You can't even put forth an argument, let alone make a case.
You quote a supreme court ruling that is irrelevant to my position, as if it proves your case. And then when I criticize what you say, you say I was talking about the supreme court.
You claim that websites say things, and even quote them, without providing links-- and when you do the websites don't say what you claim they do!
You are a liar. That's not a personal attack, its a simple fact.
By the way, you say I should use logic, but you don't recognize strawman as a referance to a logical fallacy?
IF you can't recognize the logical fallacies I point out in your so-called argument, what is the point of claiming I should use logic? By your own admission, you wouldn't recognize it!
Now, go look up strawman, so my effort won't be completely wasted-- at least you'll know the proper term for what you do.
AH, not only are you lying about gun types, you're quoting fictitious websites! And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!
What a bafoon! Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. And you got the caliber wrong, its.223, not 7.62.
Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles".
Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon.
You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns-- you don't know what kinds of guns are out there, or even the model names-- you just want to ban them!
2.5 million times a year guns are used to prevent violent crime-- without firing a shot.
By the way, that claim that 1 percent of gun sotres sell weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes is a lie. A flat out fabrication. The closes thing to a study along these lines found nothing close to that-- and was biased in the way they gatehred data in the first place. Most gun crimes are not traced to point of purchase... probably the vast majority, but at least most.
And in the UK violent crime has gone OUT OF CONTROL since they banned guns.
ITs been a total failure there, and is starting to become one in Australia, which is a few years behind the UK.
ITs a simple equation: More guns = LESS CRIME.
You take guns away from the law abiding, and only criminals have them-- which produces more crime.
Crime in the US has been going down right along with the spread of concealed carry permits.
When criminals don't know who is armed, they don't know who to attack.
You made an error-- there is a legitimate use for them.
IF you are in the process of rushing an injured person to the hospital, you are effectively an ambulence and using such a device may save the person's life.
The state is not some magical moral thing. People have been taught so much respect for authority that they think that ONLY the police and firemen and ambulences can defend people, put out fires or take people ot the hospital.
IF only they knew how wrong they are-- I live in an area with no fire coverage-- NONE! A major urban area but it takes 90 minutes for a fireman to get here. Ambulences are better-- they get here in about 20 minutes. As for the police, they only show up AFTER the crime has been committed, and usually by about 20 minutes...
IF you didn't see the government as your nanny, you wouldn't want to see these things made illegal.
Anyway, if you read the second amendment, you'd realize that even if your redefinition of the word militia, the ammendment protects the right, not the right of hte militia. The words do not limit the protection in any way--- let alone just to specific people.
Also, you should not talk about guns when you don't have a basic knowledge of them. There is no such thing as an "ar-16", nor an "aks-74". And this absurd notion that you guys have that a rifle magically kills many dozens of people nearby with one shot is pure paranoia.
Whether she defends herself with an AR-15, or a Glock, it is her choice. Oh, and while its true that an AR-15 isn't appropriate to hunting deer-- that's because the round is TOO SMALL, not because the gun kills everything in sight with a pull of the trigger.
So, in short, you endorse rape. You think there is no gun a woman should be allowed to use to defend herself.
As to nuclear weapons, you're being absurd, and trying to change the subject. We're not talking about nuclear weapons.
By the way, do you know why jews in germany were disarmed, and easy pickings for the Nazis? Because the Weirmar regime, which was fearful of the nazis, passed gun control laws preventing individuals from owning firearms.
When you disarm the populace, you make it easier for criminals to take over. The Nazis-- always well armed-- took over and started rounding up jews, who, obviously, couldn't fight back since they were not allowed to own guns.
You are a bigoted idiot who cannot think at all, and clearly should not have a gun... which is the real reason you don't want others to-- you don't trust yourself. So, stay disarmed. I think its a good idea, for YOU. But for the rest of the country, the competant adults, they should stay armed.
The police may show up after a crime is committed, but they are never there to prevent the crime.
IF you don't want to be victimized, you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Firearms are a safe and effective way to do so.
Hell, 2.5 million violent crimes are prevented each year by firearms-- without firing a shot!
