Dr. Crusher: "If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
...
Dr. Crusher: "Here's a question you shouldn't be able to answer: Computer, what is the nature of the universe?"
Computer: "The universe is a spheroid region seven hundred and five meters in diameter."
When they offered the SUN Crypto Accelerator cards for offloading SSL computations, almost the entire PCI card was coated in resin to prevent tampering. I don't think they're still available for purchase from SUN but I'm sure we've still got a few in storage at work somewhere.
It's an article in Network World, but there's no mention of the hardware or OS/software they've used for this robotic rover. The technical details are sparse for a supposedly technical publication. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's interested in knowing more beyond this broad overview.
How does talking on a mobile compare to having a friend in the car next to you, while talking?
It's likely that talking to a friend who's in the car with you is safer than talking to someone on the phone while driving. At least the friend in the car can see what's going on outside and can shut up when the driver needs to pay attention.
Multithreading is maybe the biggest change in software development. In contrast to advanced command sets like MMX, SSE and so on it is not about some peep hole optimization, about replacing a bunch of x86_32 commands with some SSE commands, it is about changing the whole approach, finding new algorithms and redevelop much if not all software we are used to work with.
This is a good point, although multithreading is not a new thing. It does often take a complete rework of existing algorithms in order to leverage the benefits of parallelism, though. Just keep in mind that there's no free lunch. Just because you throw, for example, twice the processor resources at a problem, does not mean you'll get twice the speedup. You can approach that (but almost never reach it), as contention for shared resources, dependence on results produced by other code, etc. reduces these improvements somewhat. It all depends on how much of the code needs to run serially, and how much is independent of other things and can run in parallel. In the case of SSH, we're talking about using multithreading for buffering completely independent data sets, so the improvement is good. In general though, you still do reap the benefits of being able to share code pages which may offer speed and memory footprint advantages over simple copy-on-write, multi-process programming.
Its the scale effect. The scale at which the physical laws act is the same. Its not possible to make a human size water strider.
This has always fascinated me... Like how a squirrel can fall 20 feet out of a tree and brush itself off, or why my Tonka trucks as a kid could withstand scale stresses that would have crushed a full-scale truck.
Using a computer controlled, fly-by-wire system to control an inherently unstable design was also explored in the Grumman X-29 program. That's the unusual looking forward-swept design based on an F-5 airframe that was test-flown in the 1980s.
Actually, I think I'd prefer an RTG reactor like they use on long-range satellite probes. No CO2 emissions, lasts longer, and any heat you don't use to generate electricity can be used to warm the equipment.
IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer), but I would think there would be less distortion if the optics were actually at the same temperature as the ambient air temperature.
Also, if you're doing any sort of spectroscopy, you'd want your detector to be really, really cold and that would be easier to attain in the Antarctic winter. I remember a buddy of mine at NASA/GSFC who worked on a spectroscopy apparatus, and their detector was vacuum insulated and cooled using liquid helium, IIRC.
imho, privacy needs to expand in the information age, not shrink to include red-scare ideas of the right to inspect everything we do and track all our communications over some vague threat.
I agree. There are plenty of analogues of real world circumstances in the digital world, but too often legal concepts that apply outside of the digital world haven't extended there. In most cases, I think most people would agree they should.
For example, there is a trend among employers to install VOIP phones for office phones. Since calls you make are now just "data" traversing your employer's system, somehow the legal issues around wiretapping evaporate, and your employer can now legally eavesdrop on any personal calls you make from work without your consent. I suppose the part of your employment contract that says you can have no expectation of privacy when using company computer systems constitutes their "consent", but if you were using a regular landline, the eavesdropping would be illegal.
In a similar vein, how are searches of laptops at border checkpoints any different in concept than searching someone's briefcase full of paper files? Whether on paper or in an electronic format, my 4th Amendment rights (should) still apply.
Except that the Intelligent Design "movement" was started, and continues to be pushed, by the Discovery Institute and the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. Both are Christian groups, and the assumption among believers is that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian God.
