Not watered down. At least not if you're in favor of due process. If you're in favor of the government making a no-fly list; able to put anybody on it at their discretion, keep this list hidden, not allow citizens to review their case; and remove liberties from individuals based on being on said list then you're in favor of tyranny.
...and if you are not in favor of all that, the only way to get it fixed it to have a debate about it in Congress, complete with votes to amend the legislation to fix the problem. This is precisely what the Republicans are refusing to allow.
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
"Nothing is proceeding". In Congress. This Congress. The one that can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Tell the truth, you were laughing as you typed this.
So someone gets annoyed with you.
They call the police saying you're keeping a bunch of little girls locked up and he's heard them screaming.
SWAT gets called.
You get instantly labeled....
SWAT barges in, shoots you dead, and face no accountability...
...or what black and brown Americans call "a Wednesday".
...and everyone else, given that the list they're planning to use (the "no fly" list) has no due process, no accountability, no means of exoneration if innocent, and the people on said list likely don't even know they're on it unless/until they try to board an airplane.
You know, that's a really good point. Why don't we have a debate about how best to rewrite that law? Maybe with a vote on proposed alterations to it? Perhaps in some building specifically built for that purpose. I hear there's one available in DC.
If I use the headphone jack to wire my phone into the car stereo (by far the most common use for me today), I get loads of interference. Its 10x worse if I also want to plug the phone's power cable into the car's "cigarette" DC power system.
What I don't get noticeable interference on is my headset's Bluetooth connection. It's sooo nice not to have wires to accidentally walk through, wrap around things, or connectors to short out too.
"want to take away our guns" is what we were talking about here.
We can't of course objectively talk about desires, but we can objectively talk about passed legislation. There has been none of any significance since 1994, and that includes almost a decade when the Democratic party had a majority in both legislative houses. If that statement is in the least bit true, they obviously can't want it very badly. Or perhaps they are just too inept to do anything about this supposed desire? Either way the effect is the same. One side is a proven danger, and one side is only a theoretical danger if you believe their most hysterical opponents (who of course have a vested interest in making you think that way).
You do realize don't you that you can change neither the person's actual intent, nor the history of how that was understood, both during their lifetime and after (in this case up to the passage of the 18th Amendment), by taking selective phrases that seem to support your desires and building a logical argument around just them?
All of this is quite well-documented. If you don't want to look at it that way, for whatever reason, I suppose that's your business. But it doesn't change the past just because you'd like it to. You don't get to redefine reality with your sheer reasoning power, formidable as it may be.
You are right about one thing though. If anyone wants to regulate guns today, they either need to reverse the 2008 incorporation ("Heller"), or more definitively they need to change the Constitution. The former seems more likely (it was a 5-4 and one of the 5 died, with no likely prospect of a like-minded replacement), but the latter would be the superior option. The 18th "broke" that amendment, so proper fix would be at the same level. I don't like the idea of going back and forth on incorporation. That's chaos.
But, I do believe that the intent was not JUST for the militia, at least in the modern sense of the word...but that individuals could own guns and that shouldn't be infringed upon....
Believe what you want, but let's not engage in "faith-based" history, please. The 2nd amendment talks about lower-level governments regulating arms right in the freaking amendment. They really couldn't have made it much clearer for us. Then we have the ensuing 200 years of caselaw (the first few decades of which came from the authors of that amendment themselves) attesting to states and cities being perfectly able to regulate guns.
The second amendment wasn't even incorporated until 2008 (8 years ago). Why so long? Because it was damn clear that "no regulation by anybody" was explicitly not intended, and it required a whole generation of post-Regan Republican-appointed SCOTUS nominees to stack the court enough to incorporate it anyway.
We could of course make this explicit (one way or the other) with some kind of clarifying constitutional amendment. Notice nobody is doing this, because packing the court and making up stories about the founders is much easier.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism).
The difference is that the Republicans actually pass things like that, while the Democrats only "take away guns" in the imaginations of Republicans.
The last significant gun control legislation was passed more than 2 decades ago, didn't take away a single gun from anyone who legally owned one prior to the law passing, was supported by Ronald Regan, and expired 10 years ago.
So given the two choices, I'd suggest you'd be far better served by opposing the party that actually has a proven track record of proposing and passing the kind of legislation you are worried about, and don't bother worrying about the other until they actually manage to accomplish the bad thing you are worried about at least once.
