You seem to have forgotten that Libya toppled with the help of the UN issuing a no-fly zone over the country, and with the US, UK and France sending in cruise missiles and air strikes to neutralise the big weapons of the Libyan army.
Syria is a better example, in that the UN can't do much because of the Russian veto. But even there, Syria's military, although strong for the region, doesn't compare with the US military.
Again, there is no way that US civilians could win a fight against the US government military. The idea that the 2nd amendment is about citizens keeping the government in check is ludicrous.
You're now repeating that you're a stupid fuck with no clue.
You're getting angry because I pointed out that you were a gullible fool that was taken in by false quotes. A bigger man would have admitted his mistake. You have just revealed the true extent of your ignorance.
Two points of disagreement: 29 is talking about the organized militia and 46 is talking about the unorganized militia
And the 2nd amendment refers to a well-regulated militia.
commanding its services in times of insurrection... [and]...of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. Those two phrases definitely do not mean "foreign invaders."
I've already quoted a part that includes the militias role in protecting from invasion.
The two fragments you quote refer to ordinary roles of a traditional army. Supporting the domestic government. They certainly don't refer to the militia being there to fight the domestic government.
So then why exactly haven't we "won" the war in Afghanistan?
I didn't say the big weapons would always win a foreign war.
You're attempting to cherry pick something, and it isn't even a cherry. If you're wanting counter examples, then you have to look at countries where revolutions by their own people have been attempted against the state. Even then you're going to struggle to find a parallel because no other country has military of the size and sophistication of the US.
Egypt and Syria are perhaps the closest current day examples. Egypt was a successful uprising but it was done by mass protest, not by the gun.
Syria on the other hand, with a government with a sizable and pretty sophisticated military - the armed revolutionaries don't stand a chance of winning.
"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
Actually they overthrew the British government. A peoples militia AKA resistance fighters can be successful against foreign rule or invasion. And that's exactly the reason why the 2nd amendment is there.
Right, of course. Thats why *all* of the military service oaths, and office holding oaths, have that bit about "defend the constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic."
So the regular army is there to protect against armed revolutionaries too. No surprise there. That's the very opposite of what you are claiming. The 2nd amendment isn't there to legitimise the prospect of armed revolution.
So then why exactly haven't we "won" the war in Afghanistan?
I didn't say a militia would be unsuccessful against a foreign army. Indeed that's exactly the purpose I said the militia was for. For protection from foreign states.
"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.
If you really think the second amendment COULD protect you from the government, you're insane. The US has by far the biggest and most sophisticated war machine in the world. Your puny firearm isn't going to stand up to a tank, a fighter jet, a helicopter gunship or a drone.
The flaying spaghetti monster save us from cross platform widget libraries.
Every platform has different UI design guidelines. And such cross platform systems tend to break them badly. Leaving the user wondering what the hell is wrong with the app.
It's certainly possible. But is it worth it for them? Anyone serious about iOS development will already have or will buy a Mac anyway. And for people who aren't serious... well they're not exactly short of people that are.
Also, presumably they only ported the libraries that were needed for iTunes and Safari.
There's two sides to every story. We don't get to hear Apple's side. And I don't know it, but can only surmise...
Apple are approving more than 500 new apps every day. And many more updates of the existing apps. We're talking about a process that needs production line levels of streamlining.
If there's the facility to start an email discussion when apps are rejected, and nobody wants to wait another 8 days, then app reviewers are going to end up deluged in email to be answered rather than getting on reviewing more app submissions. And for what? In virtually every case, the app is going to remain denied because it still breaches the rules.
As you say, they have a formal appeals process for when you believe an app reviewer makes a mistake. Apple have to formalise the process in this way to make it manageable for the scale they are dealing with.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have forgotten that Libya toppled with the help of the UN issuing a no-fly zone over the country, and with the US, UK and France sending in cruise missiles and air strikes to neutralise the big weapons of the Libyan army.
Syria is a better example, in that the UN can't do much because of the Russian veto. But even there, Syria's military, although strong for the region, doesn't compare with the US military.
Again, there is no way that US civilians could win a fight against the US government military. The idea that the 2nd amendment is about citizens keeping the government in check is ludicrous.
You're now repeating that you're a stupid fuck with no clue.
You're getting angry because I pointed out that you were a gullible fool that was taken in by false quotes. A bigger man would have admitted his mistake. You have just revealed the true extent of your ignorance.
