"That is what it is, taking rights from one to conform to the whole."
Laws do not exist to take rights away from someone for the good of the whole, they exist to protect the rights of people (or at least should). We don't have Intellectual Property Rights to prevent you from owning the latest movies for free we have them to protect someone else's right to produce product and be compensated for it. We don't have laws against murder to take away your right to kill (which is not in the constitution) we have them to protect my right to live ( is implied in the constitution).
The right to own the tools of your own defense if in the constitution, period and the belief is that the government does not *give* us rights, everything in the bill of rights is not a gift to the people but a restriction on the government protecting what people have by right of existence.
"I expect a law to be made because most people agree with me."
Thats called the tyranny of the majority and that is *specifically* why the bill of rights exist! and why its so damn hard to change (75% of the states, so today that would be what, 38). Its because your rights are not given by people the contract by which our government exist specifically restricts them from stepping on rights which are 'endowed by our creator' which could be God, Allah, Yawae, or the flying spaghetti monster, it matters not. Man can not give and should not take away these rights.
"My expressing of opinion is a way for others to assess if they feel the same way. If they do, and enough others agree, and they feel it is important enough, then a law should be made."
Thats how slavery happened, enough people wanted it and enough people were content to let it slide.
Please excuse us if we don't let Ottawa decide what our constitution should say..
"To me it makes very simple sense. Ban handguns. I try and think of legitimate users of handguns, and I can think of two.
1) Law,
2) Target and collectors, but really they make up, what, part of one percentage point of the population?"
Umm how about home defense? for a small woman, or elderly person... hell it would be easier for me and I'm 6ft 200lbs its far eaiser to brandish a hand gun than a rifle in close quarters.
"While having guns in the 1800's may have made some difference, wars are typically fought with like tanks, and planes, rockets and shit like that now. So maybe it is your constitutional right to bear those as well. Heck I know I want a tank, might be a tad expensive, particularly with the cost of oil these days!"
The Iraqi insurgency seemed to do pretty well for itself without tanks and planes.. I love the duality from the left on talking about how successful the rag tag Iraqi insurgency is and at the same time saying no armed populace could trouble a modern military..
"The thing with handguns is that you can conceal them. So criminals love that shit."
As I noted above its also more useful because its easier to maneuver with, do you wonder why cops generally carry handguns and not AK's? quite useful to a store clerk, or a victim of a home invasion.
"Also for those wishing to protect your home, well I think I would find a shotgun a bit more intimating than you standard 9mm pee shooter"
My hallways are thee feet wide shotguns are anywhere from 28-34 inches. If I had to use a weapon to defend myself in my home a shotgun would be ay last choice (even rifles have shorter barrels of around 2 feet). Also the kick back of a shotgun makes keeping the gun close to you while shooting extremely difficult, esp for smaller people (paging Mr Newton). Where as a hand gun is easier to keep further away from the attacker in close quarters.
Rifles and shotguns are good in open or at least semi open spaces, not in small hallways (hence urban cops carry handguns).
"I have never fired one, nor will I, for what use do I have for one?"
Neither have I but I generally dont demand the rights of others conform to my lifestyle..
If the Democratic party did not wrap itself in repealing the 2nd Bush would not have won a single term let alone two..
"The problem, and it's a big one, is that most of the Deep Red gun owners show no motivation to defend themselves against the current most likely form of tyranny in America."
Umm no, they believe that they need to keep every amendment they can and they believe that without the second none of them are enforceable by the citzenery.
# GEORGE WASHINGTON:
* "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Im not shifting anything, I was (and I apologize for this) not clear in what I meant when I said Europe, eastern Europe was for too long under soviet influence and they cared nothing for the environment.
"A word of advice, this is exactly why Europe has been sliding into irrelevancy."
I'm no Europhile, culturally I cant stand them and yes they are for the most part pretty irrelevant. But that does not mean we can look at them for the few things they do well. If you seriously can look at americans who use more energy per capita than *anyone* in the world and say, maybe we are a tad wasteful, then you live in a bubble that prevents improvement.
