And while it's true that modern medicine is not perfect, comparing the knowledge of modern medicine to the knowledge of the people in the anti-vax community is like comparing modern chemists to alchemists of the middle ages.
The question isn't whether government scientists are right or wrong about any particular vaccine, it is whether the government should have the right to force people to inject stuff into their bodies.
And as far as I know nobody is forcing anyone (even kids) to be vaccinated. The only measures I've heard being proposed is removing the personal belief exemption for allowing unvaccinated kids from attending public schools
Private schools can make that argument and require vaccinations to their hearts' content. Public schools, however, are bound by limits on governmental powers; for example, they can't advocate particular religions, and likewise, they shouldn't be able to impose vaccinations. A compromise would be to move to a voucher system that allows kids who don't want to attend public schools to use the money to pay for private schools, but that is something progressives and their public sector union lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail.
The next release of the Linux kernel could contain old security problems.
The next release of OS X could contain old security problems.
The next smart card standard could contain old security problems.
The customer prices in Germany are very high (30 cents / kWh) but only 6 cents are for the feed-in tariff for renewables. So this isn't the only one of many reasons for the high price (which is intentionally high). Also part of the industry is exempt and then pays much less than for example in California.
Yes, only 6 cents are for the feed in tariff for renewables. The rest of the difference is consumer prices being raised in order to give energy hungry industries low electricity prices. In different words, Germany has a hidden regressive tax on electricity customers in order to increase corporate profits of energy hungry industries.
And I wouldn't be so sure that that is allowed to continue, given that it amounts to unfair competition and trade practices. Both the EU and the US may sooner or later decide to stomp down on these hidden subsidies.
The Illinois law they're using to sue considers face geometry scans a "biometric identifier"
The Illinois law has a stated purpose, namely that of preventing theft of biometric identifiers. As far as face-based biometrics is concerned, that purpose could be served by outlawing attaching names to photographs without consent (with obvious First Amendment issues); it is not served by preventing Facebook from recognizing people in photographs by any means they like.
It doesn't.
It excludes face photographs, but that is a contradictory exclusion, given that the law also attempts to protect face biometrics data, as is evident from the fact that it includes "face geometry". My point is that the law isn't "ambiguous" as written, it is simply inconsistent: what it legislates does not actually serve its stated purpose.
If it doesn't, it could make simply recognising someone in a photo a criminal act.
State legislators could probably make "using a computer to automatically identify people in photographs" a criminal act. Apparently, that's what the plaintiffs want for some reason. However, such a law would have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the biometrics law, which is to make biometric identifiers more secure and trustworthy.
ThinkProgress is the political blog of the "Center for American Progress", a highly partisan political organization. Romm himself is also highly partisan, and the argument in his article is a political one, not a scientific one.
In short, please keep this partisan political crap off Slashdot.
No, your point was that the state can impose limits on the Second Amendment:
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
That's wrong. Neither Congress nor the courts can "limit" constitutionally guaranteed rights; the only way to limit them is through amending the constitution. By making the argument that "the Second Amendment has limits", you're basically saying that any form of gun control is constitutional if Congress deems it so. And none of those prohibited activities you list are activities guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
In fact, the Second Amendment isn't even the source of the right to bear arms. The source of the right to bear arms is the Constitution itself: it didn't grant Congress the power to limit private ownership or use of guns; that power falls to the states. The Second Amendment only clarifies this explicitly.
Perhaps we are more in agreement in disagreement.
I have no idea what your view is. On the one hand, you say you don't want prior restraint on gun ownership, on the other hand, you seem to think that it's OK for Congress to "limit" constitutionally guaranteed rights.
This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is why I voted for him in 2008. His economic promises and predictions have turned out to be equally hollow.
The FSF has made big contributions in the past, but I'm not sure they are so relevant today. The FSF says:
The Free Software Foundation is working to secure freedom for computer users by promoting the development and use of free (as in freedom) software and documentation—particularly the GNU operating system—and by campaigning against threats to computer user freedom like Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and software patents.
It seems to me there are now many other organizations that do this, many of them arguably more effective than the FSF. In addition, the FSF seems to have a certain degree of mission creep, not focusing on creating and promoting free software, but also trying to achieve other political and social goals.
