I am compelled to point out that whereas a president might propose a given set of laws, budgets, and what not, it is Congress which actually approves such. Giving any president credit for such things seems a bit silly. Furthermore, if one wants to look at it this way... Who was in charge in Congress for the second half of Clinton's reign? Neither party gets a get out of jail free card. However, Tax and Spend was a democrat creation of the 80's.
The thing you have forgotten is that a lot, not all, of New Yorkers suffer from NYC Syndrome.... it is an incurable disease which makes the patient believe that NYC == Manhattan == The Universe. Nothing exists outside it with the possible exception of LA. And that is doubted in the worse cases. All TV, and most movie, execs suffer from this terrible disease. This is why all TV shows/movies are set in either NYC or LA. Even when the story doesn't actually require it.
Don't even get me started on health care, since we're the only first world nation without some sort of formalized universal coverage. Even South Africa is jumping on the bandwagon! The morons who bleat that it's too expensive seem to conveniently forget about that bigass middle layer of PROFIT MAKING organization in the middle: the insurance companies. They aid efficiency? Give me a break. Hell, a good friend of mine in Chile said they've even started a universal health care program down there. Oh hell, I just admitted that I have friends outside of the US. I guess it's time to turn in my redneck card
Sorry, You hit FAIL when you advocated for socialized medicine. What you failed to point out is that all those countries systems are in various stages of collapse, or are new enough they haven't reached that point yet. And as far as the cost, have you looked at how much money Medicaid/Medicare cost this country? Double that for full on socialized medicine. And yes, no new taxes. Nearly 35% of my income already goes to the government. How high is high enough for you? 40%? 50%? More?
And why are you lamenting the loss of the fiscal conservative Republicans in the same post as advocating socialized medicine?
If you define "Brady shill" as "someone who thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't preclude some sane regulation," then call me a Brady shill all you want.
You still have the right to 'keep and bear Arms', but within reason. Are you arguing that anyone should be allowed to bear any kind of firearm at any time they choose? Let's say for a moment that he was (leaving aside for the moment whether I think he's correct or not). What harm would come from that? If we take the forty odd states that have CCW type provisions as a basis for what would happen, the answer would seem to be not much. The bad guys carry whatever they want no matter what the law says, the good guys carry what the law says they can.
Now if you're concern is more powerful weapons, but still within the realm of personal arms, like rocket launchers and the like, I'm not sure we'd have much more problems with them. Admittedly, I am presuming that most people wouldn't be interested in having them even if they could. I'd love to own a machine gun or two, but I'm not sure what I'd do with a rocket launcher.
Without guns, you'll be conceding even MORE power to the government. At least now, when their jackbooted thugs kick down your door, you can shoot back.
If we've gotten to that point, the constitution is already dead, and the second amendment does not apply. Under the current system, if the jackbooted thugs kick in your door, you have recourse through the courts (as guaranteed by the first amendment.) Shooting someone should not be your first reaction to what you consider to be an unlawful search. (Chances are, you're not qualified to determine if a search is lawful or not.)
Violence should be your *last* resort, not your first. Even under your scenario, chances are there's a dozen jackbooted thugs, and you'll be swiss cheese before you can get your third shot off.
I hate pussy-ass liberals who ignore the 2nd.
I'm not ignoring it; I do believe that the people should be able to bear arms, within reason. What is 'reasonable' is where we disagree. I also believe that owning a gun doesn't protect you from harm under the circumstances you describe. On a one to one basis, you are correct. My owning guns does little to protect me personally against state power. Even if I were to "shoot the jackbooted thug" it isn't likely he's alone. However, it is the protection afforded by the fact there are millions of gun owners out there is what keeps government ultimately in check.
Violence is the last resort. In the States it is often said that for redress against the government you have four boxes: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. Use in that order.
You only break out the Ammo box after all the others have failed. Without effective military grade weapons, not tanks and such.. I'm referring to personal arms, how would the Ammo box be of any use? If the people were disbarred of all arms but single shot bolt action rifles, the task of keeping government in check becomes significantly harder. When you throw in the abject failure of gun control to ever produce results, it doesn't seem logical to damage the right any further.
Of course, none of that touches on the far simpler question of self defense against non-governmental forces.
Yeah, that's a good idea. What's worse than the typical dumbass redneck American? That same typical dumbass redneck American with a gun.
Find me one study or article that supports home gun ownership as ensuring civil rights. (Difficulty: One that wasn't written by the NRA or one of its meat puppets in Congress.)
Granted, most people interpret the second amendment to mean that Americans have a right to own a gun, and that that's a civil right. But read the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Personally, I think that the meaning of this has been twisted over the years. And what are we to take from the text? Are you actually arguing that it only protects the National Guard type militia? Are you seriously going to go down that rather discredited and illogical road? It's meaning is clear in the text.
It doesn't say, the right of the State to keep and bear arms.. It doesn't say, the right of the State to establish Militias. It says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does mention the militia, that's true. But not as a limiting function. The thing I've always found odd is that the arguments for the "collective" or "State" right almost always depends on twisting the meaning of words, ignoring the second sentence, or trying to imagine that "the people" means something different in this amendment than it does in the others.