I am American Grew up in the Niagara region of NY, my wife is from the City, and I live in the twin cities so yes I know allot about the US.
Not America bashing, I have many issues with europe but before you spout off about pollution maybe you should look into it first..
Air:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/air_pollution_map.pdf
Western Europe is about the best in the world..
Water:
#30th worst United States: 1.14 tons/cubic km
Human over population is *not* the root problem, wastefulness is! Europe is far more densely populated than the US yet it has cleaner air and water why? because they give a crap. We waste food, waste energy, waste water, etc. Thats the problem..
Give me 2 six-person households who are diligent about not wasting things and who dont need 1K sq ft each over *1* family with one kid, two SUV's a McMansion, and who have no cares about conservation..
Why should a laptop be any different than a suitcase? The law is pretty clear that when you are entering the nation you can have your person and items searched without any real reason..
"Man, I just keep thinking of MI:2 where they make a super virus because they where trying to make a super vaccine."
No they were making a super virus as a weapon they just developed the vaccine first..
"The plot (or more accurately, the excuse for the movie) revolves around a manmade biological weapon called "Chimera" that's been seized by rogue agent Sean Ambrose (a lightweight Dougray Scott). Now Ambrose and his band of generic thugs need to get their hands on the bug's antidote in order to execute their convoluted plan to extort $30 billion in stock shares from the pharmaceutical company that invented the drugs. (The one thing in the movie that's recognizable as a Robert Towne touch is the villain's demand for stock options instead of cash.) IM agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is given the assignment, should he choose not to fire his agent, to recruit beautiful jewel thief Nyah Nordhoff-Hall (Thandie Newton), and use Ambrose's romantic feelings for her to catch him at his game."
Can be a vaccine...
After all it would attach to the sites on a cell where a non modified virus of the same type would attach (presumably) thus robbing denying any other viruses that site...
"For America, this meant they refused to acknowledge their battleship-centric navy was worthless given the technology of the time. A fact which would not be lost to the Japanese."
To be fair the US had sufficient battleships and, as luck would have it, not a single one was moored in Perl that day.
"Long story short, in a comparison of countries given the period in time, the US is a laughable, shit-bag of a country which gave away or simply passed on every technologically significant advancement of the time to have it shoved up their ass during WWII."
Yet beat Japan singlehandedly (France would have surrendered or at least sought terms after a defeat like perl) and played is huge part in liberating France. While the folks of Europe were focused on Jets, missiles, and other factors which are foot notes in the war the US was building up the infrastructure to win it... The US understood (like the Russians) that sometimes you don't need the top of the line tech to win ( we learned that on the other side in Vietnam ).
It had been defeated early in the war due to vastly superior German forces overwhelming a vastly inferior French army trying to defend an indefensible border.
You have to be kidding? The Germans defeated the bulk of the French army because France completely ignored everything except a *tiny* piece of their eastern border. Could france have successfully defeated the Germans as they entered Paris? probably not but there was no honor in throwing them a parade and giving up without a fight..
particularly regarding the Resistance before you go casting around smart little quotes you found in some third-grade 'show-and-tell' book.
The resistance was a small percentage of the population and are the exception to an otherwise iron clad surrender monkey rule..
"I'd like to just strengthen this point a little more. In both World Wars the Americans were years late to the party."
Thats what happens when you dont start it...
"Tens of thousands of French died in WWI before any Americans set foot in Europe."
A war started in no small part by farnce and in large part fought on your soil: 212,000 French Died in battle while 416,800 Americans Died in battle..
"As an aside, where does this stereotype come from that the French always surrender? In the early 1800's the French army was the terror of Europe."
When led by a non Frenchman (Napoleon was Corsican) or a Woman (Joan of Arc) or fighting other Frenchman (French Civil War) the French fight rather well...