So, if you're willing to restrict the 1st amendment for inciting "imminent lawless action", we can apply the same restriction to the right to bear arms - you can't bear arms in such a way that would incite "imminent lawless action" (let's say, waving a rifle and pointing threateningly at a crowd in a theatre).
That argument hasn't been made in court, so it's purely your own fabrication. And the reason that that argument hasn't been made in court is that it likely doesn't work:
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, what does that mean? As far as speech goes, you can punish people after the act of speaking provided you can show that the speaker intended to incite an imminent violation of the law. The possibility that people might intend to incite an imminent violation of the law is not a justification to impose prior restrictions on speech.
Likewise, if you applied the same reasoning to the bearing of arms, you could punish people after the fact, if you could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that their act of carrying guns was intended to incite a violation of the law. And, guess what, threatening people with guns is already illegal in many cases. It's also why a lot of people get shot by police. You cannot, however, use that reasoning to implement any prior restrictions on gun ownership or the bearing of arms.
So, despite your attempts at hair splitting, it all comes down to simple Second Amendment rights as usually advocated for by 2A defenders: you can own and bear arms, and you should be able to do so free from federal interference (and because of 14A, arguably, from state interference), but you can't legally use your guns to threaten or hurt people. So, thanks for making a good case for Second Amendment rights and against gun control by analogy with First Amendment history.
The current legal situation is not quite like that yet; that is, the state and the federal government currently still impose more restrictions on guns than they arguably constitutionally should. But since, as you point out, SCOTUS has already limited the power of the government on First Amendment issues, it may well do the same on Second Amendment issues. It's also not a given that SCOTUS won't get rid of the "imminent lawless action" exemption altogether, since it seems rather pointless.
How do you know a neural network isn't creating it's own biometric identifiers or "feature vectors"?
A "biometric identifier" isn't just "biometric data that identifies you", it's an explicit piece of data you can use to let a biometric system verify your identity. The law is intended to address a particular (supposed) weakness of "biometric identifiers" in biometric identification systems, namely that they can't be reissued if compromised. That simply doesn't apply to Facebook's use of face recognition, or their internal feature vectors.
That's a tough argument to make, because images of people's faces will correlate with people's faces.
No, I'm making a very simple argument, actually. There are things called "biometric identifiers" and "face geometry", and they are not just "biometric information that can be used to identify you".
A "biometric identifier" is a well-defined set of numbers used by a "biometric identification system", and within the scope of the law, that amounts to something used for access control and similar purposes ("face geometry" is roughly synonymous within this context, being used by older biometric identification systems). The law is expressly intended to protect people against the situation where I obtain your biometric identifier that is used by some biometric identification system and then impersonate you. It's a stupid law to begin with, because that's a really unlikely attack on biometric identification systems, but that is what it is intended to do.
When it comes to face biometrics, whatever Facebook computes internally in their neural network is not a "biometric identifier" because it's never actually used like a "biometric identifier" in the sense of the law, by anyone in the world. Furthermore, they don't even publish those numbers, and the numbers change every time they retrain their machine learning algorithm.
The original photo with your name attached to it is what puts you at a (small) risk of biometric impersonation, not Facebook's internal face recognition. You may not like that companies like Facebook run large scale face recognition on photographs, and you might want to try to get a law passed to prohibit that, but this law wasn't intended to do that.
And there is your problem: you don't understand what the law is actually about. Yes, in a generic sense, deep learning creates numbers that identify people biometrically internally. Those numbers are not "biometric identifiers" within the meaning of the law. The law is intended to protect people from identity theft by protecting their "biometric identifiers". There are some well defined "biometric identifiers" for faces, but Facebook or Shutterfly are not using them because they are, frankly, not very good for their purposes.
Finally, as to your First Amendment attempt, that fails too. Biometric information about me is not creative or transformative (by definition), is not part of the public discourse (it contains no ideas or opinions), and is not your speech.
I'm not arguing that the biometric identifiers are a First Amendment issue, I'm arguing that attaching names to photographs is a First Amendment issue. Once you allow people to publish names attached to photographs, your facial "biometric identifier" is out there, and there is nothing any law can do about that.