Or, like in Star Wars, everyone should learn to understand everyone else's language. Then, in conversation, one would speak their own language regardless of what the other person is speaking. Han's exchange with Greedo comes to mind.
sorry, I gotta say this...you learn that some meteors make it to 47,000 feet and hit planes hehehe. In fact, a lot of small ones hit the ground.
The probability of a meteor strike on a plane is so low it's almost negligible, but still possible. Mind you, flights over the North Pole occur regularly when taking a great circle route and the airlines don't adjust their schedules or routes around meteor showers.
When we put a man on the moon, we were spurred to catch up & beat the USSR's Sputnik, which frankly shocked the crap out of the US.
Actually, there was little if any "catchup" to do. While Vanguard was the main effort by the US at the time, despite funding cuts Explorer was ready to go months before Sputnik.
By 1965, Kennedy had ballooned NASA's budget from $500 million to $5.2 billion (or 5.3% of GDP), which meant that about 1 in 19ish US jobs were geared to the moon landing.
If anything, that was the main effect of Sputnik. It really energized the scientific and engineering community and lit a fire under our collective asses.
No it isn't. Don't mistake wishful thinking for actual implication. You want it to say something, but it doesn't. You can't just say "oh, it's implied" without basis.
It's not wishful thinking. The meaning is there in the term "bear arms", but you missed it. According to the DC Circuit Court in their Parker v. DC amicus brief:
"[I]t is equally evident from a survey of late eighteenth- and early
nineteenth-century state constitutional provisions that the public
understanding of 'bear Arms' also encompassed the carrying of
arms for private purposes such as self-defense."
There is also a basis in common law for a pre-existing right whose purpose was to afford citizens the tools necessary to protect themselves. Thus, the Second Amendment merely affirmed (not "granted") this right. From the brief:
"The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised
on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use
them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia
service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The
premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords
with Blackstone's observation, which had influenced thinking
in the American colonies, that the people's right to arms was
auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation."
They continue:
"The importance of the private right of self-defense is hardly
surprising when one remembers that most Americans lacked a
professional police force until the middle of the nineteenth century..."
I'm tired of arguing. Look, you seem to be hung up on one admittedly weak comparison I made between the wording of the First and Second Amendments. The fact remains that my other arguments are perfectly credible, but you are dismissing them and my conclusions as irrational simply because you disagree.
To answer your question, I was not cut-and-pasting as you suggest, but trying to paraphrase something I read once in A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, of which unfortunately I do not own a copy. Further, I find your assertion, that the intent of the Second Amendment is not to allow citizens to bear arms in their own defense, a completely ludicrous one. When taken all together, the amendment guarantees (not grants as you suggest) citizens a pre-existing right to bear arms, with the purpose of protecting a free state. The amendment specifically says "state" and not "states". Of course, the states were free to form their own militias, and the preference at the time was for a weaker federal government. Make no mistake, though, the "state" they refer to meant the country in general, or depending on the circumstances, a subset. In addition, you may be misinformed about what the militia really is, of which the organized militia (which gun-control advocates point out has been rendered unnecessary by the National Guard) is only a part.
Also, you seem to think that the Second Amendment is an anachronism, based on your statement that the US is a different place now when compared to the time the Bill of Rights was written. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as you say, the framers were not idiots. They knew they could not foresee future events, which is why the Bill of Rights is written in more general terms. It's telling that they chose to use the word "arms" and not "muskets" or "firearms" in the Second Amendment, just as they say "the press" and not specifically "movable type" in the First. From this, we could deduce that they likely were aware that technological progress would take place and accounted for it, just as they knew they couldn't foresee all circumstances when a militia would be needed when saying "state" in vague terms. What they could not account for, however, were future changes in the English language that could alter the meaning of their text.
I disagree with you that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant. In fact, I believe it is even more relevant today, not only with current events but also because we pretty much almost have the too-powerful federal government the founders feared. Of course, this is only my opinion.
