A no true scotsman fallacy, wrapped in straw man fallacy, used as a red herring. Congratulations; you have achieved a trifecta of idiocy!
I guess by your "logic" I must be a "libertarian kook," then -- which is even more funny since a few weeks ago people were accusing me of being "socialist" for supporting Sanders*. You trolls need to make up your damn minds!
(* Fun fact: one of the lesser-known great things about Sanders is that he respects the Second Amendment a lot more than most Democrats.)
It's easy to ignore the first half of the sentence and just pay attention to the second, but that's disingenuous.
What's disingenuous is failing to acknowledge that in the 16th Century, "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well-trained." If you want to "regulate" guns by, for example, instituting marksmanship training as part of the public school curriculum, that'd be fine with me!
Furthermore, you have to take it in the context of the times in which it was written.
The context of the times was that the Second Amendment was written by a bunch of terrorists* who had just finished violently overthrowing their government.
(* If the revolution were happening today, that's certainly the term King George would be throwing around -- whether it accurately described the revolutionaries' tactics or not.)
I know it's easy to have a romantic view of the Founding Fathers that they somehow encoded into the Constitution the seeds of the government's demise if it became too "tyrannical," but it's just not there in the text of the Second Amendment.
The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a remarkably terse document (as opposed to some of the later Amendments, which became more verbose). Therefore, I certainly agree with you that it must be understood in context with the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers! But from that context, it is abundantly clear that they envisioned the militia as a check against the power of the State (and against the threat to freedom posed by a professional standing army in particular).
Jefferson has been quoted to death, so I'll cite others instead. Here's Washington's thought on the subject:
"At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion."
If that's not advocating for the use of arms as a defense against (your own) tyrannical government, what is it?
Patrick Henry is even more explicit:
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
And here's Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist #28:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."
Elbridge Gerry is a relatively obscure figure, but he didn't mince words:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Finally, here's George Mason, who helped write the Second Amendment itself:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
I could keep going, but that should be more than enough evidence to prove my point to all but the densest (or most disingenuous) debater.
Democrats are happy with long guns, guns that meet definitions of personal defense
The Second Amendment does not affirm our right to own guns for "personal defense;" it affirms our right to own guns for defense against tyranny. The "assault rifles" the Democrats tried to ban yesterday are exactly the most important kind to keep privately owned!
Good point. Still, that's not exactly the car's fault in the same way that it is with modern "infotainment"-infected ones (and especially things like Leafs, Teslas, and anything with a Progressive Insurance "snapshot" module plugged into it).
What we need is a license plate cover that allows the plate to be read by humans but masks it against being read by cameras (and to repeal the laws prohibiting its use). You could say we could prohibit the use of the tracking cameras instead, but we all know that wouldn't actually get rid of them.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
implying you know what a phonecall looks like encrypted.
It looks like a more-or-less isochronous, symmetrical stream of packets that takes a medium amount of bandwidth (less than video, but more than online gaming). If you wanted to make it look less like a phone call you would want to do something like add jitter or latency, or send lots of junk data along with the signal... but those things would either reduce call quality or waste your data allotment.
Or, you know, go to concerts performed by musicians who aren't threatened by modern technology. Weird Al, for example, encourages people to wave them in the air like people used to do with lighters during his "We All Have Cellphones" song.
The article mentions that the cluster uses "ShenWei CPUs" but doesn't give details, and the wiki only talks about chips that were released in 2010 and earlier. Is it using the Alpha instruction set (as Wikipedia seems to imply), or does it have additional instructions, or is it using something else entirely? Can you buy these things (and compatible motherboards) of AliExpress? Do they have an equivalent to IME?
As another poster mentioned -- and which seems like a compelling theory -- it could well be that the real cause of the accident was a very poorly designed shifter.
It's nothing more than an action-heavy parody of Star Trek
Nah, I can appreciate parodies -- Galaxy Quest was awesome!
NuTrek, however, is a goddamn travesty of plot holes that wreck the entire concept. (Why fly starships when we can just fucking beam to Qo'nos now?! Why give a shit about anything when we can cure death with magic Khan blood? Fuck you, Abrams!)
Wait and see what happens when your army is 20% muslim
They'll install more crescent markers (instead of crosses or stars of David) at Arlington? Other than that, I can't think of any important differences.
You cannot force a company to sell licenses for a software they don't support anymore and maintain staff to maintain a piece of software the revenues cannot justify to.
Sure, that's fine. But what you can do is simply declare the software to be in the Public Domain, since the only thing stopping that from happening automatically is government fiat in the first place!
Eliminatine the dept of education? Well as long as states can manage it, okay. I'm sure congress will tie the fed kickback to the states to educational standards so things won't go to hell in mississippi or texas.
A true libertarian would say that if Mississippi or Texas want their state to go to hell then they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to know the courts value our privacy so dearly!