So, don't pretend that you aren't trying to take away all guns, and disarm everyone but the criminals. The fact that you lack a basic understanding of the difference between an AK and a hunting rifle is sufficient proof you just are for gun confiscation. (Oh, but please, prove me wrong, tell me exactly, in detailed terms, what the difference is. Show your ignorance for the rest of us even more explicitly. And no comments about "assault weapons kill lots of people" or other lies like that. What's the specific differnce between an "assault weapon" and a "hunting rifle"? I'll give you a clue, there is none. But to get the question right, you'll have to admit that oyu really do want to ban hunting rifles.
So, tell us what the difference is.
Or tell us exactly why you want to take hunting rifles out of the hands of jews and women living alone.
The FCC is unconstitutional, and should not be allowed to control anything.
You know why TV is shit? The FCC.
They directly violate the first ammendment... but our socialist masters must have control over the news we hear, lest we actually hear of libertarian candidates for president before the election... people might -- GASP!--- vote for them?!!!
Same thing here... if you put in a back door, tough luck. People are going to use it. Put in real security.
The government does not have the RIGHT to ban these devices.
People need to stop thinking of the government as a legitimate authority in all areas... they aren't.
Course we wouldn't have this problem i nthe first place if government hadn't illegally taken a monopoly in roads... private road services would provide much better ambulence and other emergency services as much lower cost.
Just goes to show, once again, that government is a disease masquarading as its own cure! IT always wants to fix problems that IT CAUSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Ignorance is when someone is uninformed. What do you call it when you inform them and they continue to tell falsehoods? Dishonesty? Stupidity?
Anyway, you are going off on your standard issue bigoted hate speech and not paying any attention to what I'm actually saying.
Of course the pledge was written by a socialists-- you are the one who should be proud of it, it has done quite a lot of work toward indoctrinating kids to not think for themselves.
But apparently you don't even know what socialism IS, so what's the point?
Take your bullshit proud-of-your-ignorance hatred elsewhere.
False. Militia means individuals. That's why they said militia and not army. An army would be an organized force. The militia is all the people who volunteer to be called whenever they are needed, or even those who do not volunteer.
The second ammendment protects and individual right. Every examination of the historical documents shows that this was the intention... even the previous drafts of the bill of rights are consistent with that view.
And the definition of the word is clear enough.
The idea that only the military and police should have guns is the idea that a woman raped and killed is better than a woman explaining why she shot the guy.
Atually, in a free society, there would be abundant harvests.
Its only in socialist states, like russia, where you get massive famine.
You let people get paid for growing food, and what happens? They grow food!
Amazing that!
As to global warming, it won't create famine... areas that are not productive now would become more productive. Areas that would become less productive happen to be areas that are relatively easy to irrigate.
On the contrary... whenever socialist engineers try to change the environment (or any problem, really) they make it worse.
Your "in the powerr to change it" is based on a complete lack of understanding of economics, and what you'll actually change will be the number of poor poeple in the world (you'll make that number much bigger) and do nothing about the environment.
This has been the way with all attempts to engineer the environment by "environmentalists".
If you don't understand economics-- and they don't-- they can only create more problems.
Its time to get the governemnt in here to stop intel from innovating!
First off, their chips will last a long time and poison thousands of people in the future...
Plus their employees are rich bastards and its not fair that they should get paid so well while we all have so little!
where's the government when we need them! Why aren't they shutting down intel????
(just being the typical slashdot poster if they expressed their politics when it came to techinical issues... alas, they seem to hold contradictory views without recognizing it.)
Shows you don't have an argument when you have to use such selective editing.
By the way, I love how my opposition of your persecution of hte poor shows my "lack of heart" for the poor. WTF? Logic? Hello? And of course you have to throw lies in there-- the "poorest of all can afford no transportation", oh boo hoo, anybody can afford a $500 toyota tercel from the 80s, anyone making minimum wage, that is. You're simultaneoustly advocating taking their cars away so that they can no longer afford them, and calling me a heartless anti-poor bastard.
Finally, I love how you say the poor deserve to be persecuted-- the law is they should be rich enough to drive a brand new car, and therefore they should get citations.
After all the Rich have to follow the same law!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, you are an idiot.
But it only goes to show-- socialists like yourself claim to support and end to poverty, but you've never seen a poverty creating violation of human rights that you won't endorse!
I'm glad to see you both oppose human rights and endorse government violations of them.
At least your consistent.
Seriously, though, if government was "of the people" than my simple disagreement would be all that's necessary to stop the process.