Remember, the US Constitution does not "grant" rights....its purpose is to enumerate the supposedly LIMITED powers and responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
Exactly. All other powers were left to the states to regulate. That was the design. This included the Bill of Rights. The whole point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government was not to interfere with the States' rights to regulate their own militias. If the States wanted to ban guns, that was supposed to be their right (stupid, in a world with no standing army and surrounded by hostile natives and oppressed slaves, but their right). Same with establishing religion, or banning speech. If you didn't like it, you could move to a better state.
The 18th Amendment was a constitutional "hack" that applied the Bill of Rights to the states (and other sub-governments). The process is called incorporation. Its probably a good thing in terms of most of the Bill of Rights, but it completely broke the original concept of the 2nd Amendment to do that to it. It was never the idea that nobody would regulate guns at all. The word "regulation" is in the freaking amendment just to emphasize that point.
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
No, because such a thing never happened. Well, at least not since the last time we had a functional Congress controlled by that party that wasn't totally cowed by the Gun Lobby. IOW: not since 1994. That's 22 years ago, for those of you who are math impaired. There are 4 years of voters who weren't born yet the last time "Democrats were expanding gun control laws", and even then it took the support of notorious liberal Ronald Regan to get it passed..
Seriously, Republicans need to go find themselves a more credible boogyman.
I have it on good authority that Trumps' hair is actually a Bio-Engineered organism that acts both as a self defense system and as a satellite reception system
The way I heard it, its actually a Russian polonium injection system, held at bay only by Trump making positive statements about Putin and saying or doing only things that help out Russian foreign policy. In short, Trump is being held hostage by his hair.
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
Do you seriously think this will stop with the hair? His last "STFU" lawsuit was a smashing success, he's trying it again, but you think "this time" it won't progress any further? This is a guy with enough money to bankrupt media outlets through barratry, his favorite candidate is already getting ALL the media coverage, and now he's suing to discorage negative parts of that coverage. Do you truly not see where this is leading?
It is worse that that it will feed your bias. Even the true news stories will be tend to be the ones that fit your world view. Frankly I miss the good old days of the news back when it was mostly right in the middle to slightly to the left.
Yeah, back when if you weren't one of the majority (straight, white, and middle-class), the news was just not for you. Those were great days for hetro white guys like us. Unarmed black people were still getting shot in the streets for no reason back then of course, but we didn't have to hear about it. We could pretend gay people didn't exist, because they had no way to force themselves into the news either.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days...
Something posters here seem to be missing. This didn't happen last week, it happened almost a year ago. So whatever they wanted to do with the dirt they found out about Trump, they've had it for over a year.
Trump has been making oddly fanboyish statements about Putin for the last year. It *could* be that he honestly is a fan of that one mid-Eurasian dictator out of all the others like him out there. But the timing opens up other interesting possibilities.
Trump has also conspicuously refused to release his tax returns, unlike just about every major party nominee since tax returns started.
It would certainly be interesting if a foreign intelligence service managed to get themselves a major party nominee in their pocket. If I was on the Secret Service detail for Clinton, I'd start screening for polonium in addition to guns.
That's an urban legend. We have James Madison's original text of the Bill of Rights, and it explicitly limits the states...
Ummm...no. That's just flat out wrong. Even if your logic were right, its 100% NOT how USA caselaw worked in the intervening years until 1925. So even if you think you are right, since the SCOTUS has the last word on what the constitution means, and they said otherwise for the next 150 years, you are wrong. This includes years when the authors of the Bill of Rights were still alive and holding office.
The process of applying the Bill of Rights to the States after the 14th Ammendment is called Incorporation. If you've got an interest in the topic, I'd suggest reading up on it.
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
Not only is not illegal for civilian leaders to override the advice of the Pentagon, that's how its supposed to work. The military works for us, not visa-versa.
ISIS is not taking over Libya. They have one town, that is currently under siege. Reports are they are slowly losing it.
Being (debatably) wrong on foreign policy is not a crime. If it was, most of the Bush Administration would be in jail today. Carter probably would have just gotten out of jail 10 years ago on good behavior.
and these practices have been identified as THE vector of disease.
No, they have not. There was a brief time in the 80's when the disease was most rampant in the MALE gay community, but that hasn't been the case for decades, and never was the case in the parts of Africa we are talking about. Even if this were A Thing in Africa (again, it never was), that wouldn't explain stoning to death of gay women, probably the single most AIDS-free demographic there is.
Slashdot Mirror
Not watered down. At least not if you're in favor of due process. If you're in favor of the government making a no-fly list; able to put anybody on it at their discretion, keep this list hidden, not allow citizens to review their case; and remove liberties from individuals based on being on said list then you're in favor of tyranny.