You could pass a law that forbids automatic face recognition in photographs somehow, but that's not this law.
So by your reading no biometric identifiers and no uses of them could be outlawed.
Any and all biometric identifiers that can't be derived from regular media can be outlawed.
And there is another plausible reading: that photographs and things derived from them are not covered by the law as long as they aren't processed into biometric identifiers.
You could pass such a law, but it doesn't serve the stated purpose of the law, namely to protect people from theft of their biometric identifiers.
Your reading of the law would make it nonsensical.
The law is nonsensical, and it's not fixable by reinterpretation. The only way to make the law sensible is to simply strike facial identification and any other biometric identifiers that can be derived from photographs, audio, video, or text from the scope of the law.
The law deals with "biometric identifiers" as well as "biometric information" and perhaps this lawsuit will hinge on the definitions of the words "scan" and "face geometry"
Rereading the law, its intention is to safeguard biometric identifiers for recognition. If you apply the intent of the law to facial identification, you would have to outlaw publishing any photograph with a name attached to it, because any photograph with a name attached to it serves as a biometric identifier. But the law then contradicts itself by explicitly saying that photographs are not biometric identifiers. What the law doesn't say is that companies can't engage in biometric identification. Prohibiting Shutterfly or Facebook from performing facial recognition does nothing to enhance anybody's biometric safety. The law is also questionable in another way: the reason it gives for not sharing biometric identifiers really has little to do with attacks on biometric systems; knowing someone's biometric identifiers should not allow people to compromise a properly constructed biometric identification system.
But the first half of the law lays out the intent of the legislature and it's pretty clear that they don't want private entities to be able to identify you based upon your biological attributes without you consenting to them doing so.
Well, the fact is that "private entities" can identify people based on facial photographs, so their legislative intent is irrelevant: either they have to forbid the sharing of facial photographs, or they have to accept that "private entities" can identify people based on them.
Face recognition these days uses a lot of deep learning. Deep learning does not use "biometric identifiers" or "face geometry", it operates on the images directly. Furthermore, other than the photos themselves, no biometric information is "collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained".
So, either the Illinois law considers all photos containing faces "biometric identifiers" and outlaws their distribution without the consent of the person (questionable in light of the First Amendment), or there is a real problem with the law and its interpretation.
Yes, I know that's what he's saying. He is wrong. The data doesn't show any correlation whatsoever between democracy and availability of guns. None.
No, you don't know what he is saying. He isn't saying that there is a "correlation between democracy and availability of guns", and neither was I saying that.
That is an assertion. There's no real support for it in the evidence, unless you go with the circular argument.
The data is on the web, you're welcome to check it for yourself.
You go on to then assert that Somalia is a special case.
No, I assert that his (and your) understanding of what Somalia is and how it is governed is fundamentally wrong.
The fact of the matter is this - self defense is just as inalienable as speech, religion, or assembly. You can pretend that's not so, but it doesn't change it.
Why are you telling me? Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
But gun control does lead to fewer shootings, which is something that has been demonstrated time and time and time again.
Nope, sorry, there is no evidence that gun control causes fewer shootings. Gun control may case a modest reduction in "gun deaths", but that's due to suicides, not shootings.
"Stop subsidizing single motherhood"? So you want more poor people desperate to survive, thinking that's going to decrease crime?
If you subsidize solar panels, more people get solar panels. If you subsidize public transportation, more people use public transportation. And if you subsidize single motherhood, you get more single motherhood. So, what I want is less single motherhood and more intact families. You evidently want more broken families and the cycle of poverty and violence that follows.
Murdering someone - nope - we restrict your right to bear arms towards that end
The "bearing" (carrying) of arms is perfectly legal; it's the "murdering" that's illegal. But the "murdering" part is illegal regardless of whether you "bear arms" or not, and it falls under state jurisdiction in most cases.
