"You're unlikely to switch station just because an advert came on, since the radio is not your primary focus at that moment."
Apparently those statisticians have never been in a car with me. When my hand is on the stick, all I have to do is extend my middle finger to hit one of the radio memory buttons. "Worse" yet, I'm considering getting Sirius simply to get away from ClearChannel's ad whoring.
"russian Proton rocket has success rate of 92% and unless I am missing something can put 45,000 pounds (20ton) compare to oh 10ton for Arian into orbit."
"and there's little prospect we'll have much to show for it."
Only because you think it's a short-term investment. Beyond physiological studies, there's little that can be done on a space station that can't be done without a satellite or a spacecraft. The point of the ISS isn't to be an exploration vessel, it's to be a port.
Just because the Port of New York doesn't go anywhere and very little oceanographic work is done in Long Island Sound doesn't mean it's not vital to NOAA's exploration missions.
"I bet the next version of IE will have a popup blocking feature."
HAH! More like "The next version of MSN will have a pop-up blocking feature." Why put it in for free when Microsoft can get away with selling it to you instead?
"Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply,"
Um... the US space program has had little if anything in common with our ICBM program since the Gemini program at the latest. Sure, the Redstone and the original Atlas were originally made to lob nukes, but once we were launching something bigger than a Mercury capsule, our ICBM boosters just didn't cut it. Unlike the Soviets, we could make nukes that were small enough to be launched on rockets too small for a manned space program (where do you think their head start in the space race came from?).
I mean, come on, unless you're going to nuke a target on the Moon, what use is a Saturn V in a nuclear war? Sure, it could be used to throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world (think "Skylab made of C-4"), but...
"The point that should concern people (especially those from outside the US) is that they are being tried in the US, under US law for legal actions they committed in another country."
IIRC, he was arrested in the US for something he either just did or was about to do in the US. Something about a demonstration of the flaws in Adobe's encryption system, I believe.
At any rate, the real silliness is in the law itself. You can reverse engineer something, but you can't ever tell anybody how you did it. Which means everybody has to reinvent the wheel for themselves. If that doesn't fly in the face of the original concept of copyrights to begin with (to encourage the dissemination of information), I don't know what does.
Copyright law is supposed to be "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The DMCA is doing the exact opposite. Where can we find a convenient case to take up to the USSC?
"Sorry I just don't get that from the original quote of the law. It seems to enumerate all people who are in the militia and nowhere does it say "all the people except such and such"."
Not one for logic, are you? If all men between 18 and 45 are in the militia, who aren't in the militia?
Boys younger than 18
Men older than 45
Women not in the National Guard
Duh!
If they're not considered to be the militia, then the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. But you seem to be forgetting that the US Constitution takes the (more correct, IMO) stance of limiting the powers of Congress, not granting powers to the people. It would take a new act of Congress to say "nobody not in the militia can't own a gun."
"And yet I wonder why they included the phrase "well ordered militia". It seems to imply some sort of a structure."
You're grasping at straws. Explain why the Selective Service System's structure doesn't qualify.
"According to your logic they do not have the right to bear arms."
Your logic, not mine. At worst their ability to own a gun isn't protected. "Not protected" != "doesn't exist." Especially after reading the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, only your Creator (whatever you believe it to be) can do that. The US Constitution limits the government's ability to interfere with the ability to exercise those rights. Or weren't you paying any attention in your civics class? The Second Amendment (in a very conservative reading) says "Congress can't get in the way of the militia owning guns." It does not say "Only the militia can own guns." The only "not" in the Second Amendment is in the part "shall not be infringed."
How many times will I have to repeat the same thing before it gets through your skull?
"Seeing as how women do have the right to have arms"
Which they have (at worst) because Congress hasn't seen fit to infringe upon it.
"Honestly a militia is useless if it can not be called up on a moments notice."
You assume that only an organized military force can fight and that partisanship is useless. If that were the case, we'd all still be British.
"People with guns are already armed and are probably trained well and are good shots."
You assume that skill with firearms is more important than the number and availability of small arms to a group of people.
"It seems like the absolute minimum requirement for being in the militia should be to be able to be contacted in case of attack."
"Where do you think XBox will be in a couple years? Like it or not, within a few years, XBox will sell more that Playstation. Wait and see..."
