That is, it's a classic "assault rifle", meaning an automatic weapon with select-fire capabilities. Select-fire guns have a switch; it can either fire one shot per trigger pull, or keep spitting out bullets as long as you hold the trigger down. (Some guns have a third option: burst-fire. They'll shoot 3 or 4 bullets per trigger pull.)
These days--especially for the purposes of gun legislation--"assault weapons" primarily refers to semi-automatic rifles with certain "military" characteristics. They're no more powerful than traditional hunting rifles; there is no functional difference.
The proponents of such laws go through ridiculous contortions of logic to justify their supposed necessity. For instance, the Brady Campaign has a few arguments: First, the "multiple assault weapon features".
Under the US's 1994 Crime Bill, the law currently up for renewal, a semi-auto rifle is banned if it has two or more of the following features:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A silencer
A grenade launcher.
The logic of this law is curious[1]. A gun with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon.
Meanwhile, take a gun considered to be a legal hunting rifle. Add a folding barrel to make it easier to carry. You're still fine, still legal. Now add a silencer. (Why? Maybe so that if you miss with your first shot, the deer won't be spooked by the gunshot.) Suddenly the gun turns into an evil, infringing assault weapon. The addition or removal of a single feature makes all the difference. That's the entire basis of the ban, except for a few guns banned by name.
(Of course, if a manufacturer removes those characteristics, bringing the gun into compliance, they accuse you of "evading" the law.)
The Brady Campaign also spews forth the following malarkey:
While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.
"Maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire"? They're normal semi-autos! None of their characteristics improve rate-of-fire! How does adding a silencer and a bayonette help you to fire faster? "Designed to be spray-fired from the hip"? Any rifle can be fired from the hip if you don't care about accuracy. I'd much rather be shot at by someone shooting from the hip.
Then they talk about "high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor." But assault weapons are no more powerful than "normal" rifles--in fact, many are less powerful..24 to.30 caliber bullets are normally used for deer hunting, but an assault weapon like the AR-15 is uses a.223 caliber bullet. Besides, the body armor classification most often worn, Level IIA, isn't designed to stop most rifle calibers. (See this NIJ study for more info.)
[1] Assuming we define "curious" as "bone-headed".
I tend to agree, but this case is a little different. WashingtonPost.com has that annoying survey thing you have to go through to get to the story. Problem is, it doesn't work with all browsers. I can't get past that page using Phoenix at all, even with accepting all the cookies they try to give me.
From page 4: Not only was the entire book online, but it was in its original form too, scanned and converted into large GIF files. Displayed within the browser's window, the pages were too small to be legible, but I found that if I downloaded each page individually to my computer (there were more than 600), I could then read the document in its original size.
I think he wasted some time there. It sounds like he was using IE, which rescaled the GIFs to fit in the browser window. If he'd just held the mouse over the image for a couple seconds, the "full size" button would have popped up in the lower-right corner. No need to save the files and reopen them.
I find it inconceivable that the name of a file in a log is sufficient proof of criminal conduct. ...
If there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity a search warrant would be required to look at the actual content of a file.
Absolutely, and this isn't just a situation where we really do know that a person is guilty, but have to pretend we don't because of something in the Bill of Rights. What if that 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" was one of the hordes of fake files put out by the RIAA to confound swappers? You know, the ones with 30 seconds of music followed by static, or periodics beeps and tones, or something else intended to annoy. For that matter, it could be a porn file some joker renamed. In that case, one would only be guilty of attempting to violate copyright law. Like the parent said, the name of the file is a far cry from proof of criminal conduct.
Say a customer buys a computer at Best Buy, they automatically get 6 free months (if they pay with a credit card or major debit). If the customer doesn't sign on and activate that account, they never get billed. However, even if they sign on just once, even for just 30 seconds, they have to call and cancel the account.
I got a laptop at Best Buy last fall, and (stupidly) accepted the MSN service. I never once took the CD out of its case, but 6 months later, they billed my credit card.
