the second amendment speaks of redcoats and muskets
No, actually, neither word is found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
then there is the whole *well-regulated* part: trianing, proficiency, responsibility, level headedness *BEFORE* you get a gun.
If we read the 1st Amendment the way you propose we read the 2nd, then your Freedom of Speech would also be limited — to Petitioning the Government. And only for Redress of Grievances. And only after a cool-off period. And only using the medium in existence back then — not on radio, TV, or the Internet.
They certainly wouldn't want to tell us unless they had to.
That's true. But using information thus obtained in court would be impossible — under the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine. They would need to — and sometimes do — invent some other explanations as to how they learned, what they are presenting in court...
Fracking is about natural gas, not oil. Both fuels keep us warm in winter, let us travel places, and keep our electric and electronic equipment going.
The seismologists, however, are yet to learn even how to predict earthquakes — or come up with anything else to improve daily lives of their employers (us).
And the other, well the other publishes peer reviewed research
Their lifestyles are supported by the taxpayers. They must convince us (our government, rather), that their research is valuable to obtain grants. They may be perfectly sincere, but the conflict of interest is stupendous — and can not be denied...
The bottom line is that you exemplify one of the biggest problems America faces today
Ah, an ad hominem. How refreshing... Please, don't hate.
because some guys who wrote with quill pens didn't explicitly say that "yes, this means even papers stored on your behalf in Google's datacenter"
This is a humanity-wide problem. For example, while a muezzin is prohibited by the Prophet from hiring somebody else to help call faithful to prayer, there is no prohibition from using electronic equipment to magnify one's voice: and most muezzins use microphones these days.
Indeed. Both — anthropogenic global warming and danger of fracking — are not supported by any sort of evidence. Both are a matter of belief and hypothesis — and Pascal's Wager is even cited as an argument.
And if you were in Australia right now
Did you know, kangaroos can postpone pregnancy? For months and even years? They developed this ability in response to multi-year droughts that would befall their continent every once in a while since times immemorial... Citing "Australia right now" in support of "Global Warming" (also known as "Climate Change") is ridiculous...
despite evidence that it is actually polluting wells and ground water
For somebody claiming existence of evidence, you are citing remarkably little of it... (No, I will not do the googling for you — you make the claim, you provide citations.)
Because government officials are all paid heavily by the oil and gas industry
While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warming" is settling down — and a new boogeyman, which, conveniently, can be neither measured nor confirmed nor denied with any certainty, is needed.
I wish I could. Unfortunately, local laws prohibit sellers from selling weapons to me, until I get government's permissions. This permission requirement turn the Constitutional right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary upon successful prosecution by the Executive, into a mere privilege, which the Executive may (or may not) grant and can withdraw on a whim.
I applaud the people in TFA for mocking these unconstitutional laws thus helping their eventual abolition.
This is akin to those idiots who felt the need to walk around with AR-15s and AK-47s slung over their shoulders and go into restaurants and other public places. Rights should be exercised, yes.
Ok, so you agree, that rights should be exercised. Now, please, explain, just how else could those "idiots" have exercised their right to bear arms — without bearing them?
But the 2nd Amendment is different as it is the only one that should be exercised responsibly, since it is the only one that can actually kill or injure.
Some rights are more equal than others? No, all rights should be exercised responsibly — famously, "Ballots are stronger than bullets". But please do explain, what was so "irresponsible" about those "idiots" you mentioned above...
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
the culture of guns in the usa is fucking retarded
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Right here, dear. The post is full of hatred "on" G.W. Bush — explained by his profiting from taxpayer-funded renovations of a stadium.
I never said anything about any of the tangents you are going off on
What "tangents"? You were expressing a clear disapproval of Bush's handling of a sports-team. That's neither a "tangent" nor a "guess".
That makes you wrong, even if you guessed right.
I did guess right, didn't I? Heh-heh...Take your weaseling to Bill Clinton, we are done here.
And then you'll still need to substantiate your earlier claim, that this — profiting from taxpayer-funded projects — is an especially Republican "style". Put up or shut up...
George W Bush (R)
That Bush profited from a publicly-funded project (whether or not there was anything wrong in that) does not mean, such profiting is a particularly-Republican tendency — for all we know, he may have been the sole Republican to so profit in the last 100 years. To claim — as you did above — that it is an especially Republican "style", you need to put up evidence. You had several opportunities to provide a substantiation, but did not — did I say, we are done here?..
Can I just point out that your strawman is a false dichotomy?
You certainly can, but you'll be wrong — twice.
There is nothing automatically wrong in what Bush did, as you describe it. Maybe, as Libertarians believe, taxpayers should not be (re)building any stadiums at all — this would prevent politically-connected businessmen from profiting from any such projects. This approach would not help you indict Bush, however — as long as public policy provides financing for stadium-repairs, there is nothing wrong in taking part — even if the policy is in error...