Similarly, we don't allow people to speak when yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Hitchens called this "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." That phrase actually comes from a 1919 SCOTUS ruling making speech opposing the US role in WWI illegal, itself an utterly unacceptable position and one only a totalitarian and war monger would approve of, but then that seems to describe your attitudes. The ruling was overturned in 1969, so even any remote semblance of validity that notion may have had disappeared ten. So, there is neither law nor precedent making that kind of speech illegal.
The trick is, we restrict behavior narrowly
Your personal fascist leanings notwithstanding, restricting behavior of citizens on the remote possibility that they might harm themselves or others is not an accepted legal or political principle in the US. There are some examples of where the US put in place such legislation (none of which you actually have managed to identify), but they are exceptions, not the rule, and we should strive to reverse those. They certainly do not justify passing more of such legal crap.
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people with guns, or rob people with guns, or kidnap them with guns, or threaten them with guns.
The Second Amendment doesn't state that people can do any of those things. That is, the Second Amendment states that people have the right to own and bear arms, not to do whatever they want with arms. Therefore those limits are not limits on the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, your example is wrong in another sense, because murder, robbery, and kidnapping are usually matters of state law, not federal law.
I thought that it would be obvious:)
Your reasoning was obvious, and it was obviously false.
A "naked singularity" is usually what people call a black hole without an event horizon, an object that's pretty important in theoretical physics. Calling something a "naked black hole" is kind of confusing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
AmiMoJo made an argument against Quigley, and you expanded his argument. Your observation is factually correct (so would have been the observation "the sky is blue"), but it fails to support AmiMoJo's argument against Quigley and is hence irrelevant to the point we are discussing. Hope I cleared that up.
Slashdot Mirror
The question isn't whether government scientists are right or wrong about any particular vaccine, it is whether the government should have the right to force people to inject stuff into their bodies.
Private schools can make that argument and require vaccinations to their hearts' content. Public schools, however, are bound by limits on governmental powers; for example, they can't advocate particular religions, and likewise, they shouldn't be able to impose vaccinations. A compromise would be to move to a voucher system that allows kids who don't want to attend public schools to use the money to pay for private schools, but that is something progressives and their public sector union lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail.
Sorry, but socialism doesn't get any more attractive even when it's blasted at you at 150 dB.
The next release of the Linux kernel could contain old security problems. The next release of OS X could contain old security problems. The next smart card standard could contain old security problems.
Yes, only 6 cents are for the feed in tariff for renewables. The rest of the difference is consumer prices being raised in order to give energy hungry industries low electricity prices. In different words, Germany has a hidden regressive tax on electricity customers in order to increase corporate profits of energy hungry industries. And I wouldn't be so sure that that is allowed to continue, given that it amounts to unfair competition and trade practices. Both the EU and the US may sooner or later decide to stomp down on these hidden subsidies.
The Illinois law has a stated purpose, namely that of preventing theft of biometric identifiers. As far as face-based biometrics is concerned, that purpose could be served by outlawing attaching names to photographs without consent (with obvious First Amendment issues); it is not served by preventing Facebook from recognizing people in photographs by any means they like.
It excludes face photographs, but that is a contradictory exclusion, given that the law also attempts to protect face biometrics data, as is evident from the fact that it includes "face geometry". My point is that the law isn't "ambiguous" as written, it is simply inconsistent: what it legislates does not actually serve its stated purpose.
State legislators could probably make "using a computer to automatically identify people in photographs" a criminal act. Apparently, that's what the plaintiffs want for some reason. However, such a law would have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the biometrics law, which is to make biometric identifiers more secure and trustworthy.
ThinkProgress is the political blog of the "Center for American Progress", a highly partisan political organization. Romm himself is also highly partisan, and the argument in his article is a political one, not a scientific one. In short, please keep this partisan political crap off Slashdot.
... then get sued!"
That's wrong. Neither Congress nor the courts can "limit" constitutionally guaranteed rights; the only way to limit them is through amending the constitution. By making the argument that "the Second Amendment has limits", you're basically saying that any form of gun control is constitutional if Congress deems it so. And none of those prohibited activities you list are activities guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In fact, the Second Amendment isn't even the source of the right to bear arms. The source of the right to bear arms is the Constitution itself: it didn't grant Congress the power to limit private ownership or use of guns; that power falls to the states. The Second Amendment only clarifies this explicitly.