In my case, though, the Best Buy employee warned me that I would be billed, so I have no grounds for action. But I was still rather ticked off that MSN didn't notify my in any way when they started billing me. That's just dirty, even when the sales rep warns you.
First, I'll say that yes, all citizens are part of the militia whether they like it or not.
That is, all physically capable citizens. Which, according to our society, means "male". This point isn't really up for debate; not only does
Miller make it clear that this was the case in the historical definition of militia, it is
actually explicitly stated in federal law. See Wyatt Earp's comment above.
Now I'll answer your last question; my other answers will flow from there.
Finally I would like to know what your definition of a "well ordered militia" is as opposed to
a collection oof citizens. What do you think the founding fathers meant when they said "well
ordered" and why do you think they put that phrase in the second amendment?
I think you meant to say "well-regulated". At the time the Constitution was written, that
phrase meant simply, "properly functioning", with apparent connotations of "well-calibrated", and
perhaps "properly trained/disciplined". (See these selections from the Oxford English
Dictionary.) The founding fathers included that phrase because a "poorly functioning militia"
would be of no benifit to anyone.
[emphasis added]
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is
impossible to be foreseen.
...
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be
injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in
military movements is a business that requires time and practice...To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going
through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the
degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia,
would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
...
yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as
possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia....[I]t will be possible to
have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of
the State shall require it.
A number of things are apparent from this quotation.
First, Hamilton assumes that "militia" is a general term. That is, "well-regulated militia" is
clearly a subset of "militia"--the general citizenry.
Second, at the writing of the Constitution, there was no guarantee just what the federal
government would do with the militia. There was no set plan for the regulation thereof. It
was up in the air.
Third, Hamilton thought it would be pointless and infeasible to train the entire militia to the
point of being "well-regulated". Instead, he proposed training only a portion of the militia.
Note that at present, this is roughly the case in federal law; the "organized militia" is
constituted by the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" is comprised of all other
elligible citizens.
Analysis: In spite of the fact that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew full well the
entire citizenry--"the people", the militia--would most likely not be trained to the point of being
"well-regulated", they wrote the Second Amendment to protect the right "of the people". They
could have limited the protection to those citizens the federal government trained. They did
not.
Had they done so, the Second Amendment would be a puzzling document indeed. It would say to
the federal government, in effect, "You cannot abridge the right of militia members to keep and
bear arms, unless you first stop training them. Then it's perfectly all right. But as long as
you're training them, their right is protected." That's not a limit. It's an irrationality. Further, putting such control over the militia's armament would go against the spirit of the continued comments of Hamiliton:
...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude
that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of
citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand
ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
So, my answer to your second paragraph is that yes, all citizens are a part of the militia
whether they like it or not. Being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached
to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of
the president or any other military personell. Such militia is not probably not
well-regulated, but it is still militia.
Now, I actually held back the best part of Hamilton's remarks. Here it is:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them
properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be
necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
That's the point of the Second Amendment. It stops the federal government from interfering
with the equipment of the militia. Note that Hamilton does not imply the federal government
must supply the arms; he says that it should ensure this is not neglected. The government may
provide arms, but as US v. Miller indicates, citizens were generally expected to report bearing their own
arms, "of the kind in common use at the time."
Now for the question of whether the Second Amendment applies blacks, Indians, and women. My
answer is yes.
The right is not limited to the well-regulated militia. The stated reason for the protection
is that the well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of the State, but the
protection itself is of a "right of the people". Thus, the question is not
whether black, Indians, and women are part of the militia, the question is whether they are
part of "the people". The laws that were "passed to include blacks, indians and women in the
rest of society" were intended to extend the full rights of citizenship. Indeed, this issue
was part of the force behind the Dred Scott decision that helped spark the Civil War. That is,
the court denied blacks the rights of citizenship, in part because:
[emphasis added]
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of
the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies,
without pass or passport, and without obstruction...and it would give them the full liberty of
speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to
hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
went.
I will be replying to your comments, Malcontent, but I'll have to wait till this afternoon or this evening (US time). At the moment, I don't have time to give a full response.