"They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict."
No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
"I'd like to just strengthen this point a little more. In both World Wars the Americans were years late to the party."
Thats what happens when you dont start it...
"Tens of thousands of French died in WWI before any Americans set foot in Europe."
A war started in no small part by farnce and in large part fought on your soil: 212,000 French Died in battle while 416,800 Americans Died in battle..
"As an aside, where does this stereotype come from that the French always surrender? In the early 1800's the French army was the terror of Europe."
When led by a non Frenchman (Napoleon was Corsican) or a Woman (Joan of Arc) or fighting other Frenchman (French Civil War) the French fight rather well...
"They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict."
No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
"I'll tell you why the Americans hate the French - it's because the French have history and culture, philosophy and art. They have a cuisine which is based on rather more than saturated fat and corn syrup. They don't roll over and beg whenever the US clicks its colonial fingers (how I wish the UK were the same). And the French themselves are attractive, intelligent, reliable, honourable people. That's why the Americans hate them."
I'll tell you why- the French hold themselves in such high esteem that while Russians were burning their own land rather than let the Nazi's have it, while the English were weathering nightly air raids on their capital, and while Americans sent troops for fight in yet another war started by European powers the French people rolled over like trained dogs for the Nazi's rather than let one window in Paris be broken..
They might not 'roll over' for uncle Sam but when Adlof came into town you all but gave him your daughters.
"Not that any of this matters, since the condom ban is based on the view that sex is inherently evil"
Bravo Sierra! Christians dont believe sex is evil, hell read song of Sol! Its a love/lust story of epic proportions. Christians believe sex outside of marriage is wrong!
For years social conservatives yelled that Condoms dont stop HPV and HPV was linked to cancer. Yet there was no outcry. Now we have a magic drug (which is far from well tested) and suddenly I have commercials telling me my 9yo daughter can get an injection of this questionabally tested drug and she will be 'one less'...
The teaching of chastity is a firm position in *most* world religions *INCLUDING* the Dali Llama so unless you can provide an example of him jamming a condom on a banana for school age kids you damn well better be as outraged should he have to speak at a university.
I honestly dont get that aspect of the Catholic faith (though I can understand banning abortobesiec birth control pills) but the OP's point is that though the church may frown on the use of such devices they have no legal authority to enforce it.
Letting someone speak is *not* being open minded its being tolerant. I dont care if you stick your fingers in your ears so you *dont* hear what they have to say but when you attempt to deny them a venu to speak to others you are not tolerant..
"because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way."
Ahhh another who does not get it... Youre not tolerating shit if it something that does not offend you to the core!
Me saying: " I think X is sinful and shameful and within the context of this closed group is not allowed, but in society at large you are free to act as you wish" is tolerant
You saying " So long as you're not a nutball or hold no position I find too stupid/offensive youre free to speak at universities otherwise shut the hell up" is *not* tolerant
Tolerance is about putting up with crap that makes you see red!
"because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way."
Ahhh another who does not get it... Youre not tolerating shit if it something that does not offend you to the core!
Me saying: " I think X is sinful and shameful and within the context of this closed group is not allowed, but in society at large you are free to act as you wish" is tolerant
You saying " So long as you're not a nutball or hold no position I find too stupid/offensive youre free to speak at universities otherwise shut the hell up" is *not* tolerant
Tolerance is about putting up with crap that makes you see red!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow you have a terrible view of rights..
"That is what it is, taking rights from one to conform to the whole."
Laws do not exist to take rights away from someone for the good of the whole, they exist to protect the rights of people (or at least should). We don't have Intellectual Property Rights to prevent you from owning the latest movies for free we have them to protect someone else's right to produce product and be compensated for it. We don't have laws against murder to take away your right to kill (which is not in the constitution) we have them to protect my right to live ( is implied in the constitution).
