this specific study.
Because it is. It's not backward compatible, meaning you can't license a derivative of GPL software under the BSD license, but it is indeed forward compatible, so that you can license a derivative of BSD software under the GPL. The *only* license that is both forward and backward compatible with the GPL is the GPL and LGPL (which is automatically converted irrevocably to pure GPL as necessary).
No it can't be true! This is impossible. Everyone here on Slashdot knows that the United States is the only nation that violates the civil liberties of it's citizens. It's the US that has the evil DMCA, houses the RIAA and MPAA, and arrests foreign developers for attending LV conferences.
I mean geez, if Alan Cox refuses to visit the US because it's so evil, you know damn well that his home nation cannot be. This story must be fake.
Yup, something fishy. Chris got all these submissions saying that FreeBSD-4.6 had been released. They could not have all been wrong. Maybe one or two, but not all of them. I mean, at least one of them had to be right. Something's fishy over at FreeBSD. I think they're just trying to make Slashdork look bad.
Since when have you ever seen a pile of volunteered contributions without a fishy or off one in the stack? Even over and over.
Slashdot may get a million submissions a day, but they only post about ten or twenty of them. That gives them plenty of time to actually check out the story.
This is the third time this has happened with a FreeBSD release, and it's happened to Linux distro releases as well. Is Slashdot deliberately trying to destroy their credibility?
Remember: Open-Source does not mean FREE software, it doesnt even mean "Libre" software, it just means that you can see the code. That is _ALL_ it means.
When will you nutbags stop propogating this ridiculous fiction. Some of these Slashdot clowns are starting to believe it.
Go read the OSI's Open Source Definition. Then go read the FSF's Free Software Definition. The definitions are of course different, having been written by different people, but the spirit and intent of both definitions are identical: to classify a particular category of software having particular attributes.
Both allow the software to be used, copied, modified, the original distributed, and the deriviatives distributed. To say that Open Source merely means you can see the source code is either a result of your ignorance or your deception. Either get informed or stop lying.
Remember, significant portions of their OS are built upon BSD-licensed code.
Actually, it's more like insignificant portions of their OS. There's a TCP/IP stack, but rumour has it that it has mostly been removed. Then there's MS's implementation of Kerberos, which became a laughing stock of the IT community. Other than that, I can't think of much.
It's nice to say that "BSD is a license to steal" because that earns you points in the GNUlitia. But it's simply not true.
Copyright is restrictive, the GPL operates under copyright, therefore the GPL is restrictive.
Here are the restrictions that the GPL imposes on me. Granted, they're pretty trivial, but they're still restrictions: I must give the source code to anyone I gave the executable to if they ask for it; I must license my derivative works under the GPL; I must keep the license and warranty disclaimer attached to the package; and some other minor stuff.
There is ONE thing in the GPL that is restrictive over and above copyright. Actually, it's the FSF's interpretation of the GPL, but let's not quibble: dynamic linking is considered to be the creation of a derivative work, even though nothing in copyright law even comes close to asserting this. Thus, there are things that that copyright law lets me do that the GPL won't, such as dynamically linking my wholly original application to a GPLd library. But that's really a minor point, considering the extreme rarity of GPL libraries.
Absolutely. It's funny that these same people crying that the GPL doesn't let them do whatever they want with their derivative product are the first ones to defend the restrictive proprietary licenses requiring royalties. There's a double standard here, and these nuts are too stupid to see it.
Do they think they can use RogueWave Tools++ without paying for it with money? Then why do they think they can use GPLd code without paying for it by releasing their source? A price is a price. For a lot of developers, the price of the GPL is much cheaper than the price of a typical proprietary library.
I don't use the GPL, and there have been times where I have wanted to use a GPL code snippet but couldn't. But you don't see me crying about it and issuing white papers.
These guys aren't programmers. They aren't developers, hackers, or coders. In a nutshell, they don't know what they're talking about.
Their claims are so ridiculous it's mind boggling. They start out by stating that "Completed (written) software is often locked
by its programmer, hiding the underlying code from its user." Truth is, nothing is locked, sealed or hidden away. It's only been translated.
That they can't even comprehend the basic nature of software taints this entire piece. These guys aren't programmers, and have about as much business commenting on software development as my physician or auto mechanic.
I fully understand you don't owe me a thing. That's why I'm not asking. That's why I don't charge for my software. That's why I let the whole fucking world download it for free, modify it, and redistribute it to anyone they like, without any damn strings attached.
But go check out the start of this thread. The assertion is that there's a lot of money to be made by writing Free Software. I just don't see a lot of money here outside of a few niches.
You can you stop it? You're the one who licensed your code under (I assume) the GPL. Remember, freedom isn't just for the people you like.
If it wasn't apathy that led to the election of Bush then what the hell was it?
It was apathy that led to Bush running against Gore to begin with. Both candidates were the most inoffensive blokes either party could find.
If the government becomes 'tyrannical' (whatever that is) then you just accept it.
If my government ever becomes tyrannical (and it's getting pretty damn close), make sure you stay out of my way or you'll get seriously hurt.
Don't tell me the stupid saying of "if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns" because it's really stupid.
How will the law abiding citizens have guns if they're illegal? Won't they be outlaws instead? It may be a stupid saying, but it's true. If guns are outlawed then I will become an outlaw.
Just because a criminal may attack you with a gun (or knife, baseball bat, etc, etc) does *NOT* give you the right of self defense.
State forbid that I should try to protect myself. After all, my body doesn't belong to me, so it's not mine to protect. It belongs to the Almighty State, and if they don't see fit to protect it, who am I to argue?
That's what the police are there for.
Yeah right. The police are useful as a deterent against crime, but they do nothing to prevent a crime in progress.
Just deal with it and talk to the police if you ever are attacked.
Hah! If I live that is. I don't know if you've checked recently, but there's a lot of nutcases out there. Sometimes they don't let their victims live long enough to talk to the police.
The second amendment is there to protect the government's right to bear arms.
Go read the constitution again. The entire document, particularly the bill of rights, is a limitation on the government. The right to bear arms is an attribute of the people. Your statement is a ridiculous as saying the first ammendment is there to protect the government's right to spread propaganda.
Private ownership of firearms is not politically correct in today's society.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about political correctness. It's irrelevant to me. The term itself is a mantra and recognition phrase for the Worshippers of the State.
This isn't the wild west!!
The wild west as portrayed in Hollywood movies and cheap fiction never existed. The real "wild" west of the late 19th century was quite tame compared to the modern day big city. I would much rather live unarmed and defenseless in Dodge City circa 1888 than armed in Washington D.C. circa 2002.