Aren't you guys tired of living in a Police State and a constant state of war - when are Americans going to stand up and demand their rights back - I keep waiting,,,, Regrettably, Second Amendment aside for a moment, you'll be waiting a lot longer. It takes a lot of punishment before people are willing to throw off the comfort of the known for the terror of the unknown and war. How many years, decades, did it take for the first Revolution to actually come to overt blows? If one wants to argue that we're truly in a Police State post 9/11, we're not as we're having this discussion in the open, then that means we've only had these most serious usurpations for no more than the last seven years. And even then the worse has only been for the last four years. At that rate we'd not be due for serious action for at least another ten or fifteen years. And that's only likely to happen when a significant number, by percentage, of the people are directly effected by the overbearing nature of the government to be overthrown.
There is something to be said for the power of the bread and circuses.
Yeah, and it'll stay that way until someone figures out how to fix the lobbying problem. As long as the corporations decide who gets the bribage, they'll pick the people who can make them the most money and avoid the people who have a spine.
Fixed that for you. No, he had it right in the first place. The lobbying problem is non-trivial. However, it could be nullified if the districts and such weren't drawn to almost guarantee the desired result.
Of course... in the end... V was right. We have only ourselves to blame.
The Bush administration doesn't speak for every Republican or Conservative in America. You might have noticed his dismal approval rating...to get that low he ticked off a lot of Republicans too. Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN. In fact, they're the ones fighting tooth and nail to STOP the Democrats from preventing him from giving the telecoms retroactive immunity and whatnot.
In short -- Dear Sir, I fear thou doth protest not enough. You've confused those people in Congress who call themselves Republicans with people who actually hold the beliefs of Republicans. They aren't real Republicans anymore than the Democrats are real Democrats. They are both now merely different sides of the same coin. I'd wager that the only reason Clinton didn't try some of the same stuff is he didn't have 9/11 as an excuse.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK. Not necessarily. After all, what I said is more or less what happened. They tried for many years to work within the system. Only when that utterly failed did they throw off that system. This was the basis of my statement.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
Hmmm... Three-hundred million people in the US. Even if only 1% decided that they had enough and were ready to revolt, that would be an army of around three million people. Now, if we decided that only one tenth of that was worth anything, you've still got an army of Three-hundred thousand people. And yes, "they" have tanks, airplanes, bombs, and all that stuff. If you get a band of people to ambush one of those tanks, now "we" have a tank.
This wouldn't be a pitched battle with armies in the field, but an insurgency type action. What do you think 300,000 insurgents could do? hmmm?
If it doesn't, then you are likely in non-populous areas where the drivers typically don't know how to drive (e.g. PA - which is better around Philly/Pittsburgh than the rest of the state).
What?!!!! I want what you're smoking. I can attest to the pathetic driving capabilities of people from Philadelphia. Forget about stopping at a stop sign when there's oncoming traffic. Red light? Sure, we can fit five more cars through as the opposing traffic advances.
Merging traffic? Naw, you don't need to merge. Just stick your nose in. If the guy hits you, keep driving.
More referring to their tendency to stop at yield signs, or speeding up to keep you from merging in front of them, despite their being more than adequate room and an empty lane next to them on the highway. True, you get this in nearly every state to some degree, but PA is among the worst of it from what I've seen. Philly and Pittsburgh drivers are, on the whole, better than PA drivers elsewhere in the state - not saying they're good either, but that they're better than the rest of the state.
and required response time may not leave time for signaling or other kinds of politeness.
The only excuse for not using your turn signal is in an emergency situation or if you are the only car on the road at 2 AM. Other than that, turn signals should always be used.
Sorry but that's bull...go find some real traffic (e.g. Northern Jersey, NY) and see if you say the same. When things happen you don't have time to either think about being courteous or taking the extra time to think which way you are going and then hit the turn signal appropriately - you only have time to react and keep from hitting the obstacles in front of you - whether it is a deer running into the road, or someone hitting their brakes.
Turn signals are a courtesy, nothing else. They allow you to communicate your intentions, and while when possible they should be used, there is no reason to use them when unnecessary. IF you've driven in real traffic conditions, then you'd recognize their proper use and how to use them both aggressively and courteously and when it just isn't worth it (like when you have a half mile between you and surrounding vehicles, which is more often than not the case in most of the U.S.). Failure to signal when you're not in immediate danger of hitting the car in front of you is a sign that you don't know how to drive. I've driven in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego and various other cities and areas big and small. There is no excuse for failure to signal. Any rational given to not do so outside of a legitimate emergency is either a sign of laziness or thoughtlessness.
Is tailgating just a way to get where you're going in a hurry?
You forgot that almost all of the "terrible" edits were the horrible and inconceivable act of removing....... ID NUMBERS!!!! Clearly this is propaganda on a scale not seen since World War II! Damn them and removing those ID Numbers!!! (The Castro edit, if I'm reading the diff right, took place just shy of two years ago.. breaking news indeed)
And I agree, calling it the "Invasion of Afghanistan" is simply an attempt to spin it the other way. Is not "War in Afghanistan" more NPOV? I also see that certain types of mods are out in force.. How is the parent flamebait? Because he pointed out the facts?