They are fighting a foreign power, not a home government.
Two points of disagreement: 29 is talking about the organized militia and 46 is talking about the unorganized militia
And the 2nd amendment refers to a well-regulated militia.
commanding its services in times of insurrection... [and] ...of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
Those two phrases definitely do not mean "foreign invaders."
I've already quoted a part that includes the militias role in protecting from invasion.
The two fragments you quote refer to ordinary roles of a traditional army. Supporting the domestic government. They certainly don't refer to the militia being there to fight the domestic government.
You're now repeating fake quotes from the gun lobby:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Firearms+stand+next+in+importance+to+the+Constitution+itself.+
This proves without doubt that yours is the thick skull. Thicker ever time you repeat it.
I think they know. Those that are still alive that is...
So then why exactly haven't we "won" the war in Afghanistan?
I didn't say the big weapons would always win a foreign war.
You're attempting to cherry pick something, and it isn't even a cherry. If you're wanting counter examples, then you have to look at countries where revolutions by their own people have been attempted against the state. Even then you're going to struggle to find a parallel because no other country has military of the size and sophistication of the US.
Egypt and Syria are perhaps the closest current day examples. Egypt was a successful uprising but it was done by mass protest, not by the gun.
Syria on the other hand, with a government with a sizable and pretty sophisticated military - the armed revolutionaries don't stand a chance of winning.
You were premature. You should have waited for the responses. And it's pwning, not p0wning.
Read your Federalist Papers
Looks like you didn't read them all.
Federalist Papers 29.
"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
How's the revolution in Syria going?
Actually they overthrew the British government. A peoples militia AKA resistance fighters can be successful against foreign rule or invasion. And that's exactly the reason why the 2nd amendment is there.
Right, of course. Thats why *all* of the military service oaths, and office holding oaths, have that bit about "defend the constitution against all enemies - foreign and domestic."
So the regular army is there to protect against armed revolutionaries too. No surprise there. That's the very opposite of what you are claiming. The 2nd amendment isn't there to legitimise the prospect of armed revolution.
So then why exactly haven't we "won" the war in Afghanistan?
I didn't say a militia would be unsuccessful against a foreign army. Indeed that's exactly the purpose I said the militia was for. For protection from foreign states.
No I'm not.
Federalist Papers 29.
"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
That's who they were, but that's not what they wrote about in the second amendment.
It's not about any of those things. It's about protection from foreign states. Made at a time when there wasn't a sufficient full time army.
If you really think the second amendment COULD protect you from the government, you're insane. The US has by far the biggest and most sophisticated war machine in the world. Your puny firearm isn't going to stand up to a tank, a fighter jet, a helicopter gunship or a drone.
The job of the police is to keep the establishment safe from the people. Once that is appreciated, their behaviour makes perfect sense.
That you can say that means you haven't looked at it.
365 days. You can work out leap years for yourself.
Average app approval time 8 days. And rejections always have an explanation.
Do you have to pay for the dry ice that evaporates on days when you can't sell ice-cream?
They certainly get asked. And of course no one would say no because it's amazing free advertising for the app.
The flaying spaghetti monster save us from cross platform widget libraries.
Every platform has different UI design guidelines. And such cross platform systems tend to break them badly. Leaving the user wondering what the hell is wrong with the app.
It's certainly possible. But is it worth it for them? Anyone serious about iOS development will already have or will buy a Mac anyway. And for people who aren't serious... well they're not exactly short of people that are.
Also, presumably they only ported the libraries that were needed for iTunes and Safari.
A few bucks a day you say? Well going back to the reason for the analogy, Apple's developer program fee comes to 27 cents a day.
The OPs point is demonstrated nicely.
I don't know about the making of a custom bike from scrap parts. But dry ice certainly isn't cheap.
There's two sides to every story. We don't get to hear Apple's side. And I don't know it, but can only surmise...
Apple are approving more than 500 new apps every day. And many more updates of the existing apps. We're talking about a process that needs production line levels of streamlining.
If there's the facility to start an email discussion when apps are rejected, and nobody wants to wait another 8 days, then app reviewers are going to end up deluged in email to be answered rather than getting on reviewing more app submissions. And for what? In virtually every case, the app is going to remain denied because it still breaches the rules.
As you say, they have a formal appeals process for when you believe an app reviewer makes a mistake. Apple have to formalise the process in this way to make it manageable for the scale they are dealing with.