Instead of a government subserviant to the will of the people, we have a failed democracy that has let government get out of control.
A moral government would require unanimous consent. And if you think that means it would take a long time to get anything done-- you're right! Government doesn't need to move any faster either-- in fact, that change alone would eliminate poverty in this country, and a whole lot of other problems you guys claim to want to fight, but in the end endorse the expansion of.
Ok, so since if you eat way too much food you can be harmed, therefore we have to regulate food to prevent people from getting fat?
OH, wait, you guys are trying to do that.
You are in denial about reality-- even the real reasons we went to war in Iraq-- which are simple revenge, not oil. Simple economics competance would show you that.
Why do I respond to anonymous cowards? They never have two brain cells to rub together.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't even put forth an argument, let alone make a case.
You quote a supreme court ruling that is irrelevant to my position, as if it proves your case. And then when I criticize what you say, you say I was talking about the supreme court.
You claim that websites say things, and even quote them, without providing links-- and when you do the websites don't say what you claim they do!
You are a liar. That's not a personal attack, its a simple fact.
By the way, you say I should use logic, but you don't recognize strawman as a referance to a logical fallacy?
IF you can't recognize the logical fallacies I point out in your so-called argument, what is the point of claiming I should use logic? By your own admission, you wouldn't recognize it!
Now, go look up strawman, so my effort won't be completely wasted-- at least you'll know the proper term for what you do.
AH, not only are you lying about gun types, you're quoting fictitious websites! And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!
What a bafoon! Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. And you got the caliber wrong, its
Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles".
Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon.
You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns-- you don't know what kinds of guns are out there, or even the model names-- you just want to ban them!
Ah, you have guns yourself? Yeah, right, what a lie!
Anyway, you get hung up on the word militia, but the "security of a free state" is also part of the second ammendment.
That security is ensured by havign a well armed populace.
Nobody needs a seance-- they just need basic reading comprehension.
The NRA is a gun control organization, the ACLU is a pro-gun banning organization.
When they oppose the constitution, they undermine all of it, even if they selectively oppose it.
2.5 million times a year guns are used to prevent violent crime-- without firing a shot.
By the way, that claim that 1 percent of gun sotres sell weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes is a lie. A flat out fabrication. The closes thing to a study along these lines found nothing close to that-- and was biased in the way they gatehred data in the first place. Most gun crimes are not traced to point of purchase... probably the vast majority, but at least most.
And in the UK violent crime has gone OUT OF CONTROL since they banned guns.
ITs been a total failure there, and is starting to become one in Australia, which is a few years behind the UK.
ITs a simple equation: More guns = LESS CRIME.
You take guns away from the law abiding, and only criminals have them-- which produces more crime.
Crime in the US has been going down right along with the spread of concealed carry permits.
When criminals don't know who is armed, they don't know who to attack.
More guns means less crime.
You made an error-- there is a legitimate use for them.
IF you are in the process of rushing an injured person to the hospital, you are effectively an ambulence and using such a device may save the person's life.
The state is not some magical moral thing. People have been taught so much respect for authority that they think that ONLY the police and firemen and ambulences can defend people, put out fires or take people ot the hospital.
IF only they knew how wrong they are-- I live in an area with no fire coverage-- NONE! A major urban area but it takes 90 minutes for a fireman to get here. Ambulences are better-- they get here in about 20 minutes. As for the police, they only show up AFTER the crime has been committed, and usually by about 20 minutes...
IF you didn't see the government as your nanny, you wouldn't want to see these things made illegal.
Nice try, but you forget, we get BBC crap here in the US, so we know you're lying.
You know, you really should read Rand. You'd make less of a fool out of yourself. You know, logic. Its not just a good idea.
You sure like to make up lies and declare victory.
You haven't proven anything, you've just knocked down a strawman.
Its unfortunate that you are so dishonest, it means I have no chance of reaching you with reason.
You just love a strawman, and to redefine words.
Anyway, if you read the second amendment, you'd realize that even if your redefinition of the word militia, the ammendment protects the right, not the right of hte militia. The words do not limit the protection in any way--- let alone just to specific people.
Also, you should not talk about guns when you don't have a basic knowledge of them. There is no such thing as an "ar-16", nor an "aks-74". And this absurd notion that you guys have that a rifle magically kills many dozens of people nearby with one shot is pure paranoia.
