But it could be an X-linked recessive gene, meaning:
1. It shows up on the X chromosome. 2. But is only expressed in the phenotype if there isn't another (dominant) gene to mask it.
Since males only have one X chromosome, all it takes is for his mother to stick him with an affected X chromosome. For a woman to be affected phenotypically, both her mother AND her father would have to donate an affected X chromosome.
For example, baldness can be partly X-linked, which is why your mom, maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmothers, etc., and father (and paternal relatives) are not bald, but you lose your hair before your midlife crisis.
The grandparent was artfully saying that he killed Mary Jo by driving drunk into a lake and leaving her to drown. Were one of us commoners to do this, we would undoubtedly be convicted of at least manslaughter. But I suppose you understand this and were just trying to be funny...
I just recently switched back to Internet Explorer (v7) after using Firefox since 0.7 because of protected mode. So far I like it. I'll still be keeping an eye on Firefox.
no, but her estate will win a huge fscking settlement. "if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk" is the most pathetic disclaimer i think i've ever seen.
The last time I checked, Muslims do believe in Jesus. It's where the Christians don't believe in Mohammad that the "disconnect" occurs.
the disconnect is a little more significant than you seem to think. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God. In fact, muslims believe that Jesus is a *lesser* prophet than Mohammad. the importance of this "disconnect" is evident in the terrorism, murder, rape, torture, and misery caused some have caused.
Do they deserve self determination when they can't even read or comprehend informational messages such as "Press OK to continue" or "Out of Paper". Maybe they could be put to better use such as a central tunnel support on the new Victoria Line.
Hmmm, well, it's people like you that make the guarantees of the 2nd amendment necessary...
The more you try to make the constitution a living document, the more you bury it.
Words have meaning, but if you change the meaning of words to fit your agenda in a particular situation, your words become meaningless.
So too the constitution. If you want to change the meaning of the constitution, you change its words (through the amendment process, duh). If you want to destroy the constitution, then make it arbitrary and ephemeral, to be changed on a whim without due process or accountability.
Or, in your living document language:
Meaning process you the the particular due if. Too the changed a be accountability. Words your amendment a. Arbitrary want without on meaningless the fit, constitution duh make, agenda meaning so a its the or whim.
We could all roll around in bubbles with cameras recording our every move, and I'm sure that would make this a safer society, but that would be...horrible.
the law was not passed by people looking to repress blacks. It was passed by black people
Yes, that's exactly what I find interesting. Gun control laws have historically and almost universally had as their object the disarmament and subjugation of people (in this country, blacks).
Had it not have been for the crack epidemic and influx of latin gangs in the decades the followed, the ban might actually have even had some effect.
Hmmm, maybe, but gun bans are not known for working. I could also argue that, amidst the crack epidemic and influx of latin gangs, the inability of DC residents to effectively protect themselves made them worse off than they would have been. We don't really have a control group, but what we do have is a large population lacking reasonable means of self defense due to restrictive gun laws and a criminal population that is not noticeably affected by the same laws.
Hang on...first you said "2nd amendment advocates," then you changed it to "gun-rights association."
I would argue that "gun rights" is a subset of the 2nd (if not an element of the much more essential and unarticulated right to self-defense), not the 2nd amendment itself.
Anyhow, to sort of answer your question, effective lobbying groups typically take into account the political landscape when they shape and enact their strategy, so actions may not perfectly match ideals at the start.
Because (1) gun bans violate essential liberties and (2) gun bans don't work. They don't. Get over it. Guns bans have never been shown to be causally linked to a decrease in murder or violence. If you have some formal evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy see it.
they exclude the materials mentioned above from the category of acceptable small weaponry
I don't. But I typically don't bring it up, as some people usually aren't willing to have an open mind and look beyond their presuppositions and comfortable ways of thinking.
I should have said that when the bill of rights refers to the "the people" having rights, it has the meaning of "the people, respectively."
If the "collective right" logic that some feel inclined to apply to the 2nd were applied to the 4th...then the 4th, too, would be rendered meaningless.
You should examine the history of gun bans--and gun control in general--in this country before crying, "ignoramus."
Gun control laws have consistently had as their targeted enforcement population the blacks of this country. Except nowadays, such laws are even endorsed by the NAACP and people historically targeted. That's what I find interesting.
Don't take this to mean I like one particular party...I also find it interesting that a certain major party has consistently supported gun control laws, both in their KKK days and their affirmative action days. I'm not saying this means anything, I just find it interesting and think that it bears some examination.
So I'm not sure why the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they go" helps us create a more just society
It helps prevent abuse of the people by an unjust government. Systematic disarmament of the target population is standard operating procedure for tyrannical and genocidal regimes. The right to self defense can't be exercised if you don't have the means with which to do it. Before you go and say, "that can't happen here, we're civilized," it already has happened (gun control is a Jim Crow law, in its inception). And this leads me to believe you really don't think we are civilized:
That just invites somebody to decide after a few drinks that somebody else is an "unjust aggressor" or that the local police are an "unjust ruling entity".
Well, maybe in your world.
