If you read the Founding Father's thoughts on guns outside of the Constitution, you might have a clearer picture of the need for an armed citizenry.
You are saying this to a historian, Bubba. I know why you didn't bother to provide examples by way of citation.
If you read the Founding Father's thoughts on guns outside of the Constitution...
I have read that a hell of a lot more than you have and it's totally irrelevant. The Constitution of the United States is not superseded or amended by the thoughts of the Founding Fathers outside of the Constitution.
By way of reference, I suggest you review the Founding Fathers' thoughts on slavery and women's right to vote and stuff.
That quote was made in the context that we had recently revolted "... against tyranny in government."
You know that, just as you know that Jefferson never advocated overthrowing the government of the United States and just as you know that it's chickenshit to advocate killing police officers and just as you know that you don't have the fire power to take down the armed forces.
I was scanning for this argument because I am prepared to set your ass straight on some points:
Your interpretation that the 2nd amendment was intended, in part, to help citizens defend itself against the government is whack.
For one, you are supporting the folks who are of the opinion that:
1.) the government (whether police officer or federal agent, soldier or sailor [who have died protecting your gun rights]) have to be killed...
2.) to the point that something must be done, so they get their guns and then YOU are disgusted when they kill someone of authority. Do you support those killings, like goddam Westboro church?
Who, precisely, gets to decide when it's time to take the government out and who, precisely, gets to decide how much force is necessary?
For another, look at what's happened since the amendment was written:
The US government has enjoyed exponential growth in weaponry sophistication what with smart bombs, night vision, drones, attack ships, fighter jets, napalm, and a holy host of others.
If you seriously entertain killing our armed forces, why in God's name aren't you bitching about, "weapon parity?"
You have to be out of your goddam mind if you think your piddly-ass pea shooters are going to take out a goddam United States Navy aircraft carrier.
Why are you not campaigning for citizens' rights to own grenades, rocket launchers, tanks and fighter jets?
You are not doing that and you are not going to.
And the reason is simply that you are a simple-minded non-fucking thinker who will come up with any excuse to own a fucking gun that you have never used in self-defense, anyway, and would do you zero, zip, nada fucking good in killing off the public's defenders of the goddam Constitution of the United States.
The Drake equation addresses the probability of finding civilizations -- not the probability of finding planets.
As mentioned earlier, planets are not necessarily formed near stars. They can be created when enough mass coalesces to gather in one place and meet the definition of planet.
Also, some planets should be ejected from solar systems. Early solar system formations are exceedingly unstable.
As for explaining dark matter, unbound planets and proto-planets and similar partials could explain some of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Contradictory much?
Yeah, all three steps have happened and you won't see that anytime soon because you are in denial.
... and there are other more dangerous sites.
If you read the Founding Father's thoughts on guns outside of the Constitution, you might have a clearer picture of the need for an armed citizenry.
You are saying this to a historian, Bubba. I know why you didn't bother to provide examples by way of citation.
If you read the Founding Father's thoughts on guns outside of the Constitution ...
I have read that a hell of a lot more than you have and it's totally irrelevant. The Constitution of the United States is not superseded or amended by the thoughts of the Founding Fathers outside of the Constitution.
By way of reference, I suggest you review the Founding Fathers' thoughts on slavery and women's right to vote and stuff.
That quote was made in the context that we had recently revolted "... against tyranny in government."
You know that, just as you know that Jefferson never advocated overthrowing the government of the United States and just as you know that it's chickenshit to advocate killing police officers and just as you know that you don't have the fire power to take down the armed forces.
Thanks for playing, though.
Really? I thought the point was one person standing up to the plate and stating the truth and the entrenched deniers having a major cow over it.
I was scanning for this argument because I am prepared to set your ass straight on some points:
Your interpretation that the 2nd amendment was intended, in part, to help citizens defend itself against the government is whack.
For one, you are supporting the folks who are of the opinion that:
1.) the government (whether police officer or federal agent, soldier or sailor [who have died protecting your gun rights]) have to be killed ...
2.) to the point that something must be done, so they get their guns and then YOU are disgusted when they kill someone of authority. Do you support those killings, like goddam Westboro church?
Who, precisely, gets to decide when it's time to take the government out and who, precisely, gets to decide how much force is necessary?
For another, look at what's happened since the amendment was written:
The US government has enjoyed exponential growth in weaponry sophistication what with smart bombs, night vision, drones, attack ships, fighter jets, napalm, and a holy host of others.
If you seriously entertain killing our armed forces, why in God's name aren't you bitching about, "weapon parity?"
You have to be out of your goddam mind if you think your piddly-ass pea shooters are going to take out a goddam United States Navy aircraft carrier.
Why are you not campaigning for citizens' rights to own grenades, rocket launchers, tanks and fighter jets?
You are not doing that and you are not going to.
And the reason is simply that you are a simple-minded non-fucking thinker who will come up with any excuse to own a fucking gun that you have never used in self-defense, anyway, and would do you zero, zip, nada fucking good in killing off the public's defenders of the goddam Constitution of the United States.
... where MUCH later, official apologies are issued all around by the deniers.
The fail is the word, "probably."
This.
And by 1945 ...
... trustworthy?
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
A smart phone 20 years ago.
Also, this.
Homeless planets probably do fit to origin theories: 1.) Ejects and 2.) Self-formed.
Ejects would have a better chance at being smaller and denser because of the dust and debris field in the vicinity of the proto-star.
The self-formed more than likely are giants.
TFS suggests that there are MORE planets than previously thought.
However, "homeless," planet is probably a very good description because planets need a source of energy to support life.
Some could have hot cores and life could exist sub-surface, but in order to be detected, we really need some life forms on the surface.
This.
The Drake equation addresses the probability of finding civilizations -- not the probability of finding planets.
As mentioned earlier, planets are not necessarily formed near stars. They can be created when enough mass coalesces to gather in one place and meet the definition of planet.
Also, some planets should be ejected from solar systems. Early solar system formations are exceedingly unstable.
As for explaining dark matter, unbound planets and proto-planets and similar partials could explain some of that.
Bennett provides a service.
Mosquitoes provide a service.
systemd provides a service.
Let it be.
* EBCDIC
Science, shmience.
Ken Ham is a crackpot, without character, on the order of Fred Phelps.
Its [sic] not OK to attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of your conclusions.
But it's OK to attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of the facts.
Really.
That certainly works for porn.
... heading for exploitation by advertisers and entities bot foreign and national who want to tap in to that market.
Yes, /. is ham radio 2.0.