Moreover, the Swiss government holds each person strictly accountable for the ammo for each of these guns. Any ammo boxes that are unsealed without an appropriate explanation would put you at the top of the list of suspects.
The Swiss government holds each person strictly accountable for the ammo issued by the government. This does not apply to ammo purchased by the individual.
In other words: The Swiss government does not register every bullet. It registers every bullet it pays for and distributes. Enormous difference.
I doubt gun owners would mind the US government giving everyone ammunition, even if they registered it.
interestingly, it appears that this particular case sanctions limits on firearm ownership. While broadly defining "militia" it found that the law limiting the type of shotgun did not violate the 2nd amendment.
Sort of. The court found that "in absence of any evidence" showing that a short-barrel shotgun is a military weapon, they couldn't say the 2nd Amendment applies to short-barrel shotguns. Implication 1: If some such evidence had been presented, they court might have struck down the law in question, the National Firearms Act of 1934. Implication 2: The only limitation endorsed in US v. Miller is that a weapon must be "part of the ordinary military equipment", or that "its use could contribute to the common defense."[1]
One of the really interesting things about US v. Miller is that no defense was presented! The defendant disappeared in between the appeals decision and the presentation before the SC. Had there been a defense, they could discussed the use of short-barrel shotguns in WWI trench warfare. (No, I don't have a citation I can give you for that. Regardless, the main issue is the standard used by the SC.)
So, yes, in a sense, this case sanctions limits on firearm ownership. However, the particular limitations are a world apart from those generally endorsed by the pro-gun control crowd. They would limit the RTKBA to particular individual; this case only limits "arms" to military weapons--a pretty dang broad category, which would certainly include "assault weapons" and other bogeymen.
[1] This language (along with the case's definition of "militia") seems to debunk the common scare-tactic, "The 2nd Amendment could just as easily apply to horrible things like tanks and missiles!" In the context of the Bill of Rights, "arms" refers to the personal armament of a soldier.
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
The militia of the 2nd Amendment was a true citizens militia. All citizens considered physically capable were the militia. Yes, in the 18th century, "physically capable citizen" meant "white male". That means nothing, unless you're also going to say that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be limited to the 18th-century definition of "citizens".
As for the duties of the militia: Yes, for the citizens' militia to actually serve as any kind of reliable supplement for the Armed Forces, training would be necessary, 200 years ago as much as now. That's not the point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect a right of "the people, as long as the government is training them enough that the militia can be called 'well-regulated'." There's no reason, grammatical or otherwise, to suppose that "the people" is defined differently in the 2nd Amendment than in the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th.
It would pass straight through you, unless it was going really, REALLY slow. All the force would be concentrated into an area 100X smaller than the point of a needle, resulting in an "astronomical" amount of pressure. (Actually, I think it would be more like 1000X or 100,000X smaller, not 100X.)
The damage would depend on how big it is. Anything the size of a cell or smaller would rupture cells and blood vessels as it passed through your body; I don't think it would be fatal. (Though, if it passed through your head, there would be some interesting brain damage. Probably death, too, I'm guessing.) As for anything larger than a cell, I really don't know how serious the damage would be. However large it is, it would drill a hole through you without breaking a sweat, so to speak.
See libertarian.org [libertarian.org] for more information. A very generalized summary would be:
Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
Conservative = right-wing social and government views
Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views
A little too generalized, I think. "Social views" should probably be broken down a little. Conservatism has a pretty significant divide over civil liberties issues--e.g., the Ashcroftian post-9-11 infrigements.
I find that I have to sub-categorize conservatives into "conservatives" and "libertarian-conservatives".
Industry type groups? Not quite. The NRA isn't Big Business--it's funded by its approximately 4 million members, not the gun industry. The gun manufacturers' lobbying group is called the National Sports Shooting Federation.
That's a good question. The short answer is that a judge ordered it shut down.[1] Whether his interpretation of the law was correct is a completely separate matter.
[1] Well, my recollection is fuzzy, but I don't believe he ordered it shut down. They just had to start charging for the service.
"Only if you part of a state-regulated militia, as the supreme court has ruled."
