So that's not much of an argument. In fact, it's an absolute disaster, you've just said, essentially, that only the government has the right to keep and bear arms. *shudder*
So, when the First Amendment affirms the right of "the people" to peaceably assemble or petition the government for the redress of grievances, it really means "the government?" How about when the Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Actually, those who are actively support the Second Amendment are probably law-abiding citizens who have taken the time to learn about their weapons, take safety classes and educate their children. The ones you need to worry about are the folks who just buy guns with no regard to safety or education.
Fair enough - which well-regulated militia have you joined?
Notwithstanding that the 2nd Amendment does not require a gun-owner to join the militia (or restrict the ownership of firearms only to militia members), the word "militia" has been defined by federal statute:
311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Regardless, the intent of the Framers was to provide that the populace would always be armed. What part of "the people" don't you understand?
Cripes, I still have nightmares about that book, especially the illustrations.
Of course, my wife has put her foot down and won't let me read the book to our yet-to-be-conceived children. Dammit.
In Florida we dont let them vote either... We dont let that constitution thing get in the way that much.
Many states have laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, as well as laws prohibiting them from living outside of prison or from owning guns. This isn't unconsitutional.
Rather, the Framers recognized that fundamental rights should not be taken away from you without both due process of law and a real good reason (that varies, depending on what right is infringed).
The Florida problem was that many on the "convicted felon" list weren't convicted felons at all.
Yes, but I don't know that the defendant in this case has the requisite minimum contacts for the court to assert in personam jurisdiction over him.
Generally, a court may only assert jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant has the requisite "minimum contacts" with the forum state. This may be satisfied in a number of ways, the most common of which are residency or doing business in the forum state. As far as I can tell, the only minimum contact I see is that he published the information in Virginia via his web site. I am not knowledgable in this area of law, so I have no idea if this is a good-enough minimum contact or if there is some other basis by which the court can assert personal jurisdiction over him.
Of course, if I were able to download the pleadings I might be able to tell you, but it appears as though they are unavailable at the moment.
I think the spammers made a big mistake filing it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges in that particular district are known for not taking crap from attorneys. In fact, the trial docket is known as the "rocket docket." No continuances will be granted without a very good reason and the litigants are stuck with a very strict schedule. The motion to dismiss has a better shot at success there than a number of other federal courts.
Let's put this in perspective...
If Bill Gates had a net worth of $40k, he just pledged to give $60 per year to this charity.
That's not really a good comparison. The huge figures we see for Gates' net worth is largely due to the enormous amount of Microsoft stock he has. If he were to suddenly sell all that stock, he still wouldn't have as much as it's "worth" today, because such an enormous sell-off would drive the price for MS stock way, way down.
Don't get me wrong, he's loaded. His base salary is probably under $1 million per year, no doubt with lots of bonuses over the years and other benefits, he's probably a billionaire even without counting his MS stock as part of the equation. In fact, I think after MS went public, he sold off a good portion of his holdings, so he's probably got pretty good cash reserves.
Generally, no. Punitive damages are generally not awarded in breach of contract action absent some kind of fraud or other outrageous behavior on the part of the breaching party.
Do you honestly think that lawyers don't sit around and beef on the general working population?
As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that the only members of the public we make fun of are our own clients.
What pizza delivery service has better pizza than domino's?
Ummm.... all of them? Even the other big chains have far better pizza than Domino's. Papa John's, Pizza Hut, heck even Little Caesar's, are all way better.
I don't know that any cop who exposed himself would be arrested and charged. Technically, I suppose it's illegal (for indecent exposure but not soliciting prostitution because they don't have the requisite intent to commit a crime). Regardless, it would certainly look bad if one of them actually whipped it out. Judges and juries typically don't like cops with "unclean hands," even if they didn't do anything illegal.
As for the fake phallus, I've never actually seen it but have read it in their reports. I don't know how realistic it is, but keep in mind that most prostitution busts happen at night in areas with poor lighting, so it probably doesn't have to be all that real-looking.
In my experience as a former prosecutor, many police agencies use a realistic-looking - but fake - ummm... phallus when busting hookers.
As for sampling "product," I never had any cop admit to me that he actually ingested some, but I imagine some do. Many drug officers, however, are adept at sleight-of-hand manuevers and will only appear to consume the drug.