Just like WebTV and UltimateTV, hm?
Why do you think Xbox will outsell the PS2 when they're currently losing ground to the GameCube? Hell, you're going to have to do better than make silly statements like that to convince me that Xbox won't have gone the way of the Dreamcast by this time next y ear.
"Mr Gutnick lives in Victoria. He has his business headquarters there. Although he conducts business outside Australia, including in the United States of America, and has made significant contributions to charities in the United States and Israel, much of his social and business life could be said to be focused in Victoria."
"The primary judge recorded in his reasons that Mr Gutnick "seeks to have his Victorian reputation vindicated by the courts of the State in which he lives [and that he] is indifferent to the other substantial parts of the article and desires only that the attack on his reputation in Victoria as a money-launderer should be repelled and his reputation re-established"."
Is it a US publisher? New Jersey, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that the damage occurred in Australia. Why shouldn't he be able to seek civil action in his own local courts?
"But now this means you can get sued anywhere in the world!" Um... so? You assume that that's going to have weight in your home country. I've got news for you: No matter what you may read on Slashdot, you don't get arrested for breaking the laws in another country. At worst you get arrested for breaking laws in your own country very similar to the laws in the other country in question. If Gutnick wins his case and Dow Jones doesn't have any assets in Australia, he'll still have to come to the US and convince a judge in the state where Dow Jones is incorporated that
Yes, Australia did have jurisdiction in this case, and
If the trial had taken place in the US, the outcome would have been the same (ie. it's against the law in that US state as well)
Bringing up a certain Simpson's episode everybody thought of as soon as they read "Australia" and "court," should the Australians instead have had to go to Springfield and bring charges against Bart under Illinois law? Better yet, you know how you can sue telemarketers that call after you tell them not to? Do you think you should have to go to their home state before you can try to get your measly $500? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for.
Come on, people! This ain't exactly the Dred Scott case we're talking about here!
No, wait, that was just a matter between US states. For all the bitching and moaning I've seen on Slashdot being "US-centric," a search of the site for Stanley Young v. New Haven Advocate doesn't turn up any hits.
"You think they'll detail enough troops into Denver to deal with the Colorado National Guard?"
You think the Colorado National Guard wouldn't have been federalized long before then and probably deployed elsewhere? They call it the National Guard for a reason. They're funded federally and the US president still outranks the governor of Colorado in the chain of command.
"So, there are no Federal Reserve Banks in Denver, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, et cetera?"
Where is Greenspan? Sure, Denver is one of the few places in the country where you could probably continue printing/minting US currency, but nobody in Denver or anywhere near Denver decides prime lending rates.
"Come to my neighborhood and say that. We are NOT the same as Easterners. We don't live and die by public transportation. We buy groceries six weeks at a time. We actually have good and functional reasons to drive pickup trucks and SUVs with gun racks, and those reasons do not include the amusement of idiots from Los Angeles or Boston."
Alright, but I'm willing to bet that those same differences can be seen between your neighborhood and Denver. All those differences stem from "rural vs. urban" differences (which are common throughout the US) and not major geographical differences like Colorado vs. New York. There are many people living in upstate New York that fit your description.
"It is a restraint on Congress' ability to enact laws. It shouldn't apply to one private person slurring another without justification, any more than it applies to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. No Federal law == amendment not apply."
The Fourteenth Amendment places the same restrictions on state legislatures (or at least that's how the USSC read it). "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
"Further, US courts will probably not enforce a foreign judgment obtained under libel laws which are incompatible with the ridiculously overbroad reading given to the First Amendment."
Mileage probably varies state to state.
"My spin: if you don't like that, use technological means to limit who sees the material"
There's a touchy subject. At the very least it's easier said than done. Of course, that's what cases like that are supposed to decide, whether or not they should go through the expense of trying.
"Snoop and Dre rapping about how their rolled on some suckas with their broadswords and morning stars?"
Have you seen how self-styled "ganstas" hold a pistol? That sideways, lax-elbow style? Sure, they may kill someone, but they'll smack themselves in the forehead in the process. Painfully.
That being said, if they are barely able to kill or wound someone with a pistol, I doubt they could do any damage with medieval melee weapons.
Kinda hard to sport an attitude when you're busy making a fool of yourself.
