Think about this: How much energy do you think it takes to power a warp drive? If you guessed "a metric fuckton per second", you might be close. Like, we're talking numbers so large they'd be mind boggling to anyone who understands the concept of "megawatts". And they were able to make it work IN SPACE.
With the invention of the warp drive in the Star Trek universe, we also solved all of our energy problems. The bare-bones cost of anything can quite easily be directly tied to how much energy it takes to make or do. When you have nearly infinite energy, you can justify a limitless R&D budget to invent or research anything you want to, because when you bring it to market you can make infinite profits because UNLIMITED ENERGY to do it over and over and over with very little cost to you. This would have had a hugely profound effect on Earth's economy and probably changed things over night. No one had to work for anything anymore because infinite energy meant you could just make robots do it for you. Or completely automated farms to create food. Or pretty much anything.
That is what drives the Star Trek universe's utopia: infinite energy from whatever the fuck it is that powers the warp drive.
> The most literal interpretation of that 2nd amendment means I could possess nuclear weapons, bacterial weapons, chemical weapons, and were I wealthy enough, my own tanks, APCs, fighter jets, bombers, etc.
Actually, the amendment says "arms", not "ordinance". I'm perfectly happy with the line being drawn at guns, and civilians generally not being able to access things like cluster bombs and mortars.
Finally, there's nothing from stopping you from buying a fighter jet or a tank, but 1. you'd better be ready to spend some money and 2. the ordinance is going to be removed first.
I don't think it's very unclear. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia clause is simply stating that a good militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which is a foregone conclusion. There is absolutely no verbiage in the 2nd Amendment that makes membership in a militia compulsory to exercise the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. Plus, why is it that no one argues that the other rights in the Bill of Rights apply strictly to THE PEOPLE, but all of a sudden it's open for interpretation when the 2nd comes up?
Slashdot Mirror
Think about this: How much energy do you think it takes to power a warp drive? If you guessed "a metric fuckton per second", you might be close. Like, we're talking numbers so large they'd be mind boggling to anyone who understands the concept of "megawatts". And they were able to make it work IN SPACE. With the invention of the warp drive in the Star Trek universe, we also solved all of our energy problems. The bare-bones cost of anything can quite easily be directly tied to how much energy it takes to make or do. When you have nearly infinite energy, you can justify a limitless R&D budget to invent or research anything you want to, because when you bring it to market you can make infinite profits because UNLIMITED ENERGY to do it over and over and over with very little cost to you. This would have had a hugely profound effect on Earth's economy and probably changed things over night. No one had to work for anything anymore because infinite energy meant you could just make robots do it for you. Or completely automated farms to create food. Or pretty much anything. That is what drives the Star Trek universe's utopia: infinite energy from whatever the fuck it is that powers the warp drive.
> The most literal interpretation of that 2nd amendment means I could possess nuclear weapons, bacterial weapons, chemical weapons, and were I wealthy enough, my own tanks, APCs, fighter jets, bombers, etc. Actually, the amendment says "arms", not "ordinance". I'm perfectly happy with the line being drawn at guns, and civilians generally not being able to access things like cluster bombs and mortars. Finally, there's nothing from stopping you from buying a fighter jet or a tank, but 1. you'd better be ready to spend some money and 2. the ordinance is going to be removed first.
I don't think it's very unclear. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia clause is simply stating that a good militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which is a foregone conclusion. There is absolutely no verbiage in the 2nd Amendment that makes membership in a militia compulsory to exercise the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. Plus, why is it that no one argues that the other rights in the Bill of Rights apply strictly to THE PEOPLE, but all of a sudden it's open for interpretation when the 2nd comes up?