Not true. Never happened. If you're thinking of US v. Miller (1939), try again. They say nothing mandating an individual to be in "a state-regulated militia"--they speak only of the appropriateness of weapons for military use.
You might want to check out this analysis of the Miller decision. (Scroll down.)
Ah. Since we were talking about the tactics of the MPAA and the NRA to accomplish legal and political goals, I assumed a context of the American legal system. (Nitpick: My point wasn't that guns are legally legitimate, but rather killing in self-defense.)
Aside from the moral question, I'm curious about something. Is your view of archery similar to your view of guns?
Slashdot Mirror
These days--especially for the purposes of gun legislation--"assault weapons" primarily refers to semi-automatic rifles with certain "military" characteristics. They're no more powerful than traditional hunting rifles; there is no functional difference.
The proponents of such laws go through ridiculous contortions of logic to justify their supposed necessity. For instance, the Brady Campaign has a few arguments: First, the "multiple assault weapon features". Under the US's 1994 Crime Bill, the law currently up for renewal, a semi-auto rifle is banned if it has two or more of the following features:
- A folding or telescoping stock
- A pistol grip
- A bayonet mount
- A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
- A silencer
- A grenade launcher.
The logic of this law is curious[1]. A gun with a grenade launcher is not an assault weapon. Meanwhile, take a gun considered to be a legal hunting rifle. Add a folding barrel to make it easier to carry. You're still fine, still legal. Now add a silencer. (Why? Maybe so that if you miss with your first shot, the deer won't be spooked by the gunshot.) Suddenly the gun turns into an evil, infringing assault weapon. The addition or removal of a single feature makes all the difference. That's the entire basis of the ban, except for a few guns banned by name.(Of course, if a manufacturer removes those characteristics, bringing the gun into compliance, they accuse you of "evading" the law.)
The Brady Campaign also spews forth the following malarkey: "Maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire"? They're normal semi-autos! None of their characteristics improve rate-of-fire! How does adding a silencer and a bayonette help you to fire faster? "Designed to be spray-fired from the hip"? Any rifle can be fired from the hip if you don't care about accuracy. I'd much rather be shot at by someone shooting from the hip.
Then they talk about "high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor." But assault weapons are no more powerful than "normal" rifles--in fact, many are less powerful.
[1] Assuming we define "curious" as "bone-headed".
is that this doesn't require a separate piece of equipment.
I'm sure people saw CueCat as a kind of specialty market, so there was reluctance to invest time or money in it.
Machine guns are illegal too...
No, they aren't. You just have to pay a $200 registration fee/tax stamp. See the 1934 National Firearms Act.
And I'm pretty sure the questions weren't "arosen".
I tend to agree, but this case is a little different. WashingtonPost.com has that annoying survey thing you have to go through to get to the story. Problem is, it doesn't work with all browsers. I can't get past that page using Phoenix at all, even with accepting all the cookies they try to give me.
From page 4:
Not only was the entire book online, but it was in its original form too, scanned and converted into large GIF files. Displayed within the browser's window, the pages were too small to be legible, but I found that if I downloaded each page individually to my computer (there were more than 600), I could then read the document in its original size.
I think he wasted some time there. It sounds like he was using IE, which rescaled the GIFs to fit in the browser window. If he'd just held the mouse over the image for a couple seconds, the "full size" button would have popped up in the lower-right corner. No need to save the files and reopen them.
I find it inconceivable that the name of a file in a log is sufficient proof of criminal conduct.
...
If there is sufficient evidence of illegal activity a search warrant would be required to look at the actual content of a file.
Absolutely, and this isn't just a situation where we really do know that a person is guilty, but have to pretend we don't because of something in the Bill of Rights. What if that 10,303,334mb file named "Metallica_Enter_Sandman.mp3" was one of the hordes of fake files put out by the RIAA to confound swappers? You know, the ones with 30 seconds of music followed by static, or periodics beeps and tones, or something else intended to annoy. For that matter, it could be a porn file some joker renamed. In that case, one would only be guilty of attempting to violate copyright law. Like the parent said, the name of the file is a far cry from proof of criminal conduct.