"Interesting. Only white males and females in the guard are allowed to own guns because they are in the militia."
Nope. At worst (depending on your POV), the second amendment can be read as to say that only those people are free from any laws that infringe on their ability to own a gun. There would have to be a new law to actually deny gun ownership to the other people.
"Do the laws you quote say anything about what the responsibilty of the the militia are?"
If there were conditions to being in the militia, they would be listed in the part that was quoted. It says "all males between 18 and 45," not "all males between 18 and 45 who have been through basic training.
"It seems to me that a well orderwed militia would at a minimum have a member list so that they could be called into action."
They just gave the member list. All men between 18 and 45.
"Maybe we whould make a list of all white males who own guns"
It says "all men between 18 and 45," not "all men between 18 and 45 who own guns."
And we do. It's called Selective Service, and I had to sign up when I turned 18, just like all male US citizens.
"So guns are there to ensure the army can call up the citizenry in time of war?"
No, they're there for the "security of free State." When you hear the word "militia," don't think of the National Guard (only a militia in the vaguest sense), think of the human peasants in Warcraft III. Do you call them to arms to send them up against the undead? No, the purpose of the militia is for the people to defend their own lives, liberty and property without having to wait for government intervention. Especially if it's the government you're defending against.
"If you own a gun, you can be drafted at will."
You're putting a condition on gun ownership. You missed the "shall not be infringed" bit.
"Rhetoric aside, the original intent was to provide an armed citizenry who could be called upon in times of war."
No, they're armed in order to defend themselves in times of war. Big difference. You call upon the army itself in times of war. Remember that there was essentially no such thing as a standing army in the US before WWII.
"Yet somehow that first half of the sentence gets dropped most of the time,"
No, it's remembered. You only say it's forgotten because you consider the concept of an armed civilian to be an oxymoron. The National Guard is the army, not the militia. YOU are the militia, whether you own a gun or not.
"Americans will rebel against any leader who dares try to conscript them."
Because they're remembering the "free State" bit.
"Just another case of demanding your rights, while at the same time completely ignoring your responsibilities."
Just another case of someone forgetting the differences between "right" and "privilege." What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble with?
"I think every reasonable American knows that the founding fathers designed the second amendment to allow all Americans access to personal firearms. Muzzle loaded, smoothbore, single shot flintlocks."
The fact that you think that smoothbores were the best you could get at the time reminds me of something else: With the exception of artillery, people in 18th century USA were often better armed than the military.
The armies at the time handed out smoothbore muskets to their soldiers because they were easy to make, which means they're easy to mass-produce as well as cheap. On top of that, it's more time-consuming to muzzle-load a rifle and military thinking at the time held that the volume of fire put out by an infantry unit is more important than the accuracy.
On the other hand, individuals who could afford to almost always chose to buy a rifle instead of a musket. They were far more useful in hunting (the average 20th century pistol has more accuracy-at-range than an 18th-century musket).
When the war did break out, the rifles owned and used by the populace-turned-militia proved to be very effective, especially in the guerilla tactics preferred by the Americans. Even on the field they held a morale advantage: It can be very disenheartening when your comrades are getting picked off at ranges at which you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
Oh, and one more thing: After the war (and before the 1789 constitution), there was no standing army, well-armed or not. Even when we did establish a full-time army, it was nothing more than token force during peacetime right on up until World War II. In 1865, the US fielded the largest army in the world. By 1866, it was all but gone.
First off, you're coming off as being far too authoritarian (ie. not libertarian), so much so that about the only way you'd be on Slashdot is if you're a troll. But I'll reply anyway.
"Practically, though, you don't see people being held accountable when their gun is stolen, used for a crime, found by a kid, etc."
Somebody else said it better, but I'll say it again: If someone steals my car and runs people over, why should I be held responsible? Hell, if I'm responsible for my property even if I don't give express permission to take it, the whole concept of "theft" break down. You can get your hands on it, therefore I wanted you to take it?
"has become too extreme defending the right to own assault weapons"
Spoken like someone who has no idea how rarely a crime is comitted with a legally-owned assult rifle in this country. Unless something has happened in recent years, IIRC one hasn't been committed since the 1920's (when the ATF required automatic weapons to be registered with them).