Whether she defends herself with an AR-15, or a Glock, it is her choice. Oh, and while its true that an AR-15 isn't appropriate to hunting deer-- that's because the round is TOO SMALL, not because the gun kills everything in sight with a pull of the trigger.
So, in short, you endorse rape. You think there is no gun a woman should be allowed to use to defend herself.
As to nuclear weapons, you're being absurd, and trying to change the subject. We're not talking about nuclear weapons.
By the way, do you know why jews in germany were disarmed, and easy pickings for the Nazis? Because the Weirmar regime, which was fearful of the nazis, passed gun control laws preventing individuals from owning firearms.
When you disarm the populace, you make it easier for criminals to take over. The Nazis-- always well armed-- took over and started rounding up jews, who, obviously, couldn't fight back since they were not allowed to own guns.
You are a bigoted idiot who cannot think at all, and clearly should not have a gun... which is the real reason you don't want others to-- you don't trust yourself. So, stay disarmed. I think its a good idea, for YOU. But for the rest of the country, the competant adults, they should stay armed.
The police may show up after a crime is committed, but they are never there to prevent the crime.
IF you don't want to be victimized, you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Firearms are a safe and effective way to do so.
Hell, 2.5 million violent crimes are prevented each year by firearms-- without firing a shot!
So, don't pretend that you aren't trying to take away all guns, and disarm everyone but the criminals. The fact that you lack a basic understanding of the difference between an AK and a hunting rifle is sufficient proof you just are for gun confiscation. (Oh, but please, prove me wrong, tell me exactly, in detailed terms, what the difference is. Show your ignorance for the rest of us even more explicitly. And no comments about "assault weapons kill lots of people" or other lies like that. What's the specific differnce between an "assault weapon" and a "hunting rifle"? I'll give you a clue, there is none. But to get the question right, you'll have to admit that oyu really do want to ban hunting rifles.
So, tell us what the difference is.
Or tell us exactly why you want to take hunting rifles out of the hands of jews and women living alone.
I'm waiting.
The FCC is unconstitutional, and should not be allowed to control anything.
You know why TV is shit? The FCC.
They directly violate the first ammendment... but our socialist masters must have control over the news we hear, lest we actually hear of libertarian candidates for president before the election... people might -- GASP!--- vote for them?!!!
Same thing here... if you put in a back door, tough luck. People are going to use it. Put in real security.
The government does not have the RIGHT to ban these devices.
People need to stop thinking of the government as a legitimate authority in all areas... they aren't.
Course we wouldn't have this problem i nthe first place if government hadn't illegally taken a monopoly in roads... private road services would provide much better ambulence and other emergency services as much lower cost.
Just goes to show, once again, that government is a disease masquarading as its own cure! IT always wants to fix problems that IT CAUSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Because any law to make them illegal would be unconstitutional at the federal level, and probably unconstitutional at the state level as well.
Its like broadcasting in the clear-- if they wanted security, they should have built a secure system.
They didn't, so tough.
Ignorance is when someone is uninformed. What do you call it when you inform them and they continue to tell falsehoods? Dishonesty? Stupidity?
Anyway, you are going off on your standard issue bigoted hate speech and not paying any attention to what I'm actually saying.
Of course the pledge was written by a socialists-- you are the one who should be proud of it, it has done quite a lot of work toward indoctrinating kids to not think for themselves.
But apparently you don't even know what socialism IS, so what's the point?
Take your bullshit proud-of-your-ignorance hatred elsewhere.
False. Militia means individuals. That's why they said militia and not army. An army would be an organized force. The militia is all the people who volunteer to be called whenever they are needed, or even those who do not volunteer.
The second ammendment protects and individual right. Every examination of the historical documents shows that this was the intention... even the previous drafts of the bill of rights are consistent with that view.
And the definition of the word is clear enough.
The idea that only the military and police should have guns is the idea that a woman raped and killed is better than a woman explaining why she shot the guy.
Atually, in a free society, there would be abundant harvests.
Its only in socialist states, like russia, where you get massive famine.
You let people get paid for growing food, and what happens? They grow food!
Amazing that!
As to global warming, it won't create famine... areas that are not productive now would become more productive. Areas that would become less productive happen to be areas that are relatively easy to irrigate.