As I understand it, Justin Frankel didn't release WASTE--not as a private agent, anyway. He never claimed to own the rights to it. Nullsoft did.
I think this proves one of my beliefs that you can accomplish anything you want if you devote an average of fifteen minutes a day to it.
v alidated-man??
Not if you want to watch one new movie every day!
Whatcha think of that, Mister-I'm-so-smart-because-my-beliefs-have-been-
Say a customer buys a computer at Best Buy, they automatically get 6 free months (if they pay with a credit card or major debit). If the customer doesn't sign on and activate that account, they never get billed. However, even if they sign on just once, even for just 30 seconds, they have to call and cancel the account.
I got a laptop at Best Buy last fall, and (stupidly) accepted the MSN service. I never once took the CD out of its case, but 6 months later, they billed my credit card.
In my case, though, the Best Buy employee warned me that I would be billed, so I have no grounds for action. But I was still rather ticked off that MSN didn't notify my in any way when they started billing me. That's just dirty, even when the sales rep warns you.
rather it was written to express a spiritual concept
Cite?
Now I'll answer your last question; my other answers will flow from there.
I think you meant to say "well-regulated". At the time the Constitution was written, that phrase meant simply, "properly functioning", with apparent connotations of "well-calibrated", and perhaps "properly trained/disciplined". (See these selections from the Oxford English Dictionary.) The founding fathers included that phrase because a "poorly functioning militia" would be of no benifit to anyone.For additional information on what the founders meant, I turn to the Federalist Papers, No. 29.
A number of things are apparent from this quotation.First, Hamilton assumes that "militia" is a general term. That is, "well-regulated militia" is clearly a subset of "militia"--the general citizenry.
Second, at the writing of the Constitution, there was no guarantee just what the federal government would do with the militia. There was no set plan for the regulation thereof. It was up in the air.
Third, Hamilton thought it would be pointless and infeasible to train the entire militia to the point of being "well-regulated". Instead, he proposed training only a portion of the militia. Note that at present, this is roughly the case in federal law; the "organized militia" is constituted by the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" is comprised of all other elligible citizens.
Analysis: In spite of the fact that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew full well the entire citizenry--"the people", the militia--would most likely not be trained to the point of being "well-regulated", they wrote the Second Amendment to protect the right "of the people". They could have limited the protection to those citizens the federal government trained. They did not.
Had they done so, the Second Amendment would be a puzzling document indeed. It would say to the federal government, in effect, "You cannot abridge the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, unless you first stop training them. Then it's perfectly all right. But as long as you're training them, their right is protected." That's not a limit. It's an irrationality. Further, putting such control over the militia's armament would go against the spirit of the continued comments of Hamiliton:
So, my answer to your second paragraph is that yes, all citizens are a part of the militia whether they like it or not. Being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of the president or any other military personell. Such militia is not probably not well-regulated, but it is still militia.
Now, I actually held back the best part of Hamilton's remarks. Here it is:
That's the point of the Second Amendment. It stops the federal government from interfering with the equipment of the militia. Note that Hamilton does not imply the federal government must supply the arms; he says that it should ensure this is not neglected. The government may provide arms, but as US v. Miller indicates, citizens were generally expected to report bearing their own arms, "of the kind in common use at the time."Now for the question of whether the Second Amendment applies blacks, Indians, and women. My answer is yes.
The right is not limited to the well-regulated militia. The stated reason for the protection is that the well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of the State, but the protection itself is of a "right of the people". Thus, the question is not whether black, Indians, and women are part of the militia, the question is whether they are part of "the people". The laws that were "passed to include blacks, indians and women in the rest of society" were intended to extend the full rights of citizenship. Indeed, this issue was part of the force behind the Dred Scott decision that helped spark the Civil War. That is, the court denied blacks the rights of citizenship, in part because:
I will be replying to your comments, Malcontent, but I'll have to wait till this afternoon or this evening (US time). At the moment, I don't have time to give a full response.