"They need to listen and understand their own rhetoric about "guns don't kill people, people kill people"."
No, you do. You seem to think that the "people" mentioned are the gun owners, even if they aren't the gun users. If I root your machine and use it to launch a DOS attack, should you be held responsible?
(Oh, wait, the feds are actually considering that... forgot about that...)
"Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place?"
A lot of the time they steal them. Which, to me, means we need stricter laws on gun theft, not gun ownership.
"Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation"
Woah! You think that procreating should require a license? What are you, communist Chinese? And I suppose any illegal procreation should be ended in forced abortion, hm?
"But I'm insistent that the greater the risk of the weapon (...), the greater the responsibility and accountability needs to be."
First off, who exactly would decide on how much accountability is "enough?"
Secondly, why must that mean "harsher gun ownership requirements" and not "harsher gun crime penalties?"
"but car ownership requires the purchase of hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability insurance in practically every state in the country."
Only if you intend to drive it on state-owned roads. The requirements to have insurance or even to have a license plate end at the curb.
But that's besides the point. Car insurance is intended for the victim of a car accident (ie. the person you hit). Forcing gun-owners who don't shoot people to buy insurance is like forcing the owners of vehicles that aren't road legal to buy car insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course, this defeats the hole point of CopyLeft/GPL!"
What's the whole point of "copyleft"/GPL? Why, in your own words, it's:
"TiVo does provided the source code to the Linux kernel and their modification to the source code"
GPL applies to software. TiVo is hardware. You'd think that if you could find Slashdot you'd know the differences by now...
Or are you one of those bolsheviks who won't be happy until you can get both for $0.00?
"You're unlikely to switch station just because an advert came on, since the radio is not your primary focus at that moment."
Apparently those statisticians have never been in a car with me. When my hand is on the stick, all I have to do is extend my middle finger to hit one of the radio memory buttons. "Worse" yet, I'm considering getting Sirius simply to get away from ClearChannel's ad whoring.
"Pass #1 showed a rocket; pass #2 showed a blast crater strewn with debris."
But the really neat part is when the crater is gone by pass #3. IIRC, that's what they did with their N-1 program.
"russian Proton rocket has success rate of 92% and unless I am missing something can put 45,000 pounds (20ton) compare to oh 10ton for Arian into orbit."
What you are missing: LEO != geostationary.
"and there's little prospect we'll have much to show for it."
Only because you think it's a short-term investment. Beyond physiological studies, there's little that can be done on a space station that can't be done without a satellite or a spacecraft. The point of the ISS isn't to be an exploration vessel, it's to be a port.
Just because the Port of New York doesn't go anywhere and very little oceanographic work is done in Long Island Sound doesn't mean it's not vital to NOAA's exploration missions.
"I bet the next version of IE will have a popup blocking feature."
HAH! More like "The next version of MSN will have a pop-up blocking feature." Why put it in for free when Microsoft can get away with selling it to you instead?
"Yes, I'm glad we got some peaceful dividends from ICBM work, but this could have been achieved more cheaply,"
Um... the US space program has had little if anything in common with our ICBM program since the Gemini program at the latest. Sure, the Redstone and the original Atlas were originally made to lob nukes, but once we were launching something bigger than a Mercury capsule, our ICBM boosters just didn't cut it. Unlike the Soviets, we could make nukes that were small enough to be launched on rockets too small for a manned space program (where do you think their head start in the space race came from?).
I mean, come on, unless you're going to nuke a target on the Moon, what use is a Saturn V in a nuclear war? Sure, it could be used to throw kilotons of conventional explosives half-way around the world (think "Skylab made of C-4"), but...
PC-DOS 2000? Does this mean that DOS has officially outlived OS/2 Warp?
"The point that should concern people (especially those from outside the US) is that they are being tried in the US, under US law for legal actions they committed in another country."
IIRC, he was arrested in the US for something he either just did or was about to do in the US. Something about a demonstration of the flaws in Adobe's encryption system, I believe.
At any rate, the real silliness is in the law itself. You can reverse engineer something, but you can't ever tell anybody how you did it. Which means everybody has to reinvent the wheel for themselves. If that doesn't fly in the face of the original concept of copyrights to begin with (to encourage the dissemination of information), I don't know what does.