The right to own the tools of your own defense if in the constitution, period and the belief is that the government does not *give* us rights, everything in the bill of rights is not a gift to the people but a restriction on the government protecting what people have by right of existence.
"I expect a law to be made because most people agree with me."
Thats called the tyranny of the majority and that is *specifically* why the bill of rights exist! and why its so damn hard to change (75% of the states, so today that would be what, 38). Its because your rights are not given by people the contract by which our government exist specifically restricts them from stepping on rights which are 'endowed by our creator' which could be God, Allah, Yawae, or the flying spaghetti monster, it matters not. Man can not give and should not take away these rights.
"My expressing of opinion is a way for others to assess if they feel the same way. If they do, and enough others agree, and they feel it is important enough, then a law should be made."
Thats how slavery happened, enough people wanted it and enough people were content to let it slide.
Please excuse us if we don't let Ottawa decide what our constitution should say.. "To me it makes very simple sense. Ban handguns. I try and think of legitimate users of handguns, and I can think of two. 1) Law, 2) Target and collectors, but really they make up, what, part of one percentage point of the population?" Umm how about home defense? for a small woman, or elderly person... hell it would be easier for me and I'm 6ft 200lbs its far eaiser to brandish a hand gun than a rifle in close quarters. "While having guns in the 1800's may have made some difference, wars are typically fought with like tanks, and planes, rockets and shit like that now. So maybe it is your constitutional right to bear those as well. Heck I know I want a tank, might be a tad expensive, particularly with the cost of oil these days!" The Iraqi insurgency seemed to do pretty well for itself without tanks and planes.. I love the duality from the left on talking about how successful the rag tag Iraqi insurgency is and at the same time saying no armed populace could trouble a modern military.. "The thing with handguns is that you can conceal them. So criminals love that shit." As I noted above its also more useful because its easier to maneuver with, do you wonder why cops generally carry handguns and not AK's? quite useful to a store clerk, or a victim of a home invasion. "Also for those wishing to protect your home, well I think I would find a shotgun a bit more intimating than you standard 9mm pee shooter" My hallways are thee feet wide shotguns are anywhere from 28-34 inches. If I had to use a weapon to defend myself in my home a shotgun would be ay last choice (even rifles have shorter barrels of around 2 feet). Also the kick back of a shotgun makes keeping the gun close to you while shooting extremely difficult, esp for smaller people (paging Mr Newton). Where as a hand gun is easier to keep further away from the attacker in close quarters. Rifles and shotguns are good in open or at least semi open spaces, not in small hallways (hence urban cops carry handguns). "I have never fired one, nor will I, for what use do I have for one?" Neither have I but I generally dont demand the rights of others conform to my lifestyle..
If the Democratic party did not wrap itself in repealing the 2nd Bush would not have won a single term let alone two.. "The problem, and it's a big one, is that most of the Deep Red gun owners show no motivation to defend themselves against the current most likely form of tyranny in America." Umm no, they believe that they need to keep every amendment they can and they believe that without the second none of them are enforceable by the citzenery. # GEORGE WASHINGTON: * "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Im not shifting anything, I was (and I apologize for this) not clear in what I meant when I said Europe, eastern Europe was for too long under soviet influence and they cared nothing for the environment. "A word of advice, this is exactly why Europe has been sliding into irrelevancy." I'm no Europhile, culturally I cant stand them and yes they are for the most part pretty irrelevant. But that does not mean we can look at them for the few things they do well. If you seriously can look at americans who use more energy per capita than *anyone* in the world and say, maybe we are a tad wasteful, then you live in a bubble that prevents improvement. I am American Grew up in the Niagara region of NY, my wife is from the City, and I live in the twin cities so yes I know allot about the US.
Not America bashing, I have many issues with europe but before you spout off about pollution maybe you should look into it first.. Air: http://www.photius.com/rankings/air_pollution_map.pdf Western Europe is about the best in the world.. Water: #30th worst United States: 1.14 tons/cubic km
Execs like Al Gore who rides around in private jets telling me I need to change my light bulbs?