I have no idea what your view is. On the one hand, you say you don't want prior restraint on gun ownership, on the other hand, you seem to think that it's OK for Congress to "limit" constitutionally guaranteed rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This is why I voted for him in 2008. His economic promises and predictions have turned out to be equally hollow.
It seems to me there are now many other organizations that do this, many of them arguably more effective than the FSF. In addition, the FSF seems to have a certain degree of mission creep, not focusing on creating and promoting free software, but also trying to achieve other political and social goals.
That argument hasn't been made in court, so it's purely your own fabrication. And the reason that that argument hasn't been made in court is that it likely doesn't work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... So, what does that mean? As far as speech goes, you can punish people after the act of speaking provided you can show that the speaker intended to incite an imminent violation of the law. The possibility that people might intend to incite an imminent violation of the law is not a justification to impose prior restrictions on speech.
Likewise, if you applied the same reasoning to the bearing of arms, you could punish people after the fact, if you could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that their act of carrying guns was intended to incite a violation of the law. And, guess what, threatening people with guns is already illegal in many cases. It's also why a lot of people get shot by police. You cannot, however, use that reasoning to implement any prior restrictions on gun ownership or the bearing of arms.
So, despite your attempts at hair splitting, it all comes down to simple Second Amendment rights as usually advocated for by 2A defenders: you can own and bear arms, and you should be able to do so free from federal interference (and because of 14A, arguably, from state interference), but you can't legally use your guns to threaten or hurt people. So, thanks for making a good case for Second Amendment rights and against gun control by analogy with First Amendment history.
The current legal situation is not quite like that yet; that is, the state and the federal government currently still impose more restrictions on guns than they arguably constitutionally should. But since, as you point out, SCOTUS has already limited the power of the government on First Amendment issues, it may well do the same on Second Amendment issues. It's also not a given that SCOTUS won't get rid of the "imminent lawless action" exemption altogether, since it seems rather pointless.
A "biometric identifier" isn't just "biometric data that identifies you", it's an explicit piece of data you can use to let a biometric system verify your identity. The law is intended to address a particular (supposed) weakness of "biometric identifiers" in biometric identification systems, namely that they can't be reissued if compromised. That simply doesn't apply to Facebook's use of face recognition, or their internal feature vectors.
No, I'm making a very simple argument, actually. There are things called "biometric identifiers" and "face geometry", and they are not just "biometric information that can be used to identify you".
A "biometric identifier" is a well-defined set of numbers used by a "biometric identification system", and within the scope of the law, that amounts to something used for access control and similar purposes ("face geometry" is roughly synonymous within this context, being used by older biometric identification systems). The law is expressly intended to protect people against the situation where I obtain your biometric identifier that is used by some biometric identification system and then impersonate you. It's a stupid law to begin with, because that's a really unlikely attack on biometric identification systems, but that is what it is intended to do.
When it comes to face biometrics, whatever Facebook computes internally in their neural network is not a "biometric identifier" because it's never actually used like a "biometric identifier" in the sense of the law, by anyone in the world. Furthermore, they don't even publish those numbers, and the numbers change every time they retrain their machine learning algorithm.
The original photo with your name attached to it is what puts you at a (small) risk of biometric impersonation, not Facebook's internal face recognition. You may not like that companies like Facebook run large scale face recognition on photographs, and you might want to try to get a law passed to prohibit that, but this law wasn't intended to do that.
And there is your problem: you don't understand what the law is actually about. Yes, in a generic sense, deep learning creates numbers that identify people biometrically internally. Those numbers are not "biometric identifiers" within the meaning of the law. The law is intended to protect people from identity theft by protecting their "biometric identifiers". There are some well defined "biometric identifiers" for faces, but Facebook or Shutterfly are not using them because they are, frankly, not very good for their purposes.
I'm not arguing that the biometric identifiers are a First Amendment issue, I'm arguing that attaching names to photographs is a First Amendment issue. Once you allow people to publish names attached to photographs, your facial "biometric identifier" is out there, and there is nothing any law can do about that. You could pass a law that forbids automatic face recognition in photographs somehow, but that's not this law.