Copyright law is supposed to be "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The DMCA is doing the exact opposite. Where can we find a convenient case to take up to the USSC?
"I guess you could make a point that we are arguably "created" by the society in which we are born and raised, is that what you were thinking of?"
You have a hand, two eyes and a brain. You are biologically capable of using a firearm. The rest is just legislation.
Not one for logic, are you? If all men between 18 and 45 are in the militia, who aren't in the militia?
- Boys younger than 18
- Men older than 45
- Women not in the National Guard
Duh!If they're not considered to be the militia, then the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them. But you seem to be forgetting that the US Constitution takes the (more correct, IMO) stance of limiting the powers of Congress, not granting powers to the people. It would take a new act of Congress to say "nobody not in the militia can't own a gun."
"And yet I wonder why they included the phrase "well ordered militia". It seems to imply some sort of a structure."
You're grasping at straws. Explain why the Selective Service System's structure doesn't qualify.
"According to your logic they do not have the right to bear arms."
Your logic, not mine. At worst their ability to own a gun isn't protected. "Not protected" != "doesn't exist." Especially after reading the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, only your Creator (whatever you believe it to be) can do that. The US Constitution limits the government's ability to interfere with the ability to exercise those rights. Or weren't you paying any attention in your civics class? The Second Amendment (in a very conservative reading) says "Congress can't get in the way of the militia owning guns." It does not say "Only the militia can own guns." The only "not" in the Second Amendment is in the part "shall not be infringed."
How many times will I have to repeat the same thing before it gets through your skull?
"Seeing as how women do have the right to have arms"
Which they have (at worst) because Congress hasn't seen fit to infringe upon it.
"Honestly a militia is useless if it can not be called up on a moments notice."
You assume that only an organized military force can fight and that partisanship is useless. If that were the case, we'd all still be British.
"People with guns are already armed and are probably trained well and are good shots."
You assume that skill with firearms is more important than the number and availability of small arms to a group of people.
"It seems like the absolute minimum requirement for being in the militia should be to be able to be contacted in case of attack."
Which brings us right back to Selective Service.
"Where do you think XBox will be in a couple years? Like it or not, within a few years, XBox will sell more that Playstation. Wait and see..."
Just like WebTV and UltimateTV, hm?
Why do you think Xbox will outsell the PS2 when they're currently losing ground to the GameCube? Hell, you're going to have to do better than make silly statements like that to convince me that Xbox won't have gone the way of the Dreamcast by this time next y ear.
"In what way would this take control of linux? X11 and all the apps would still exists and you would still be able to use them."
In what way could Windows take control of DOS? GEM and all the apps would still exist and you would still be able to use them.
(Replace GEM with the DOS GUI of your choice).
"Mr Gutnick lives in Victoria. He has his business headquarters there. Although he conducts business outside Australia, including in the United States of America, and has made significant contributions to charities in the United States and Israel, much of his social and business life could be said to be focused in Victoria."
"The primary judge recorded in his reasons that Mr Gutnick "seeks to have his Victorian reputation vindicated by the courts of the State in which he lives [and that he] is indifferent to the other substantial parts of the article and desires only that the attack on his reputation in Victoria as a money-launderer should be repelled and his reputation re-established"."
Is it a US publisher? New Jersey, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that the damage occurred in Australia. Why shouldn't he be able to seek civil action in his own local courts?
"But now this means you can get sued anywhere in the world!" Um... so? You assume that that's going to have weight in your home country. I've got news for you: No matter what you may read on Slashdot, you don't get arrested for breaking the laws in another country. At worst you get arrested for breaking laws in your own country very similar to the laws in the other country in question. If Gutnick wins his case and Dow Jones doesn't have any assets in Australia, he'll still have to come to the US and convince a judge in the state where Dow Jones is incorporated that
- Yes, Australia did have jurisdiction in this case, and
- If the trial had taken place in the US, the outcome would have been the same (ie. it's against the law in that US state as well)
Bringing up a certain Simpson's episode everybody thought of as soon as they read "Australia" and "court," should the Australians instead have had to go to Springfield and bring charges against Bart under Illinois law? Better yet, you know how you can sue telemarketers that call after you tell them not to? Do you think you should have to go to their home state before you can try to get your measly $500? Because that's exactly what you're arguing for.Come on, people! This ain't exactly the Dred Scott case we're talking about here!