If you wish to interpret the Constitution yourself in modern terms, go right ahead. However, please don't pervert the meaning of the text based on modern language usage. Also, if you think even modern law is written in plain English or is even intelligible to most, you obviously haven't looked at the U.S.C. or other statutes. By comparison, the US Constitution is far more readable than most modern laws. What you are not understanding, or choose to ignore, is that to an 18th century reader the text of the Second Amendment would read differently than you choose to in your modern interpretation. This is why judges often consult other sources when interpreting the law, as I've mentioned earlier. You may disagree with this, but it is a standard practice in constitutional law, and the influence of these other texts can not simply be dismissed. No, these texts are not law, but they do affect how laws are applied, in a very real sense. Judicial activism refers to an abuse of this practice, not using these clues to put the actual text of the Constitution into historical perspective while keeping in mind these other sources are not authoritative.
Judicial activism aside, are liberal judges who reinterpret "the people" to mean something other than everybody any bet
The federalist papers are not the law. Personal correspondence is not the law. The bill of rights is the law, and the bill of rights doesn't say what you want it to. If you want the bill of rights to protect the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending oneself, then you will have to pass an amendment. It does not say that at the present time.
One other thing. While the Federalist Papers are not law, they are used very often by federal judges to gauge intent in constitutional interpretation:
Yes, because it's not possible for people to disagree with you without being a troll. Jeez.
If you're not trolling, why post as AC?;)
Nevertheless, it does not mention defending oneself or the country.
Hint, it's implied. What else would you do with a militia tasked with protecting the security of a free state?
Totally irrelevant to what I said. Are you copy-pasting this?
This was not a direct response to anything you originally said, but it's completely relevant to the discussion at hand because typically when one tries to reinterpret the Constitution to have it say what they want, as you are, they derive their meaning based on modern American English. You seem to care less about the intent of the document, and more how it would read in late 20th/early 21st century American English.
Here's a hypothetical situation:
As an American speaking American English, I say, "I'm pissed," meaning I'm angry. As an Englishman who speaks British English, you might say that I have clearly stated that I'm drunk. Your interpretation in your own dialect of the language doesn't change my intent or meaning, no matter how much you would like it to.
This is a non-sequitur.
Way to dismiss a valid conclusion you don't agree with. You don't get extra credit for using a big word.
If the intent wasn't to enumerate a right of the people, why does it say, "the people"?
Huh? Do you know the meaning of the word "or"? What you say doesn't make sense.
Again, you dismissing a coherent argument outright because you don't agree with it. If it doesn't make sense to you, I must ask if English is your first language.
I didn't say it was a prerequisite. I said it was the purpose.
I think that's one thing we can agree on. The first clause is the statement of purpose, suggesting the main reason to have the right, while the second describes the right itself. Exercising the right is not contingent on your involvement in an organized militia, however.
The other amendments aren't as focused on individual rights as you imply. The purpose of the tenth amendment is to avoid having power placed in the federal governments hands, it has practically zero to do with individual rights.
Furthermore, your very reasoning is ludicrous. Amendments are not equal. They deal with different things. Of course there are going to be exceptions and odd ones out.
Which constitution are you reading? Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is an individual one. This includes the 10th, when it says, "or to the people," no?
It's not about what I read. It's about what was written. We aren't reading different things. We are reading the same thing, except you have to use totally twisted interpretations to try to justify your interpretation, whereas my interpretation is very clear and direct.
There's an obvious solution to this: if you don't like the clear and direct interpretation, pass an amendment that says what you want it to say. Because right now, it doesn't say what you want it to say. So go ahead and change it. You obviously think it's a very badly-written, unclear law if you have to put so much effort into "interpreting" it to mean what you want it to.