Human over population is *not* the root problem, wastefulness is! Europe is far more densely populated than the US yet it has cleaner air and water why? because they give a crap. We waste food, waste energy, waste water, etc. Thats the problem.. Give me 2 six-person households who are diligent about not wasting things and who dont need 1K sq ft each over *1* family with one kid, two SUV's a McMansion, and who have no cares about conservation..
Why should a laptop be any different than a suitcase? The law is pretty clear that when you are entering the nation you can have your person and items searched without any real reason..
Really? No kidding? Its my bad for not speaking clearly... A 'sort of' vaccine... as in providing an immunity of sorts..
Ummmm
"Man, I just keep thinking of MI:2 where they make a super virus because they where trying to make a super vaccine."
No they were making a super virus as a weapon they just developed the vaccine first..
"The plot (or more accurately, the excuse for the movie) revolves around a manmade biological weapon called "Chimera" that's been seized by rogue agent Sean Ambrose (a lightweight Dougray Scott). Now Ambrose and his band of generic thugs need to get their hands on the bug's antidote in order to execute their convoluted plan to extort $30 billion in stock shares from the pharmaceutical company that invented the drugs. (The one thing in the movie that's recognizable as a Robert Towne touch is the villain's demand for stock options instead of cash.) IM agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is given the assignment, should he choose not to fire his agent, to recruit beautiful jewel thief Nyah Nordhoff-Hall (Thandie Newton), and use Ambrose's romantic feelings for her to catch him at his game."
Can be a vaccine... After all it would attach to the sites on a cell where a non modified virus of the same type would attach (presumably) thus robbing denying any other viruses that site...
"For America, this meant they refused to acknowledge their battleship-centric navy was worthless given the technology of the time. A fact which would not be lost to the Japanese." To be fair the US had sufficient battleships and, as luck would have it, not a single one was moored in Perl that day. "Long story short, in a comparison of countries given the period in time, the US is a laughable, shit-bag of a country which gave away or simply passed on every technologically significant advancement of the time to have it shoved up their ass during WWII." Yet beat Japan singlehandedly (France would have surrendered or at least sought terms after a defeat like perl) and played is huge part in liberating France. While the folks of Europe were focused on Jets, missiles, and other factors which are foot notes in the war the US was building up the infrastructure to win it... The US understood (like the Russians) that sometimes you don't need the top of the line tech to win ( we learned that on the other side in Vietnam ).
Thats what happens when you surrender... DUH...
It had been defeated early in the war due to vastly superior German forces overwhelming a vastly inferior French army trying to defend an indefensible border.
You have to be kidding? The Germans defeated the bulk of the French army because France completely ignored everything except a *tiny* piece of their eastern border. Could france have successfully defeated the Germans as they entered Paris? probably not but there was no honor in throwing them a parade and giving up without a fight..
particularly regarding the Resistance before you go casting around smart little quotes you found in some third-grade 'show-and-tell' book.
The resistance was a small percentage of the population and are the exception to an otherwise iron clad surrender monkey rule..
"I'd like to just strengthen this point a little more. In both World Wars the Americans were years late to the party."
Thats what happens when you dont start it...
"Tens of thousands of French died in WWI before any Americans set foot in Europe."
A war started in no small part by farnce and in large part fought on your soil: 212,000 French Died in battle while 416,800 Americans Died in battle..
"As an aside, where does this stereotype come from that the French always surrender? In the early 1800's the French army was the terror of Europe."
When led by a non Frenchman (Napoleon was Corsican) or a Woman (Joan of Arc) or fighting other Frenchman (French Civil War) the French fight rather well...
"They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict."