Yep, right on all counts.
How much of this government ineptitude and incompetance does it take before people wake up?
They wander around thinking nothing should happen to them, and that they shouldnt' be responsible for their own actions.
If insurance doesn't cover the fire damage, why does FEMA?
The right being violated is the right to travel.
The emissions standards in most states (and certainly california) have nothing to do with pollution. They are far more stringent than is reasonable.
On the contrary... whenever socialist engineers try to change the environment (or any problem, really) they make it worse.
Your "in the powerr to change it" is based on a complete lack of understanding of economics, and what you'll actually change will be the number of poor poeple in the world (you'll make that number much bigger) and do nothing about the environment.
This has been the way with all attempts to engineer the environment by "environmentalists".
If you don't understand economics-- and they don't-- they can only create more problems.
Its time to get the governemnt in here to stop intel from innovating!
First off, their chips will last a long time and poison thousands of people in the future...
Plus their employees are rich bastards and its not fair that they should get paid so well while we all have so little!
where's the government when we need them! Why aren't they shutting down intel????
(just being the typical slashdot poster if they expressed their politics when it came to techinical issues... alas, they seem to hold contradictory views without recognizing it.)
False. Macs are cheaper than PCs, every study ever done on the subject has come to the same conclusion.
Hell, you can get your Dell catalog out and brows the Apple stores.
In the $3000 range, dell has nothing comperable to Apples Macs.
In the $2000 range, dells' machines are slower, and lower quality than Apple's machines at the same price.
And it actually gets more dramatic when you go to cheaper machines.
Its me calling you an idiot. And you just proved it.
So, what your'e saying is that only people who can afford to buy cars made in the last 5 years should be allowed to work?
My, what a fascist you are. And an idiot.
Shows you don't have an argument when you have to use such selective editing.
By the way, I love how my opposition of your persecution of hte poor shows my "lack of heart" for the poor. WTF? Logic? Hello? And of course you have to throw lies in there-- the "poorest of all can afford no transportation", oh boo hoo, anybody can afford a $500 toyota tercel from the 80s, anyone making minimum wage, that is. You're simultaneoustly advocating taking their cars away so that they can no longer afford them, and calling me a heartless anti-poor bastard.
Finally, I love how you say the poor deserve to be persecuted-- the law is they should be rich enough to drive a brand new car, and therefore they should get citations.
After all the Rich have to follow the same law!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, you are an idiot.
But it only goes to show-- socialists like yourself claim to support and end to poverty, but you've never seen a poverty creating violation of human rights that you won't endorse!
Ok, hotshot, go for it. Get a constitutional amendment, and then we can talk.
I'm glad to see you both oppose human rights and endorse government violations of them.
At least your consistent.
Seriously, though, if government was "of the people" than my simple disagreement would be all that's necessary to stop the process.
Instead of a government subserviant to the will of the people, we have a failed democracy that has let government get out of control.
A moral government would require unanimous consent. And if you think that means it would take a long time to get anything done-- you're right! Government doesn't need to move any faster either-- in fact, that change alone would eliminate poverty in this country, and a whole lot of other problems you guys claim to want to fight, but in the end endorse the expansion of.
On the contrary, when it comes to the bill of rights, the constitution trumps state constitutions.
States cannot take away rights. The right to travel is a right guaranteed in the 9th ammendment.
Plus, its yet another really STOOPID idea, as I've pointed out already. And it will work to increase pollution, not decrease it.
Every realease of Mac OS has been more stable than Windows. Only ignorance could let you think otherwise.
You can spend far more than Apple's highest priced Mac from Dell really easily.
You guys are always comparing piece of shit $150 PCs to top of the line macs as if they were the same.
I guess you think a broken fiat from the 70s is the same as a brand new toyota, eh?
Reality is, Macs are superior in every way. You have to get really desperate to make your counter claims.
Just stop hurting yourself and get a mac, and hten you won't have to try to justify your foolishness anymore.
God how stupid you guys are.
Ok, so since if you eat way too much food you can be harmed, therefore we have to regulate food to prevent people from getting fat?
OH, wait, you guys are trying to do that.
You are in denial about reality-- even the real reasons we went to war in Iraq-- which are simple revenge, not oil. Simple economics competance would show you that.
Why do I respond to anonymous cowards? They never have two brain cells to rub together.