The Second Amendment was not badly written. It meant exactly what the framers wished it to at the time. I disagree that it is as plain as you describe it, for the reasons I've explained above. I also disagree that your views on the Constitution are objective. No amount of interpretation either way can change the true intent of the framers, for which there is plenty of supporting evidence in their personal correspondence and the Federalist Papers of an individual right. If the meaning is not clear to modern readers, it's the intent behind the amendment that is important. This is why Constitutional scholars have consulted these other sources.
I guess I'm feeding a troll, but you are wrong. First, in a consistent reading of the Bill of Rights, the first clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,") is not a qualifying statement, but is there to highlight the main benefit stemming from the application of the right (common defense). Also, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant well trained and supplied, not the connotation it has today. If the Second Amendment didn't enumerate an individual right, the second clause would not read: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but would say the right of the government, state, national guard, whatever and not the people.
As a supporting example of this, the First Amendment mentions "or of the press"... Is one to construe from this, that application of this aspect of freedom of expression is restricted to only card-carrying members of the press? In other words, the benefit of the Second Amendment is a well-regulated militia, but membership in an organized militia is not a prerequisite for exercising the right to bear arms, any more than membership in a news outfit is a prerequisite for exercising one's freedom of the press.
Further, the Bill of Rights was specifically added to preclude the government from infringing on the rights of the people. Why would all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the 10th refer to individual rights, but not the 2nd?... And in a document whose express purpose is to enumerate individual rights?
You may wish to read the Second Amendment differently, but the intent of the drafters of the Bill of Rights is clear. Have a read of the Federalist Papers and personal correspondence amongst the founders as to their intent.
One other interesting tidbit, are the state constitutions which incorporated the right to bear arms around the same time as the Bill of Rights was ratified. The intent was the same, but the wording is a little different in some cases. For example, the PA State Constitution reads, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." The wording varies among the states that have this clause in their constitutions, but they are all in the same spirit. Many of the state constitutions were drafted by the same people involved in the Bill of Rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Crusher: "If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
...
Dr. Crusher: "Here's a question you shouldn't be able to answer: Computer, what is the nature of the universe?"
Computer: "The universe is a spheroid region seven hundred and five meters in diameter."
When they offered the SUN Crypto Accelerator cards for offloading SSL computations, almost the entire PCI card was coated in resin to prevent tampering. I don't think they're still available for purchase from SUN but I'm sure we've still got a few in storage at work somewhere.
It's just the TSA, at its finest. :\
They don't call it the "Chair Force" for nothing! :P
It's an article in Network World, but there's no mention of the hardware or OS/software they've used for this robotic rover. The technical details are sparse for a supposedly technical publication. I'm sure I'm not the only one that's interested in knowing more beyond this broad overview.
We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon.
But there ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune...
Does it run Linux?
How does talking on a mobile compare to having a friend in the car next to you, while talking?
It's likely that talking to a friend who's in the car with you is safer than talking to someone on the phone while driving. At least the friend in the car can see what's going on outside and can shut up when the driver needs to pay attention.
Multithreading is maybe the biggest change in software development. In contrast to advanced command sets like MMX, SSE and so on it is not about some peep hole optimization, about replacing a bunch of x86_32 commands with some SSE commands, it is about changing the whole approach, finding new algorithms and redevelop much if not all software we are used to work with.
This is a good point, although multithreading is not a new thing. It does often take a complete rework of existing algorithms in order to leverage the benefits of parallelism, though. Just keep in mind that there's no free lunch. Just because you throw, for example, twice the processor resources at a problem, does not mean you'll get twice the speedup. You can approach that (but almost never reach it), as contention for shared resources, dependence on results produced by other code, etc. reduces these improvements somewhat. It all depends on how much of the code needs to run serially, and how much is independent of other things and can run in parallel. In the case of SSH, we're talking about using multithreading for buffering completely independent data sets, so the improvement is good. In general though, you still do reap the benefits of being able to share code pages which may offer speed and memory footprint advantages over simple copy-on-write, multi-process programming.
Its the scale effect. The scale at which the physical laws act is the same. Its not possible to make a human size water strider.