No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
"I'd like to just strengthen this point a little more. In both World Wars the Americans were years late to the party." Thats what happens when you dont start it... "Tens of thousands of French died in WWI before any Americans set foot in Europe." A war started in no small part by farnce and in large part fought on your soil: 212,000 French Died in battle while 416,800 Americans Died in battle.. "As an aside, where does this stereotype come from that the French always surrender? In the early 1800's the French army was the terror of Europe." When led by a non Frenchman (Napoleon was Corsican) or a Woman (Joan of Arc) or fighting other Frenchman (French Civil War) the French fight rather well... "They were simply unfortunate enough to be next to the main aggressor in that conflict." No they were simply stupid enough to put most of their Army in bunkers along a very small border in a time when their opponent had Tanks and planes.. A mobile army vs a stationary army... Hmmmm.
"I'll tell you why the Americans hate the French - it's because the French have history and culture, philosophy and art. They have a cuisine which is based on rather more than saturated fat and corn syrup. They don't roll over and beg whenever the US clicks its colonial fingers (how I wish the UK were the same). And the French themselves are attractive, intelligent, reliable, honourable people. That's why the Americans hate them."
I'll tell you why- the French hold themselves in such high esteem that while Russians were burning their own land rather than let the Nazi's have it, while the English were weathering nightly air raids on their capital, and while Americans sent troops for fight in yet another war started by European powers the French people rolled over like trained dogs for the Nazi's rather than let one window in Paris be broken..
They might not 'roll over' for uncle Sam but when Adlof came into town you all but gave him your daughters.
Honorable my foot..
Right... Nobody is doing that...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EBR6D00&show_article=1, http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/march_1999_2.html, http://www.incorrectu.com/2007/10/24/liveblogging-ifaw-at-emory-university-with-david-horowitz/
"Not that any of this matters, since the condom ban is based on the view that sex is inherently evil" Bravo Sierra! Christians dont believe sex is evil, hell read song of Sol! Its a love/lust story of epic proportions. Christians believe sex outside of marriage is wrong!
Oh horse crap, come off of it..
For years social conservatives yelled that Condoms dont stop HPV and HPV was linked to cancer. Yet there was no outcry. Now we have a magic drug (which is far from well tested) and suddenly I have commercials telling me my 9yo daughter can get an injection of this questionabally tested drug and she will be 'one less'...
The teaching of chastity is a firm position in *most* world religions *INCLUDING* the Dali Llama so unless you can provide an example of him jamming a condom on a banana for school age kids you damn well better be as outraged should he have to speak at a university.
I honestly dont get that aspect of the Catholic faith (though I can understand banning abortobesiec birth control pills) but the OP's point is that though the church may frown on the use of such devices they have no legal authority to enforce it.
Yea its ok to study that crap for the perspective of how they screw everything up for up nice tolerant reasonable non religious folk /sarcasm
Look, the profs have *every right* to be intolerant just dont walk around like the civil tolerant victim all the time..
Letting someone speak is *not* being open minded its being tolerant. I dont care if you stick your fingers in your ears so you *dont* hear what they have to say but when you attempt to deny them a venu to speak to others you are not tolerant..
"because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way."
Ahhh another who does not get it... Youre not tolerating shit if it something that does not offend you to the core!
Me saying: " I think X is sinful and shameful and within the context of this closed group is not allowed, but in society at large you are free to act as you wish" is tolerant
You saying " So long as you're not a nutball or hold no position I find too stupid/offensive youre free to speak at universities otherwise shut the hell up" is *not* tolerant
Tolerance is about putting up with crap that makes you see red!
"because having little tolerance for absurd ideas and bigoted people is TOTALLY the same thing as having little tolerance for people living their life their own way." Ahhh another who does not get it... Youre not tolerating shit if it something that does not offend you to the core! Me saying: " I think X is sinful and shameful and within the context of this closed group is not allowed, but in society at large you are free to act as you wish" is tolerant You saying " So long as you're not a nutball or hold no position I find too stupid/offensive youre free to speak at universities otherwise shut the hell up" is *not* tolerant Tolerance is about putting up with crap that makes you see red!