Some times people deserve capital punishment. I am not saying in most of the cases that we do it they deserve it, but someone who is an un-remorseful mass murderer should be put to death. The tax payer should not be liable to keep them alive, or let them free to kill again.
It would require us to change anything we dont understand or dont want, and you never want to start changing how we define our freedoms. That will start to erode said freedoms faster than anything else.
So the fact that the majority of the phrasing of the amendment was similar if not verbatim does not lend that it was taken partially from the declaration? If the declaration was copyrighted they would have a case for non-literal infringement.....
Second nothing in any of them allowed the government, even if you take those as the original drafts, to infringe on the peoples rights to bare arms.. It does not matter if the reason for it was for common, state, or country defense, it is a natural right, one that cannot be taken away legitimately. All of them say one important phrase the same every time " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", only two times having something else added to it.
Your last paragraph is just one log logical fallacy. No one says they can be irresponsible with guns, any more than you can be irresponsible with any other weapon. You commit a crime and you go to jail. Also registering their weapon to ensure that they are the proper weapon is not the same as register so they can restrict them.
First of all most of what you posted is an opinion not actually fact..
Second your reason for why they would remove in defense of the state makes no sense. There is no reason to have had to remove it because of states who required their citizens to own weapons,..
Lastly since the bill of rights was taken partially from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which contains this:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
There is nothing stopping you from printing a registration card and taking it to your local sheriff's station, but your own desire. It is constitutional that the states cannot require them to be registered...
For someone claiming others are using logical fallacies, you seem to be doing it the most.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"..
Where does that say congress has the right to regulate, or do you mean some other amendment....
Now youc an claim the SCOTUS has given the go ahead on regulation, but the amendment is clear, it shall not be infringed. We already infringe it today by limiting access to some subsets of the population in clear violation of the constitution, whether for valid reasons or not, we are still violating the constitution.
You can sometimes call someone a name without it being an ad hominem, when you explain the reason for the name, and it is not the sole argument, such as you are stupid because of x, y and z. In this cause he explained that only some causes are your freedoms stripped like this. If you belive the bill of rights give you freedoms, and one of those freedoms in the right to own and carry a gun, then NYC could be viewed as a freedom-free zone, especially with things like stop and frisk, and city mandated limits on food and other items.
In short there is an argument there, just because you dont agree with it, or even if you dont understand it, does not make it less so.
Because no one kills in the name of atheism. The name itself did not even use to mean those that do not believe in a deity, but those that do not believe in my deity.
So we are comparing Christians who killed for their Gods the religious, and the Leaders who killed for their Country Atheists? So does that make the US fall into the former or the latter with its wars...
That article makes no sense what so ever. Atheists do not believe in a god, but the article claims that communists believe their leader is a god, and there for they are atheists.
Actually the more I read the article the more ridiculous it gets. They claim that atheists and communist have no moral code, which is a blatantly false logical fallacy.
When you have an article that backs up your claim that is not almost entirely over generalizations come talk to me.
because with your SSN now you have access to EVERY other piece of information. Forget your password with any company that has your SSN and they will use your SSN as the ultimate password.
Really, when you take into account the witch trials, the crusades, the conquistadors, the slavers and every other Christian atrocity out there the Atheists are still the worst?
Except he did not just reproduce it, he added to it, unless the original had level editors and creators on it. Lets not forget that this is also a 30 year old game, one which while the characters are still used the game style is not.. If you think about it almost all movies/games/music builds upon previous content.
Actually no, that is not how it works under the constitution. If you want to repeal a law, you repeal it, you dont end round the constitution by trying to defund it, making it still a law, yet one not enforced.
Any politician that refuses to do what exactly? Give in to threat by a minority of people to revoke a law, or send the US crashing? Sounds like the end of the constitution to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So property > life? Sometimes people rob to put food on the table for their kids because they have little option.
Some times people deserve capital punishment. I am not saying in most of the cases that we do it they deserve it, but someone who is an un-remorseful mass murderer should be put to death. The tax payer should not be liable to keep them alive, or let them free to kill again.
It would require us to change anything we dont understand or dont want, and you never want to start changing how we define our freedoms. That will start to erode said freedoms faster than anything else.
You make it sound like you think Washington state == Texas
Second nothing in any of them allowed the government, even if you take those as the original drafts, to infringe on the peoples rights to bare arms.. It does not matter if the reason for it was for common, state, or country defense, it is a natural right, one that cannot be taken away legitimately. All of them say one important phrase the same every time " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", only two times having something else added to it.
Your last paragraph is just one log logical fallacy. No one says they can be irresponsible with guns, any more than you can be irresponsible with any other weapon. You commit a crime and you go to jail. Also registering their weapon to ensure that they are the proper weapon is not the same as register so they can restrict them.
Agreed, and even if you look at that to mean regulation, it is the militia they can regulate, not their right to bare arms.
Second your reason for why they would remove in defense of the state makes no sense. There is no reason to have had to remove it because of states who required their citizens to own weapons,..
Lastly since the bill of rights was taken partially from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which contains this:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
I would STRONGLY disagree with you
You are correct, but that really is not what my point was.
For someone claiming others are using logical fallacies, you seem to be doing it the most.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"..
Where does that say congress has the right to regulate, or do you mean some other amendment....
Now youc an claim the SCOTUS has given the go ahead on regulation, but the amendment is clear, it shall not be infringed. We already infringe it today by limiting access to some subsets of the population in clear violation of the constitution, whether for valid reasons or not, we are still violating the constitution.
In short there is an argument there, just because you dont agree with it, or even if you dont understand it, does not make it less so.
Because no one kills in the name of atheism. The name itself did not even use to mean those that do not believe in a deity, but those that do not believe in my deity.
Well that does not actually counter my point, which was between the 2 which is worse.
That article makes no sense what so ever. Atheists do not believe in a god, but the article claims that communists believe their leader is a god, and there for they are atheists.
Actually the more I read the article the more ridiculous it gets. They claim that atheists and communist have no moral code, which is a blatantly false logical fallacy.
When you have an article that backs up your claim that is not almost entirely over generalizations come talk to me.
because with your SSN now you have access to EVERY other piece of information. Forget your password with any company that has your SSN and they will use your SSN as the ultimate password.
Really, when you take into account the witch trials, the crusades, the conquistadors, the slavers and every other Christian atrocity out there the Atheists are still the worst?
Except he did not just reproduce it, he added to it, unless the original had level editors and creators on it. Lets not forget that this is also a 30 year old game, one which while the characters are still used the game style is not.. If you think about it almost all movies/games/music builds upon previous content.
It was because of the insurance companies and doctors themselves more than the ACA..
I think he means for the bot.
so another recession or better yet a depression, is a good start?
Actually no, that is not how it works under the constitution. If you want to repeal a law, you repeal it, you dont end round the constitution by trying to defund it, making it still a law, yet one not enforced.
It depends on the incident, there are massive books the describe the processes, some of which includes them being on site
Any politician that refuses to do what exactly? Give in to threat by a minority of people to revoke a law, or send the US crashing? Sounds like the end of the constitution to me.
yes but you only have a few hours to call the regulators, literally.
If you do that then congress has no control over the organization they created.