No, wait, that was just a matter between US states. For all the bitching and moaning I've seen on Slashdot being "US-centric," a search of the site for Stanley Young v. New Haven Advocate doesn't turn up any hits.
"Turns out the gun deaths have been going down significantly because gang members are now holding their guns upsidedown while they are shooting"
So Hollywood reduces shooting deaths in ways no gun legislation could hope to achieve. I love it!
"You think they'll detail enough troops into Denver to deal with the Colorado National Guard?"
You think the Colorado National Guard wouldn't have been federalized long before then and probably deployed elsewhere? They call it the National Guard for a reason. They're funded federally and the US president still outranks the governor of Colorado in the chain of command.
"So, there are no Federal Reserve Banks in Denver, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, et cetera?"
Where is Greenspan? Sure, Denver is one of the few places in the country where you could probably continue printing/minting US currency, but nobody in Denver or anywhere near Denver decides prime lending rates.
"Come to my neighborhood and say that. We are NOT the same as Easterners. We don't live and die by public transportation. We buy groceries six weeks at a time. We actually have good and functional reasons to drive pickup trucks and SUVs with gun racks, and those reasons do not include the amusement of idiots from Los Angeles or Boston."
Alright, but I'm willing to bet that those same differences can be seen between your neighborhood and Denver. All those differences stem from "rural vs. urban" differences (which are common throughout the US) and not major geographical differences like Colorado vs. New York. There are many people living in upstate New York that fit your description.
Minor nit-picks from a non-lawyer USAian.
"It is a restraint on Congress' ability to enact laws. It shouldn't apply to one private person slurring another without justification, any more than it applies to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. No Federal law == amendment not apply."
The Fourteenth Amendment places the same restrictions on state legislatures (or at least that's how the USSC read it). "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
"Further, US courts will probably not enforce a foreign judgment obtained under libel laws which are incompatible with the ridiculously overbroad reading given to the First Amendment."
Mileage probably varies state to state.
"My spin: if you don't like that, use technological means to limit who sees the material"
There's a touchy subject. At the very least it's easier said than done. Of course, that's what cases like that are supposed to decide, whether or not they should go through the expense of trying.
"Snoop and Dre rapping about how their rolled on some suckas with their broadswords and morning stars?"
Have you seen how self-styled "ganstas" hold a pistol? That sideways, lax-elbow style? Sure, they may kill someone, but they'll smack themselves in the forehead in the process. Painfully.
That being said, if they are barely able to kill or wound someone with a pistol, I doubt they could do any damage with medieval melee weapons.
Kinda hard to sport an attitude when you're busy making a fool of yourself.
"Interesting. Only white males and females in the guard are allowed to own guns because they are in the militia."
Nope. At worst (depending on your POV), the second amendment can be read as to say that only those people are free from any laws that infringe on their ability to own a gun. There would have to be a new law to actually deny gun ownership to the other people.
"Do the laws you quote say anything about what the responsibilty of the the militia are?"
If there were conditions to being in the militia, they would be listed in the part that was quoted. It says "all males between 18 and 45," not "all males between 18 and 45 who have been through basic training.
"It seems to me that a well orderwed militia would at a minimum have a member list so that they could be called into action."
They just gave the member list. All men between 18 and 45.
"Maybe we whould make a list of all white males who own guns"
It says "all men between 18 and 45," not "all men between 18 and 45 who own guns."
And we do. It's called Selective Service, and I had to sign up when I turned 18, just like all male US citizens.
"Effect preceeding Cause -- a server going down just *before* being Slashdotted."
FTL is possible! Warp speed, here I come!
"So guns are there to ensure the army can call up the citizenry in time of war?"
No, they're there for the "security of free State." When you hear the word "militia," don't think of the National Guard (only a militia in the vaguest sense), think of the human peasants in Warcraft III. Do you call them to arms to send them up against the undead? No, the purpose of the militia is for the people to defend their own lives, liberty and property without having to wait for government intervention. Especially if it's the government you're defending against.
"If you own a gun, you can be drafted at will."
You're putting a condition on gun ownership. You missed the "shall not be infringed" bit.
"Rhetoric aside, the original intent was to provide an armed citizenry who could be called upon in times of war."