The real issue is that it's 2016 and checks don't fucking clear instantly yet!
A no true scotsman fallacy, wrapped in straw man fallacy, used as a red herring. Congratulations; you have achieved a trifecta of idiocy!
I guess by your "logic" I must be a "libertarian kook," then -- which is even more funny since a few weeks ago people were accusing me of being "socialist" for supporting Sanders*. You trolls need to make up your damn minds!
(* Fun fact: one of the lesser-known great things about Sanders is that he respects the Second Amendment a lot more than most Democrats.)
What's disingenuous is failing to acknowledge that in the 16th Century, "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well-trained." If you want to "regulate" guns by, for example, instituting marksmanship training as part of the public school curriculum, that'd be fine with me!
The context of the times was that the Second Amendment was written by a bunch of terrorists* who had just finished violently overthrowing their government.
(* If the revolution were happening today, that's certainly the term King George would be throwing around -- whether it accurately described the revolutionaries' tactics or not.)
The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a remarkably terse document (as opposed to some of the later Amendments, which became more verbose). Therefore, I certainly agree with you that it must be understood in context with the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers! But from that context, it is abundantly clear that they envisioned the militia as a check against the power of the State (and against the threat to freedom posed by a professional standing army in particular).
Jefferson has been quoted to death, so I'll cite others instead. Here's Washington's thought on the subject:
If that's not advocating for the use of arms as a defense against (your own) tyrannical government, what is it?
Patrick Henry is even more explicit:
And here's Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist #28:
Elbridge Gerry is a relatively obscure figure, but he didn't mince words:
Finally, here's George Mason, who helped write the Second Amendment itself:
I could keep going, but that should be more than enough evidence to prove my point to all but the densest (or most disingenuous) debater.
No you don't -- at least not consistently and in all districts. They weren't able to surmount the draconian ballot-access restrictions.
The Second Amendment does not affirm our right to own guns for "personal defense;" it affirms our right to own guns for defense against tyranny. The "assault rifles" the Democrats tried to ban yesterday are exactly the most important kind to keep privately owned!
Good point. Still, that's not exactly the car's fault in the same way that it is with modern "infotainment"-infected ones (and especially things like Leafs, Teslas, and anything with a Progressive Insurance "snapshot" module plugged into it).
What we need is a license plate cover that allows the plate to be read by humans but masks it against being read by cameras (and to repeal the laws prohibiting its use). You could say we could prohibit the use of the tracking cameras instead, but we all know that wouldn't actually get rid of them.
The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!
My car can't spy on me; it was built before digital cell networks existed!
It looks like a more-or-less isochronous, symmetrical stream of packets that takes a medium amount of bandwidth (less than video, but more than online gaming). If you wanted to make it look less like a phone call you would want to do something like add jitter or latency, or send lots of junk data along with the signal... but those things would either reduce call quality or waste your data allotment.
Or, you know, go to concerts performed by musicians who aren't threatened by modern technology. Weird Al, for example, encourages people to wave them in the air like people used to do with lighters during his "We All Have Cellphones" song.
It doesn't matter to them. It matters to me because I'm interested in owning desktop PCs with unusual architectures and don't like backdoors.
From the article:
The article mentions that the cluster uses "ShenWei CPUs" but doesn't give details, and the wiki only talks about chips that were released in 2010 and earlier. Is it using the Alpha instruction set (as Wikipedia seems to imply), or does it have additional instructions, or is it using something else entirely? Can you buy these things (and compatible motherboards) of AliExpress? Do they have an equivalent to IME?
As another poster mentioned -- and which seems like a compelling theory -- it could well be that the real cause of the accident was a very poorly designed shifter.
And even if you don't want to carry more passengers, there are still better choices (Miata)!
Nah, I can appreciate parodies -- Galaxy Quest was awesome!
NuTrek, however, is a goddamn travesty of plot holes that wreck the entire concept. (Why fly starships when we can just fucking beam to Qo'nos now?! Why give a shit about anything when we can cure death with magic Khan blood? Fuck you, Abrams!)
They'll install more crescent markers (instead of crosses or stars of David) at Arlington? Other than that, I can't think of any important differences.
Sure, that's fine. But what you can do is simply declare the software to be in the Public Domain, since the only thing stopping that from happening automatically is government fiat in the first place!
A true libertarian would say that if Mississippi or Texas want their state to go to hell then they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves.
Not only "trust us," but also "oh, by the way, you have no choice because we've made implementing your own open-source firmware impossible".
That's horribly naive. Even if the interface claims that it's "off," there is no proof and no reason whatsoever to trust it.
Trust comes from being able to read the source code (all of it), compile it yourself, and load it on the device. Nothing less.
The rich people didn't fucking "earn" their capital gains either! That is, in fact, why they're called "capital gains" and not "wages!"
Yep. My packages used to arrive within two days even without Prime.
OMG, Apple supports terrorism!