This has always fascinated me... Like how a squirrel can fall 20 feet out of a tree and brush itself off, or why my Tonka trucks as a kid could withstand scale stresses that would have crushed a full-scale truck.
Using a computer controlled, fly-by-wire system to control an inherently unstable design was also explored in the Grumman X-29 program. That's the unusual looking forward-swept design based on an F-5 airframe that was test-flown in the 1980s.
Actually, I think I'd prefer an RTG reactor like they use on long-range satellite probes. No CO2 emissions, lasts longer, and any heat you don't use to generate electricity can be used to warm the equipment.
IANAA (I Am Not An Astronomer), but I would think there would be less distortion if the optics were actually at the same temperature as the ambient air temperature.
Also, if you're doing any sort of spectroscopy, you'd want your detector to be really, really cold and that would be easier to attain in the Antarctic winter. I remember a buddy of mine at NASA/GSFC who worked on a spectroscopy apparatus, and their detector was vacuum insulated and cooled using liquid helium, IIRC.
Welcome our winged, writhing-tentacled green overlord.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah' nagl fhtagn...
this stupid search mandate is to teach ALL (even the perps) to put the data on an SD or mini-SD card
Next up, cavity searches at customs checkpoints for flash drives hidden on one's person.
imho, privacy needs to expand in the information age, not shrink to include red-scare ideas of the right to inspect everything we do and track all our communications over some vague threat.
I agree. There are plenty of analogues of real world circumstances in the digital world, but too often legal concepts that apply outside of the digital world haven't extended there. In most cases, I think most people would agree they should.
For example, there is a trend among employers to install VOIP phones for office phones. Since calls you make are now just "data" traversing your employer's system, somehow the legal issues around wiretapping evaporate, and your employer can now legally eavesdrop on any personal calls you make from work without your consent. I suppose the part of your employment contract that says you can have no expectation of privacy when using company computer systems constitutes their "consent", but if you were using a regular landline, the eavesdropping would be illegal.
In a similar vein, how are searches of laptops at border checkpoints any different in concept than searching someone's briefcase full of paper files? Whether on paper or in an electronic format, my 4th Amendment rights (should) still apply.
Except that the Intelligent Design "movement" was started, and continues to be pushed, by the Discovery Institute and the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. Both are Christian groups, and the assumption among believers is that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian God.
Or, like in Star Wars, everyone should learn to understand everyone else's language. Then, in conversation, one would speak their own language regardless of what the other person is speaking. Han's exchange with Greedo comes to mind.
sorry, I gotta say this...you learn that some meteors make it to 47,000 feet and hit planes hehehe. In fact, a lot of small ones hit the ground.
The probability of a meteor strike on a plane is so low it's almost negligible, but still possible. Mind you, flights over the North Pole occur regularly when taking a great circle route and the airlines don't adjust their schedules or routes around meteor showers.
Nah, shooting old hardware is way more fun.
When we put a man on the moon, we were spurred to catch up & beat the USSR's Sputnik, which frankly shocked the crap out of the US.
Actually, there was little if any "catchup" to do. While Vanguard was the main effort by the US at the time, despite funding cuts Explorer was ready to go months before Sputnik.
By 1965, Kennedy had ballooned NASA's budget from $500 million to $5.2 billion (or 5.3% of GDP), which meant that about 1 in 19ish US jobs were geared to the moon landing.
If anything, that was the main effect of Sputnik. It really energized the scientific and engineering community and lit a fire under our collective asses.
"[I]t is equally evident from a survey of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century state constitutional provisions that the public understanding of 'bear Arms' also encompassed the carrying of arms for private purposes such as self-defense."
There is also a basis in common law for a pre-existing right whose purpose was to afford citizens the tools necessary to protect themselves. Thus, the Second Amendment merely affirmed (not "granted") this right. From the brief:
"The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords with Blackstone's observation, which had influenced thinking in the American colonies, that the people's right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation."