Any and all biometric identifiers that can't be derived from regular media can be outlawed.
You could pass such a law, but it doesn't serve the stated purpose of the law, namely to protect people from theft of their biometric identifiers.
The law is nonsensical, and it's not fixable by reinterpretation. The only way to make the law sensible is to simply strike facial identification and any other biometric identifiers that can be derived from photographs, audio, video, or text from the scope of the law.
Rereading the law, its intention is to safeguard biometric identifiers for recognition. If you apply the intent of the law to facial identification, you would have to outlaw publishing any photograph with a name attached to it, because any photograph with a name attached to it serves as a biometric identifier. But the law then contradicts itself by explicitly saying that photographs are not biometric identifiers. What the law doesn't say is that companies can't engage in biometric identification. Prohibiting Shutterfly or Facebook from performing facial recognition does nothing to enhance anybody's biometric safety. The law is also questionable in another way: the reason it gives for not sharing biometric identifiers really has little to do with attacks on biometric systems; knowing someone's biometric identifiers should not allow people to compromise a properly constructed biometric identification system.
Well, the fact is that "private entities" can identify people based on facial photographs, so their legislative intent is irrelevant: either they have to forbid the sharing of facial photographs, or they have to accept that "private entities" can identify people based on them.
Face recognition these days uses a lot of deep learning. Deep learning does not use "biometric identifiers" or "face geometry", it operates on the images directly. Furthermore, other than the photos themselves, no biometric information is "collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained". So, either the Illinois law considers all photos containing faces "biometric identifiers" and outlaws their distribution without the consent of the person (questionable in light of the First Amendment), or there is a real problem with the law and its interpretation.
No, you don't know what he is saying. He isn't saying that there is a "correlation between democracy and availability of guns", and neither was I saying that.
The data is on the web, you're welcome to check it for yourself.
No, I assert that his (and your) understanding of what Somalia is and how it is governed is fundamentally wrong.
Why are you telling me? Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
Nope, sorry, there is no evidence that gun control causes fewer shootings. Gun control may case a modest reduction in "gun deaths", but that's due to suicides, not shootings.
If you subsidize solar panels, more people get solar panels. If you subsidize public transportation, more people use public transportation. And if you subsidize single motherhood, you get more single motherhood. So, what I want is less single motherhood and more intact families. You evidently want more broken families and the cycle of poverty and violence that follows.
The "bearing" (carrying) of arms is perfectly legal; it's the "murdering" that's illegal. But the "murdering" part is illegal regardless of whether you "bear arms" or not, and it falls under state jurisdiction in most cases.
Hitchens called this "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." That phrase actually comes from a 1919 SCOTUS ruling making speech opposing the US role in WWI illegal, itself an utterly unacceptable position and one only a totalitarian and war monger would approve of, but then that seems to describe your attitudes. The ruling was overturned in 1969, so even any remote semblance of validity that notion may have had disappeared ten. So, there is neither law nor precedent making that kind of speech illegal.
Your personal fascist leanings notwithstanding, restricting behavior of citizens on the remote possibility that they might harm themselves or others is not an accepted legal or political principle in the US. There are some examples of where the US put in place such legislation (none of which you actually have managed to identify), but they are exceptions, not the rule, and we should strive to reverse those. They certainly do not justify passing more of such legal crap.
The Second Amendment doesn't state that people can do any of those things. That is, the Second Amendment states that people have the right to own and bear arms, not to do whatever they want with arms. Therefore those limits are not limits on the Second Amendment. Furthermore, your example is wrong in another sense, because murder, robbery, and kidnapping are usually matters of state law, not federal law.
Your reasoning was obvious, and it was obviously false.
A "naked singularity" is usually what people call a black hole without an event horizon, an object that's pretty important in theoretical physics. Calling something a "naked black hole" is kind of confusing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
AmiMoJo made an argument against Quigley, and you expanded his argument. Your observation is factually correct (so would have been the observation "the sky is blue"), but it fails to support AmiMoJo's argument against Quigley and is hence irrelevant to the point we are discussing. Hope I cleared that up.