No, they're armed in order to defend themselves in times of war. Big difference. You call upon the army itself in times of war. Remember that there was essentially no such thing as a standing army in the US before WWII.
"Yet somehow that first half of the sentence gets dropped most of the time,"
No, it's remembered. You only say it's forgotten because you consider the concept of an armed civilian to be an oxymoron. The National Guard is the army, not the militia. YOU are the militia, whether you own a gun or not.
"Americans will rebel against any leader who dares try to conscript them."
Because they're remembering the "free State" bit.
"Just another case of demanding your rights, while at the same time completely ignoring your responsibilities."
Just another case of someone forgetting the differences between "right" and "privilege." What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble with?
"I think every reasonable American knows that the founding fathers designed the second amendment to allow all Americans access to personal firearms. Muzzle loaded, smoothbore, single shot flintlocks."
The fact that you think that smoothbores were the best you could get at the time reminds me of something else: With the exception of artillery, people in 18th century USA were often better armed than the military.
The armies at the time handed out smoothbore muskets to their soldiers because they were easy to make, which means they're easy to mass-produce as well as cheap. On top of that, it's more time-consuming to muzzle-load a rifle and military thinking at the time held that the volume of fire put out by an infantry unit is more important than the accuracy.
On the other hand, individuals who could afford to almost always chose to buy a rifle instead of a musket. They were far more useful in hunting (the average 20th century pistol has more accuracy-at-range than an 18th-century musket).
When the war did break out, the rifles owned and used by the populace-turned-militia proved to be very effective, especially in the guerilla tactics preferred by the Americans. Even on the field they held a morale advantage: It can be very disenheartening when your comrades are getting picked off at ranges at which you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
Oh, and one more thing: After the war (and before the 1789 constitution), there was no standing army, well-armed or not. Even when we did establish a full-time army, it was nothing more than token force during peacetime right on up until World War II. In 1865, the US fielded the largest army in the world. By 1866, it was all but gone.
"'There are real nuts out there!' exclaims Terry. And he is quite right."
Hell, in Terry's case, he could say "There are real nuts in here!" and he'd still be quite right.
First off, you're coming off as being far too authoritarian (ie. not libertarian), so much so that about the only way you'd be on Slashdot is if you're a troll. But I'll reply anyway.
"Practically, though, you don't see people being held accountable when their gun is stolen, used for a crime, found by a kid, etc."
Somebody else said it better, but I'll say it again: If someone steals my car and runs people over, why should I be held responsible? Hell, if I'm responsible for my property even if I don't give express permission to take it, the whole concept of "theft" break down. You can get your hands on it, therefore I wanted you to take it?
"has become too extreme defending the right to own assault weapons"
Spoken like someone who has no idea how rarely a crime is comitted with a legally-owned assult rifle in this country. Unless something has happened in recent years, IIRC one hasn't been committed since the 1920's (when the ATF required automatic weapons to be registered with them).
"They need to listen and understand their own rhetoric about "guns don't kill people, people kill people"."
No, you do. You seem to think that the "people" mentioned are the gun owners, even if they aren't the gun users. If I root your machine and use it to launch a DOS attack, should you be held responsible?
(Oh, wait, the feds are actually considering that... forgot about that...)
"Well, how the hell did those irresponsible idiots get a gun in the first place?"
A lot of the time they steal them. Which, to me, means we need stricter laws on gun theft, not gun ownership.
"Qualifications for owning firearms are as woefully inadequate as they are for procreation"
Woah! You think that procreating should require a license? What are you, communist Chinese? And I suppose any illegal procreation should be ended in forced abortion, hm?
"But I'm insistent that the greater the risk of the weapon (...), the greater the responsibility and accountability needs to be."
First off, who exactly would decide on how much accountability is "enough?"
Secondly, why must that mean "harsher gun ownership requirements" and not "harsher gun crime penalties?"
"but car ownership requires the purchase of hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability insurance in practically every state in the country."
Only if you intend to drive it on state-owned roads. The requirements to have insurance or even to have a license plate end at the curb.
But that's besides the point. Car insurance is intended for the victim of a car accident (ie. the person you hit). Forcing gun-owners who don't shoot people to buy insurance is like forcing the owners of vehicles that aren't road legal to buy car insurance.