Or you can remain in your Statist comfort zone and claim that, although some stadiums should be repaired by the taxpayer, that particular one should not have been. That's what I referred to as "some stadiums being more equal than others". This would make it possible for you to accuse Bush of wrong-doing, but you'll need to explain, why "his" stadium in particular should not have received public money. "Being owned by a Republican" is not a good enough reason.
You can also do both — claim, there should be no tax-funded stadiums at all and that the funding Bush received back then was especially improper. You still need to explain why, of course.
And then you'll still need to substantiate your earlier claim, that this — profiting from taxpayer-funded projects — is an especially Republican "style". Put up or shut up...
He bought in, used his "influence" (asking daddy for favors) to get the old stadium re-built at taxpayer expense
Are you going to agree with the Libertarians, that no stadiums should be (re)built at taxpayer expense? Or are you going to claim, some stadiums are more equal than others?
Traditional Republican style
Citations needed — please, supply links, proving, that such "style" is especially prevalent among Republicans. Thank you.
Example number one: G W Bush -- Harvard MBA, campaigned to "put a CEO in the White House", governor of Texas for two terms -- none of that seemed to help much when he hit the presidency.
Why do you say that? Whether or not he has been a very successful President, any failures were not due to his inability to organize and manage staff — as seems to be the case with Obama in general, and certainly in the case of "floppy disks" in particular.
In all likelihood, Megan J. Smith was one of the fans... Possibly, even with a special female twist to it...
Well, maybe, the job of running the Executive government's bureaucracy is just too difficult? TFA certainly suggests that... But that's exactly the job, Obama was hired for, darn it. There were people pointing out his shortage of executive experience — he never ran things (other than a failed charity — once), but this was countered, incredibly, by how he ran his election campaign...
Well, here we go — either he was never as advanced technologically as he and supporters portrayed him, or he has no ability to execute — to run things... Certainly not enough of it to affect the oft-promised change. Management is hard, let's go golfing.
I trust corporations a whole lot less in fact an order of magnitude less than the government.
Do you really? I wonder, why that is — do you have some reference to a study comparing disasters at corporate-owned vs. government-owned establishments?
If, as seems very likely, your statement comes purely from unsubstantiated belief, please, explain, what your life experience is — so we may decide, whether or not give credence to your gut's feeling.
Dude would work for a subsistence salary if he thought he could help.How does that even remotely "sound disapproving"?
Dude would work for a subsistence salary on a space-related project. His disapproval was aimed at the rich's attempts to fund cancer-research (instead of pyramids).
Slashdot Mirror
No, actually, neither word is found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
If we read the 1st Amendment the way you propose we read the 2nd, then your Freedom of Speech would also be limited — to Petitioning the Government. And only for Redress of Grievances. And only after a cool-off period. And only using the medium in existence back then — not on radio, TV, or the Internet.
As things stand, however, we consider selling pornography on the Internet and the publishing of bomb-making instructions to be protected by the 1st Amendment...
Huh? I think, you got carried away...
Yes, we are sure.
That's true. But using information thus obtained in court would be impossible — under the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine. They would need to — and sometimes do — invent some other explanations as to how they learned, what they are presenting in court...
Fracking is about natural gas, not oil. Both fuels keep us warm in winter, let us travel places, and keep our electric and electronic equipment going.
The seismologists, however, are yet to learn even how to predict earthquakes — or come up with anything else to improve daily lives of their employers (us).
So, about $20mln all told? That's about half of what earthquake research has been getting from the taxpayers every year for decades...
Their lifestyles are supported by the taxpayers. They must convince us (our government, rather), that their research is valuable to obtain grants. They may be perfectly sincere, but the conflict of interest is stupendous — and can not be denied...
Ah, an ad hominem. How refreshing... Please, don't hate.
Not the natural gas we do not...
Prudence is a virtue and is always in order. However, what that maxim has to do with fracking (or global warming) in particular, escapes me.
Huh?
This is a humanity-wide problem. For example, while a muezzin is prohibited by the Prophet from hiring somebody else to help call faithful to prayer, there is no prohibition from using electronic equipment to magnify one's voice: and most muezzins use microphones these days.
The copper-cables running from my house cross plenty of public spaces. Still, tapping them requires (or used to require) a warrant.
Even if we accept this reasoning, the FBI's claim, I am afraid, would cover a cell-phone user making a call from the privacy of his house too.
Yes, I can. But first, please, explain, how the right to produce and sell pornography is related to petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
You would not suggest, we apply different rules to reading two consecutive Articles of the Bill of Rights, would you?
Indeed. Both — anthropogenic global warming and danger of fracking — are not supported by any sort of evidence. Both are a matter of belief and hypothesis — and Pascal's Wager is even cited as an argument.
Did you know, kangaroos can postpone pregnancy ? For months and even years? They developed this ability in response to multi-year droughts that would befall their continent every once in a while since times immemorial... Citing "Australia right now" in support of "Global Warming" (also known as "Climate Change") is ridiculous...