...and if you are not in favor of all that, the only way to get it fixed it to have a debate about it in Congress, complete with votes to amend the legislation to fix the problem. This is precisely what the Republicans are refusing to allow.
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
"Nothing is proceeding". In Congress. This Congress. The one that can't even pass Post Office naming bills without it becoming a full-blown crisis.
Tell the truth, you were laughing as you typed this.
So someone gets annoyed with you. They call the police saying you're keeping a bunch of little girls locked up and he's heard them screaming. SWAT gets called. You get instantly labeled.... SWAT barges in, shoots you dead, and face no accountability...
...or what black and brown Americans call "a Wednesday".
...and everyone else, given that the list they're planning to use (the "no fly" list) has no due process, no accountability, no means of exoneration if innocent, and the people on said list likely don't even know they're on it unless/until they try to board an airplane.
You know, that's a really good point. Why don't we have a debate about how best to rewrite that law? Maybe with a vote on proposed alterations to it? Perhaps in some building specifically built for that purpose. I hear there's one available in DC.
If I use the headphone jack to wire my phone into the car stereo (by far the most common use for me today), I get loads of interference. Its 10x worse if I also want to plug the phone's power cable into the car's "cigarette" DC power system.
What I don't get noticeable interference on is my headset's Bluetooth connection. It's sooo nice not to have wires to accidentally walk through, wrap around things, or connectors to short out too.
What? So I am supposed to buy all the cards, and test them myself, so I can decide which one to buy?
No, you're looking at this backwards. What we should all be doing is claiming we are reviewers, and get our cards straight from the manufacturer.
...and of course even that did not "take away" a single (legal) gun.
"want to take away our guns" is what we were talking about here.
We can't of course objectively talk about desires, but we can objectively talk about passed legislation. There has been none of any significance since 1994, and that includes almost a decade when the Democratic party had a majority in both legislative houses. If that statement is in the least bit true, they obviously can't want it very badly. Or perhaps they are just too inept to do anything about this supposed desire? Either way the effect is the same. One side is a proven danger, and one side is only a theoretical danger if you believe their most hysterical opponents (who of course have a vested interest in making you think that way).
You do realize don't you that you can change neither the person's actual intent, nor the history of how that was understood, both during their lifetime and after (in this case up to the passage of the 18th Amendment), by taking selective phrases that seem to support your desires and building a logical argument around just them?
All of this is quite well-documented. If you don't want to look at it that way, for whatever reason, I suppose that's your business. But it doesn't change the past just because you'd like it to. You don't get to redefine reality with your sheer reasoning power, formidable as it may be.
You are right about one thing though. If anyone wants to regulate guns today, they either need to reverse the 2008 incorporation ("Heller"), or more definitively they need to change the Constitution. The former seems more likely (it was a 5-4 and one of the 5 died, with no likely prospect of a like-minded replacement), but the latter would be the superior option. The 18th "broke" that amendment, so proper fix would be at the same level. I don't like the idea of going back and forth on incorporation. That's chaos.
But, I do believe that the intent was not JUST for the militia, at least in the modern sense of the word...but that individuals could own guns and that shouldn't be infringed upon....
Believe what you want, but let's not engage in "faith-based" history, please. The 2nd amendment talks about lower-level governments regulating arms right in the freaking amendment. They really couldn't have made it much clearer for us. Then we have the ensuing 200 years of caselaw (the first few decades of which came from the authors of that amendment themselves) attesting to states and cities being perfectly able to regulate guns.
The second amendment wasn't even incorporated until 2008 (8 years ago). Why so long? Because it was damn clear that "no regulation by anybody" was explicitly not intended, and it required a whole generation of post-Regan Republican-appointed SCOTUS nominees to stack the court enough to incorporate it anyway.
We could of course make this explicit (one way or the other) with some kind of clarifying constitutional amendment. Notice nobody is doing this, because packing the court and making up stories about the founders is much easier.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism).
The difference is that the Republicans actually pass things like that, while the Democrats only "take away guns" in the imaginations of Republicans.
The last significant gun control legislation was passed more than 2 decades ago, didn't take away a single gun from anyone who legally owned one prior to the law passing, was supported by Ronald Regan, and expired 10 years ago.
So given the two choices, I'd suggest you'd be far better served by opposing the party that actually has a proven track record of proposing and passing the kind of legislation you are worried about, and don't bother worrying about the other until they actually manage to accomplish the bad thing you are worried about at least once.
Remember, the US Constitution does not "grant" rights....its purpose is to enumerate the supposedly LIMITED powers and responsibilities of the Federal Govt.