Slashdot Mirror
As in "The People vs Larry Flynt"
So that's not much of an argument. In fact, it's an absolute disaster, you've just said, essentially, that only the government has the right to keep and bear arms. *shudder*
So, when the First Amendment affirms the right of "the people" to peaceably assemble or petition the government for the redress of grievances, it really means "the government?" How about when the Fourth Amendment protects the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
"The people" means "the people."Actually, those who are actively support the Second Amendment are probably law-abiding citizens who have taken the time to learn about their weapons, take safety classes and educate their children. The ones you need to worry about are the folks who just buy guns with no regard to safety or education.
Notwithstanding that the 2nd Amendment does not require a gun-owner to join the militia (or restrict the ownership of firearms only to militia members), the word "militia" has been defined by federal statute:
Regardless, the intent of the Framers was to provide that the populace would always be armed. What part of "the people" don't you understand?
I wish I could mod this up for insulting.
Cripes, I still have nightmares about that book, especially the illustrations. Of course, my wife has put her foot down and won't let me read the book to our yet-to-be-conceived children. Dammit.
Is Sam Walton still single?
Technically, you're right at "boycott," not beyond it.
You obviously don't remember what number was painted on the General Lee.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you take geek-ness to a whole new level.
It makes a good laxative.
Heck, I'd settle for room temperature.
Many states have laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, as well as laws prohibiting them from living outside of prison or from owning guns. This isn't unconsitutional.
Rather, the Framers recognized that fundamental rights should not be taken away from you without both due process of law and a real good reason (that varies, depending on what right is infringed).
The Florida problem was that many on the "convicted felon" list weren't convicted felons at all.
Here ya go.
While I didn't read the linked article, how can the investigation of Columbia professors by other Columbia staff be "independent?"
Yes, but I don't know that the defendant in this case has the requisite minimum contacts for the court to assert in personam jurisdiction over him.
Generally, a court may only assert jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant has the requisite "minimum contacts" with the forum state. This may be satisfied in a number of ways, the most common of which are residency or doing business in the forum state. As far as I can tell, the only minimum contact I see is that he published the information in Virginia via his web site. I am not knowledgable in this area of law, so I have no idea if this is a good-enough minimum contact or if there is some other basis by which the court can assert personal jurisdiction over him.
Of course, if I were able to download the pleadings I might be able to tell you, but it appears as though they are unavailable at the moment.
I think the spammers made a big mistake filing it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges in that particular district are known for not taking crap from attorneys. In fact, the trial docket is known as the "rocket docket." No continuances will be granted without a very good reason and the litigants are stuck with a very strict schedule. The motion to dismiss has a better shot at success there than a number of other federal courts.
Shooting those who wish to do me harm is a legitimate use, as are hunting, target practice and pissing off gun control nuts.
That's not really a good comparison. The huge figures we see for Gates' net worth is largely due to the enormous amount of Microsoft stock he has. If he were to suddenly sell all that stock, he still wouldn't have as much as it's "worth" today, because such an enormous sell-off would drive the price for MS stock way, way down.
Don't get me wrong, he's loaded. His base salary is probably under $1 million per year, no doubt with lots of bonuses over the years and other benefits, he's probably a billionaire even without counting his MS stock as part of the equation. In fact, I think after MS went public, he sold off a good portion of his holdings, so he's probably got pretty good cash reserves.
Generally, no. Punitive damages are generally not awarded in breach of contract action absent some kind of fraud or other outrageous behavior on the part of the breaching party.
Do you honestly think that lawyers don't sit around and beef on the general working population?
As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that the only members of the public we make fun of are our own clients.
Ummm.... all of them? Even the other big chains have far better pizza than Domino's. Papa John's, Pizza Hut, heck even Little Caesar's, are all way better.
That's not a complaint. It's a cease and desist letter.
As for the fake phallus, I've never actually seen it but have read it in their reports. I don't know how realistic it is, but keep in mind that most prostitution busts happen at night in areas with poor lighting, so it probably doesn't have to be all that real-looking.
Yes. Everyone in the U.S.A. is sold a gun at birth.
Fear us.
In my experience as a former prosecutor, many police agencies use a realistic-looking - but fake - ummm... phallus when busting hookers.
As for sampling "product," I never had any cop admit to me that he actually ingested some, but I imagine some do. Many drug officers, however, are adept at sleight-of-hand manuevers and will only appear to consume the drug.