They continue:
"The importance of the private right of self-defense is hardly surprising when one remembers that most Americans lacked a professional police force until the middle of the nineteenth century..."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
I'm tired of arguing. Look, you seem to be hung up on one admittedly weak comparison I made between the wording of the First and Second Amendments. The fact remains that my other arguments are perfectly credible, but you are dismissing them and my conclusions as irrational simply because you disagree.
To answer your question, I was not cut-and-pasting as you suggest, but trying to paraphrase something I read once in A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, of which unfortunately I do not own a copy. Further, I find your assertion, that the intent of the Second Amendment is not to allow citizens to bear arms in their own defense, a completely ludicrous one. When taken all together, the amendment guarantees (not grants as you suggest) citizens a pre-existing right to bear arms, with the purpose of protecting a free state. The amendment specifically says "state" and not "states". Of course, the states were free to form their own militias, and the preference at the time was for a weaker federal government. Make no mistake, though, the "state" they refer to meant the country in general, or depending on the circumstances, a subset. In addition, you may be misinformed about what the militia really is, of which the organized militia (which gun-control advocates point out has been rendered unnecessary by the National Guard) is only a part.
Also, you seem to think that the Second Amendment is an anachronism, based on your statement that the US is a different place now when compared to the time the Bill of Rights was written. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as you say, the framers were not idiots. They knew they could not foresee future events, which is why the Bill of Rights is written in more general terms. It's telling that they chose to use the word "arms" and not "muskets" or "firearms" in the Second Amendment, just as they say "the press" and not specifically "movable type" in the First. From this, we could deduce that they likely were aware that technological progress would take place and accounted for it, just as they knew they couldn't foresee all circumstances when a militia would be needed when saying "state" in vague terms. What they could not account for, however, were future changes in the English language that could alter the meaning of their text.
I disagree with you that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant. In fact, I believe it is even more relevant today, not only with current events but also because we pretty much almost have the too-powerful federal government the founders feared. Of course, this is only my opinion.
If you wish to interpret the Constitution yourself in modern terms, go right ahead. However, please don't pervert the meaning of the text based on modern language usage. Also, if you think even modern law is written in plain English or is even intelligible to most, you obviously haven't looked at the U.S.C. or other statutes. By comparison, the US Constitution is far more readable than most modern laws. What you are not understanding, or choose to ignore, is that to an 18th century reader the text of the Second Amendment would read differently than you choose to in your modern interpretation. This is why judges often consult other sources when interpreting the law, as I've mentioned earlier. You may disagree with this, but it is a standard practice in constitutional law, and the influence of these other texts can not simply be dismissed. No, these texts are not law, but they do affect how laws are applied, in a very real sense. Judicial activism refers to an abuse of this practice, not using these clues to put the actual text of the Constitution into historical perspective while keeping in mind these other sources are not authoritative.
Judicial activism aside, are liberal judges who reinterpret "the people" to mean something other than everybody any bet
The federalist papers are not the law. Personal correspondence is not the law. The bill of rights is the law, and the bill of rights doesn't say what you want it to. If you want the bill of rights to protect the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending oneself, then you will have to pass an amendment. It does not say that at the present time.
One other thing. While the Federalist Papers are not law, they are used very often by federal judges to gauge intent in constitutional interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers#Judicial_use
According to Wikipedia, "As of the year 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions."
While obviously not authoritative, the papers' influence can not simply be dismissed.
Still care to downplay their importance, or the importance of intent in constitutional interpretation?
Yes, because it's not possible for people to disagree with you without being a troll. Jeez.
;)
If you're not trolling, why post as AC?
Nevertheless, it does not mention defending oneself or the country.
Hint, it's implied. What else would you do with a militia tasked with protecting the security of a free state?
Totally irrelevant to what I said. Are you copy-pasting this?
This was not a direct response to anything you originally said, but it's completely relevant to the discussion at hand because typically when one tries to reinterpret the Constitution to have it say what they want, as you are, they derive their meaning based on modern American English. You seem to care less about the intent of the document, and more how it would read in late 20th/early 21st century American English.