In other words: The Swiss government does not register every bullet. It registers every bullet it pays for and distributes. Enormous difference.
I doubt gun owners would mind the US government giving everyone ammunition, even if they registered it.
One of the really interesting things about US v. Miller is that no defense was presented! The defendant disappeared in between the appeals decision and the presentation before the SC. Had there been a defense, they could discussed the use of short-barrel shotguns in WWI trench warfare. (No, I don't have a citation I can give you for that. Regardless, the main issue is the standard used by the SC.)
So, yes, in a sense, this case sanctions limits on firearm ownership. However, the particular limitations are a world apart from those generally endorsed by the pro-gun control crowd. They would limit the RTKBA to particular individual; this case only limits "arms" to military weapons--a pretty dang broad category, which would certainly include "assault weapons" and other bogeymen.
[1] This language (along with the case's definition of "militia") seems to debunk the common scare-tactic, "The 2nd Amendment could just as easily apply to horrible things like tanks and missiles!" In the context of the Bill of Rights, "arms" refers to the personal armament of a soldier.
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
The militia of the 2nd Amendment was a true citizens militia. All citizens considered physically capable were the militia. Yes, in the 18th century, "physically capable citizen" meant "white male". That means nothing, unless you're also going to say that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be limited to the 18th-century definition of "citizens".
As for the duties of the militia: Yes, for the citizens' militia to actually serve as any kind of reliable supplement for the Armed Forces, training would be necessary, 200 years ago as much as now. That's not the point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect a right of "the people, as long as the government is training them enough that the militia can be called 'well-regulated'." There's no reason, grammatical or otherwise, to suppose that "the people" is defined differently in the 2nd Amendment than in the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th.
It would pass straight through you, unless it was going really, REALLY slow. All the force would be concentrated into an area 100X smaller than the point of a needle, resulting in an "astronomical" amount of pressure. (Actually, I think it would be more like 1000X or 100,000X smaller, not 100X.)
The damage would depend on how big it is. Anything the size of a cell or smaller would rupture cells and blood vessels as it passed through your body; I don't think it would be fatal. (Though, if it passed through your head, there would be some interesting brain damage. Probably death, too, I'm guessing.) As for anything larger than a cell, I really don't know how serious the damage would be. However large it is, it would drill a hole through you without breaking a sweat, so to speak.
Dang AOL! Can't even make good coasters.
See libertarian.org [libertarian.org] for more information. A very generalized summary would be:
Liberal = left-wing social and economic views
Libertarian = left-wing social views, right-wing economic views
Conservative = right-wing social and government views
Authoritarian = right-wing social views, left-wing economic views
A little too generalized, I think. "Social views" should probably be broken down a little. Conservatism has a pretty significant divide over civil liberties issues--e.g., the Ashcroftian post-9-11 infrigements.
I find that I have to sub-categorize conservatives into "conservatives" and "libertarian-conservatives".
like the NRA and other industry type groups.
Industry type groups? Not quite. The NRA isn't Big Business--it's funded by its approximately 4 million members, not the gun industry. The gun manufacturers' lobbying group is called the National Sports Shooting Federation.
This puts a whole new light on waiting to get the ring from Mother.
And in what way does this contradict my post? I said:
1.) "Then how come Napster got shut down?" is a good question.
2.) The fact that a judge ordered Napster shut down has nothing to do with whether non-commercial distribution is actually illegal.
Really ? Then how come Napster got shut down ?
That's a good question. The short answer is that a judge ordered it shut down.[1] Whether his interpretation of the law was correct is a completely separate matter.
[1] Well, my recollection is fuzzy, but I don't believe he ordered it shut down. They just had to start charging for the service.
"Only if you part of a state-regulated militia, as the supreme court has ruled."
Not true. Never happened. If you're thinking of US v. Miller (1939), try again. They say nothing mandating an individual to be in "a state-regulated militia"--they speak only of the appropriateness of weapons for military use.
You might want to check out this analysis of the Miller decision. (Scroll down.)
Aside from the moral question, I'm curious about something. Is your view of archery similar to your view of guns?