For somebody claiming existence of evidence, you are citing remarkably little of it... (No, I will not do the googling for you — you make the claim, you provide citations.)
While the taxpayer-funded scientists would never attempt to inflate their own importance to direct more grant-monies in their direction... Especially now that the hysteria of "global warming" is settling down — and a new boogeyman, which, conveniently, can be neither measured nor confirmed nor denied with any certainty, is needed.
I wish I could. Unfortunately, local laws prohibit sellers from selling weapons to me, until I get government's permissions. This permission requirement turn the Constitutional right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary upon successful prosecution by the Executive, into a mere privilege, which the Executive may (or may not) grant and can withdraw on a whim.
I applaud the people in TFA for mocking these unconstitutional laws thus helping their eventual abolition.
Ok, so you agree, that rights should be exercised. Now, please, explain, just how else could those "idiots" have exercised their right to bear arms — without bearing them?
Some rights are more equal than others? No, all rights should be exercised responsibly — famously, "Ballots are stronger than bullets". But please do explain, what was so "irresponsible" about those "idiots" you mentioned above...
If we read the 1st Amendment the way you are proposing we read the 2nd, your right to Free Speech would likewise come with the following restrictions:
Is that your proposal, or are you going to suggest, we apply self-inconsistent set of rules, when reading the Bill of Rights?
No, I was referring to the Second Amendment. What are you referring to?
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Yeah, and the reason all women have to wear hijab is the few bitches among them, who wanted mini-skirts.
Blaming the victim much?
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
Right here, dear. The post is full of hatred "on" G.W. Bush — explained by his profiting from taxpayer-funded renovations of a stadium.
What "tangents"? You were expressing a clear disapproval of Bush's handling of a sports-team. That's neither a "tangent" nor a "guess".
I did guess right, didn't I? Heh-heh...Take your weaseling to Bill Clinton, we are done here.
That Bush profited from a publicly-funded project (whether or not there was anything wrong in that) does not mean, such profiting is a particularly-Republican tendency — for all we know, he may have been the sole Republican to so profit in the last 100 years. To claim — as you did above — that it is an especially Republican "style", you need to put up evidence. You had several opportunities to provide a substantiation, but did not — did I say, we are done here?..
You certainly can, but you'll be wrong — twice.
There is nothing automatically wrong in what Bush did, as you describe it. Maybe, as Libertarians believe, taxpayers should not be (re)building any stadiums at all — this would prevent politically-connected businessmen from profiting from any such projects. This approach would not help you indict Bush, however — as long as public policy provides financing for stadium-repairs, there is nothing wrong in taking part — even if the policy is in error...
Or you can remain in your Statist comfort zone and claim that, although some stadiums should be repaired by the taxpayer, that particular one should not have been. That's what I referred to as "some stadiums being more equal than others". This would make it possible for you to accuse Bush of wrong-doing, but you'll need to explain, why "his" stadium in particular should not have received public money. "Being owned by a Republican" is not a good enough reason.
You can also do both — claim, there should be no tax-funded stadiums at all and that the funding Bush received back then was especially improper. You still need to explain why, of course.
And then you'll still need to substantiate your earlier claim, that this — profiting from taxpayer-funded projects — is an especially Republican "style". Put up or shut up...
Please, don't hate. Thank you.
Are you going to agree with the Libertarians, that no stadiums should be (re)built at taxpayer expense? Or are you going to claim, some stadiums are more equal than others?
Citations needed — please, supply links, proving, that such "style" is especially prevalent among Republicans. Thank you.
No, darling, it does not work like that:
You make accusations, you supply evidence...
Why do you say that? Whether or not he has been a very successful President, any failures were not due to his inability to organize and manage staff — as seems to be the case with Obama in general, and certainly in the case of "floppy disks" in particular.
Citations, please.
Remember all the fans adoring Candidate, President-elect, and even President Obama for his use of Blackberry? While mocking McCain for his inability to even use keyboard (because his hands were repeatedly broken by the People's Torturers in North Vietnam)?
In all likelihood, Megan J. Smith was one of the fans... Possibly, even with a special female twist to it...
Well, maybe, the job of running the Executive government's bureaucracy is just too difficult? TFA certainly suggests that... But that's exactly the job, Obama was hired for, darn it. There were people pointing out his shortage of executive experience — he never ran things (other than a failed charity — once), but this was countered, incredibly, by how he ran his election campaign...
Well, here we go — either he was never as advanced technologically as he and supporters portrayed him, or he has no ability to execute — to run things... Certainly not enough of it to affect the oft-promised change. Management is hard, let's go golfing.
Do you really? I wonder, why that is — do you have some reference to a study comparing disasters at corporate-owned vs. government-owned establishments?
If, as seems very likely, your statement comes purely from unsubstantiated belief, please, explain, what your life experience is — so we may decide, whether or not give credence to your gut's feeling.
Dude would work for a subsistence salary on a space-related project. His disapproval was aimed at the rich's attempts to fund cancer-research (instead of pyramids).