Exactly. All other powers were left to the states to regulate. That was the design. This included the Bill of Rights. The whole point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government was not to interfere with the States' rights to regulate their own militias. If the States wanted to ban guns, that was supposed to be their right (stupid, in a world with no standing army and surrounded by hostile natives and oppressed slaves, but their right). Same with establishing religion, or banning speech. If you didn't like it, you could move to a better state.
The 18th Amendment was a constitutional "hack" that applied the Bill of Rights to the states (and other sub-governments). The process is called incorporation. Its probably a good thing in terms of most of the Bill of Rights, but it completely broke the original concept of the 2nd Amendment to do that to it. It was never the idea that nobody would regulate guns at all. The word "regulation" is in the freaking amendment just to emphasize that point.
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
No, because such a thing never happened. Well, at least not since the last time we had a functional Congress controlled by that party that wasn't totally cowed by the Gun Lobby. IOW: not since 1994. That's 22 years ago, for those of you who are math impaired. There are 4 years of voters who weren't born yet the last time "Democrats were expanding gun control laws", and even then it took the support of notorious liberal Ronald Regan to get it passed..
Seriously, Republicans need to go find themselves a more credible boogyman.
You know what's even more efficient that using Microsoft Edge? Not using it.
I've heard that actually improves the web experience a bit too.
I bet you are by far the best Dozens player in the laboratory.
...I voted AMD.
I have it on good authority that Trumps' hair is actually a Bio-Engineered organism that acts both as a self defense system and as a satellite reception system
The way I heard it, its actually a Russian polonium injection system, held at bay only by Trump making positive statements about Putin and saying or doing only things that help out Russian foreign policy. In short, Trump is being held hostage by his hair.
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
Do you seriously think this will stop with the hair? His last "STFU" lawsuit was a smashing success, he's trying it again, but you think "this time" it won't progress any further? This is a guy with enough money to bankrupt media outlets through barratry, his favorite candidate is already getting ALL the media coverage, and now he's suing to discorage negative parts of that coverage. Do you truly not see where this is leading?
It is worse that that it will feed your bias. Even the true news stories will be tend to be the ones that fit your world view. Frankly I miss the good old days of the news back when it was mostly right in the middle to slightly to the left.
Yeah, back when if you weren't one of the majority (straight, white, and middle-class), the news was just not for you. Those were great days for hetro white guys like us. Unarmed black people were still getting shot in the streets for no reason back then of course, but we didn't have to hear about it. We could pretend gay people didn't exist, because they had no way to force themselves into the news either.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days...
Something posters here seem to be missing. This didn't happen last week, it happened almost a year ago. So whatever they wanted to do with the dirt they found out about Trump, they've had it for over a year.
Trump has been making oddly fanboyish statements about Putin for the last year. It *could* be that he honestly is a fan of that one mid-Eurasian dictator out of all the others like him out there. But the timing opens up other interesting possibilities.
Trump has also conspicuously refused to release his tax returns, unlike just about every major party nominee since tax returns started.
It would certainly be interesting if a foreign intelligence service managed to get themselves a major party nominee in their pocket. If I was on the Secret Service detail for Clinton, I'd start screening for polonium in addition to guns.
US Politics is a complete and total disaster, the US Govt is a mob of evil clowns, and Washington DC is their circus
This is what is known as a "vicious-cycle".
That's an urban legend. We have James Madison's original text of the Bill of Rights, and it explicitly limits the states...
Ummm...no. That's just flat out wrong. Even if your logic were right, its 100% NOT how USA caselaw worked in the intervening years until 1925. So even if you think you are right, since the SCOTUS has the last word on what the constitution means, and they said otherwise for the next 150 years, you are wrong. This includes years when the authors of the Bill of Rights were still alive and holding office.
The process of applying the Bill of Rights to the States after the 14th Ammendment is called Incorporation. If you've got an interest in the topic, I'd suggest reading up on it.
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Points here:
and these practices have been identified as THE vector of disease.
No, they have not. There was a brief time in the 80's when the disease was most rampant in the MALE gay community, but that hasn't been the case for decades, and never was the case in the parts of Africa we are talking about. Even if this were A Thing in Africa (again, it never was), that wouldn't explain stoning to death of gay women, probably the single most AIDS-free demographic there is.
Go up to a Christian in Rome and state you're gay. The worst that will happen ...
Fine. Now try it in the Christian countries of Nigera or Uganda. They penalty is death there too. And they base that law on the Bible's teachings.
Clearly being Christian is in no way immunizing from that attitude.