In my gun-owning world, however, there are these things called "common sense," "responsibility," and "respect."
Democracy (even though that's not technically what we have here) doesn't necessarily exist to empower the people, but the bill of rights *does* exist to articulate several essential liberties with which the masses are "endowed by their Creator." (Yes, I know that's a different document.) The 2nd amendment just recognizes that the masses are entitled by birthright to the keep and carry the means to protect themselves against the important people--violently, if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
"All the more reason to read the web through Google cache!"
Right...because centralizing the record-keeping of all your online activity is going to protect your privacy...
Do you vote? We're doomed.
Like a true slashdotter, I haven't RTFA.
But it could be an X-linked recessive gene, meaning:
1. It shows up on the X chromosome.
2. But is only expressed in the phenotype if there isn't another (dominant) gene to mask it.
Since males only have one X chromosome, all it takes is for his mother to stick him with an affected X chromosome. For a woman to be affected phenotypically, both her mother AND her father would have to donate an affected X chromosome.
For example, baldness can be partly X-linked, which is why your mom, maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmothers, etc., and father (and paternal relatives) are not bald, but you lose your hair before your midlife crisis.
The grandparent was artfully saying that he killed Mary Jo by driving drunk into a lake and leaving her to drown. Were one of us commoners to do this, we would undoubtedly be convicted of at least manslaughter. But I suppose you understand this and were just trying to be funny...
I just recently switched back to Internet Explorer (v7) after using Firefox since 0.7 because of protected mode. So far I like it. I'll still be keeping an eye on Firefox.
no, it's not. one material that has a higher thermal conductivity is a diamond simulant, "moissanite" (silicon carbide).
no, but her estate will win a huge fscking settlement. "if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk" is the most pathetic disclaimer i think i've ever seen.
you may have already seen this, but fyi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
get a clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
/me shrugs
The more you try to make the constitution a living document, the more you bury it.
Words have meaning, but if you change the meaning of words to fit your agenda in a particular situation, your words become meaningless.
So too the constitution. If you want to change the meaning of the constitution, you change its words (through the amendment process, duh). If you want to destroy the constitution, then make it arbitrary and ephemeral, to be changed on a whim without due process or accountability.
Or, in your living document language:
Meaning process you the the particular due if. Too the changed a be accountability. Words your amendment a. Arbitrary want without on meaningless the fit, constitution duh make, agenda meaning so a its the or whim.
Thank you for making this point.
We could all roll around in bubbles with cameras recording our every move, and I'm sure that would make this a safer society, but that would be...horrible.
Hang on...first you said "2nd amendment advocates," then you changed it to "gun-rights association."
I would argue that "gun rights" is a subset of the 2nd (if not an element of the much more essential and unarticulated right to self-defense), not the 2nd amendment itself.
Anyhow, to sort of answer your question, effective lobbying groups typically take into account the political landscape when they shape and enact their strategy, so actions may not perfectly match ideals at the start.
The "collective right" logic would also render meaningless the 1st.
Because (1) gun bans violate essential liberties and (2) gun bans don't work. They don't. Get over it. Guns bans have never been shown to be causally linked to a decrease in murder or violence. If you have some formal evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy see it.
DC *does* generally contend with a select few cities for murder capital status.
Guns laws aren't much better in Maryland, so I would expect the same problems to apply as in DC.
I don't. But I typically don't bring it up, as some people usually aren't willing to have an open mind and look beyond their presuppositions and comfortable ways of thinking.
I should have said that when the bill of rights refers to the "the people" having rights, it has the meaning of "the people, respectively."
If the "collective right" logic that some feel inclined to apply to the 2nd were applied to the 4th...then the 4th, too, would be rendered meaningless.
You should examine the history of gun bans--and gun control in general--in this country before crying, "ignoramus."
Gun control laws have consistently had as their targeted enforcement population the blacks of this country. Except nowadays, such laws are even endorsed by the NAACP and people historically targeted. That's what I find interesting.
Don't take this to mean I like one particular party...I also find it interesting that a certain major party has consistently supported gun control laws, both in their KKK days and their affirmative action days. I'm not saying this means anything, I just find it interesting and think that it bears some examination.
It helps prevent abuse of the people by an unjust government. Systematic disarmament of the target population is standard operating procedure for tyrannical and genocidal regimes. The right to self defense can't be exercised if you don't have the means with which to do it. Before you go and say, "that can't happen here, we're civilized," it already has happened (gun control is a Jim Crow law, in its inception). And this leads me to believe you really don't think we are civilized:
Well, maybe in your world.
In my gun-owning world, however, there are these things called "common sense," "responsibility," and "respect."
If you're going to interpret the 2nd amendment in military terms, you'd better use military terminology.
Democracy (even though that's not technically what we have here) doesn't necessarily exist to empower the people, but the bill of rights *does* exist to articulate several essential liberties with which the masses are "endowed by their Creator." (Yes, I know that's a different document.) The 2nd amendment just recognizes that the masses are entitled by birthright to the keep and carry the means to protect themselves against the important people--violently, if necessary.