Here's a hypothetical situation:
As an American speaking American English, I say, "I'm pissed," meaning I'm angry. As an Englishman who speaks British English, you might say that I have clearly stated that I'm drunk. Your interpretation in your own dialect of the language doesn't change my intent or meaning, no matter how much you would like it to.
This is a non-sequitur.
Way to dismiss a valid conclusion you don't agree with. You don't get extra credit for using a big word.
If the intent wasn't to enumerate a right of the people, why does it say, "the people"?
Huh? Do you know the meaning of the word "or"? What you say doesn't make sense.
Again, you dismissing a coherent argument outright because you don't agree with it. If it doesn't make sense to you, I must ask if English is your first language.
I didn't say it was a prerequisite. I said it was the purpose.
I think that's one thing we can agree on. The first clause is the statement of purpose, suggesting the main reason to have the right, while the second describes the right itself. Exercising the right is not contingent on your involvement in an organized militia, however.
The other amendments aren't as focused on individual rights as you imply. The purpose of the tenth amendment is to avoid having power placed in the federal governments hands, it has practically zero to do with individual rights.
Furthermore, your very reasoning is ludicrous. Amendments are not equal. They deal with different things. Of course there are going to be exceptions and odd ones out.
Which constitution are you reading? Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is an individual one. This includes the 10th, when it says, "or to the people," no?
It's not about what I read. It's about what was written. We aren't reading different things. We are reading the same thing, except you have to use totally twisted interpretations to try to justify your interpretation, whereas my interpretation is very clear and direct.
There's an obvious solution to this: if you don't like the clear and direct interpretation, pass an amendment that says what you want it to say. Because right now, it doesn't say what you want it to say. So go ahead and change it. You obviously think it's a very badly-written, unclear law if you have to put so much effort into "interpreting" it to mean what you want it to.
The Second Amendment was not badly written. It meant exactly what the framers wished it to at the time. I disagree that it is as plain as you describe it, for the reasons I've explained above. I also disagree that your views on the Constitution are objective. No amount of interpretation either way can change the true intent of the framers, for which there is plenty of supporting evidence in their personal correspondence and the Federalist Papers of an individual right. If the meaning is not clear to modern readers, it's the intent behind the amendment that is important. This is why Constitutional scholars have consulted these other sources.
I guess I'm feeding a troll, but you are wrong. First, in a consistent reading of the Bill of Rights, the first clause ("A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,") is not a qualifying statement, but is there to highlight the main benefit stemming from the application of the right (common defense). Also, in the parlance of the day, well-regulated meant well trained and supplied, not the connotation it has today. If the Second Amendment didn't enumerate an individual right, the second clause would not read: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but would say the right of the government, state, national guard, whatever and not the people.
As a supporting example of this, the First Amendment mentions "or of the press"... Is one to construe from this, that application of this aspect of freedom of expression is restricted to only card-carrying members of the press? In other words, the benefit of the Second Amendment is a well-regulated militia, but membership in an organized militia is not a prerequisite for exercising the right to bear arms, any more than membership in a news outfit is a prerequisite for exercising one's freedom of the press.
Further, the Bill of Rights was specifically added to preclude the government from infringing on the rights of the people. Why would all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the 10th refer to individual rights, but not the 2nd?... And in a document whose express purpose is to enumerate individual rights?
You may wish to read the Second Amendment differently, but the intent of the drafters of the Bill of Rights is clear. Have a read of the Federalist Papers and personal correspondence amongst the founders as to their intent.
One other interesting tidbit, are the state constitutions which incorporated the right to bear arms around the same time as the Bill of Rights was ratified. The intent was the same, but the wording is a little different in some cases. For example, the PA State Constitution reads, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." The wording varies among the states that have this clause in their constitutions, but they are all in the same spirit. Many of the state constitutions were drafted by the same people involved in the Bill of Rights.