I recently purchased a Dynex DX-WGDTC PCI card from Best Buy for 35 bucks, the chipset had some sort of aluminum heat sink over it. I took a gamble and bought it anyway with a feeling that it was manufactured by D-Link. Turns out I was right, it has an Atheros 5212 chipset and I was ecstatic. The madwifi drivers work spectacular with this card. A patched madwifi-ng driver will allow you to crack WEP using ARP injection *wink*I recommend you go out and buy one immediately. Best Buy does not love Linux. They hate it. It cuts into their profit margins by reducing the need for their number one money maker, Geek Squad visits to the home for virus and spyware removal. Go to your nearest Best Buy and ask them about Linux. You might even be lucky and find that your Best Buy is one of the few that hasn't pulled Linux off the shelves. You were lucky with that card. As far as BB is concerned, there is only one true OS. Microsoft Windows.
Gee, why ever would someone from The City misread the Second like that. I'm sure it's never happened before!
All you have to do is consider why the states would need such an amendment in the first place. There is no need for the Second to preform that task as the Tenth already does so:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Furthermore, the creation of state "militias" can be handled under Article I, Section 10:
No state shall, without consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace...
And now some quotes on the subject:
No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
"Letters from the Federal Farmer" (Pamphlet, 1788)
The great object is that ever man be armed.
Patrick Henry
Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Federal Constitution
The people are confirmed by the next article in the right to keep and bear their private arms.
Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 (describing Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights)
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.
All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cq6jSE2-picJ:w ww.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/dl.php%3Fdoc_id%3D72 70203+%22applies+only+to+members+of+a+select+milit ia+while+on+active+duty%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd= 3
In light of the proceeding, please pray tell how people with your world view invent this collective right hogwash. There is no evidence from the time period suggesting it, there is no way to correctly read the sentence that will support it. So please, tossing aside for a moment the relative crime statistics involved, what is the basis of your logic? Are you aware of some super secret Federalist paper that says: "Oh yeah, that Second amendment thing doesn't really mean what it says. It really means something totally different and inconsistent with the language of the rest of the Constitution. Feel free to ignore it at will."
I must point out that in the areas of the country that already have open carry, no war zone has developed. Despite the propaganda of certain organizations, most people are not willing to kill another, and if they are armed take the risk of getting killed themselves, over stupid things. If one thinks about it, no rational person would. And the irrational will likely do it whether there is a law or not.
Wow... so you're the kind of guy who would sell out all our Freedoms for safety. I must say, knowing that it will get me modded to hell, that makes you a coward and undeserving of those Freedoms. Franklin was right.
Where the hell are my mod points when I need them?!?!
Thank you for pointing this out. Too damned many people either don't know this or forget it.
Ultimately, I blame the schools for failing to teach our young anything useful about history and their country. They can't tell you hardly a thing about the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.
The fault in your logic is that the "child" in this case doesn't exist. They are in fact being prosecuted for showing up at the house of someone they thought was a child.
As there is no child, there is no crime.
Again, who wants to live in a world where talking/thinking about a crime can be prosecuted?
And yes, the cop should wait until he enters the bank and attempts to rob it. Until he does so, there is no crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I am compelled to point out that whereas a president might propose a given set of laws, budgets, and what not, it is Congress which actually approves such. Giving any president credit for such things seems a bit silly. Furthermore, if one wants to look at it this way... Who was in charge in Congress for the second half of Clinton's reign? Neither party gets a get out of jail free card. However, Tax and Spend was a democrat creation of the 80's.
Yeah, that's probably true. The point is still the same though. :)
The thing you have forgotten is that a lot, not all, of New Yorkers suffer from NYC Syndrome.... it is an incurable disease which makes the patient believe that NYC == Manhattan == The Universe. Nothing exists outside it with the possible exception of LA. And that is doubted in the worse cases. All TV, and most movie, execs suffer from this terrible disease. This is why all TV shows/movies are set in either NYC or LA. Even when the story doesn't actually require it.
And why are you lamenting the loss of the fiscal conservative Republicans in the same post as advocating socialized medicine?
Now if you're concern is more powerful weapons, but still within the realm of personal arms, like rocket launchers and the like, I'm not sure we'd have much more problems with them. Admittedly, I am presuming that most people wouldn't be interested in having them even if they could. I'd love to own a machine gun or two, but I'm not sure what I'd do with a rocket launcher.
Violence is the last resort. In the States it is often said that for redress against the government you have four boxes: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. Use in that order.
You only break out the Ammo box after all the others have failed. Without effective military grade weapons, not tanks and such.. I'm referring to personal arms, how would the Ammo box be of any use? If the people were disbarred of all arms but single shot bolt action rifles, the task of keeping government in check becomes significantly harder. When you throw in the abject failure of gun control to ever produce results, it doesn't seem logical to damage the right any further.
Of course, none of that touches on the far simpler question of self defense against non-governmental forces.
It doesn't say, the right of the State to keep and bear arms.. It doesn't say, the right of the State to establish Militias. It says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does mention the militia, that's true. But not as a limiting function. The thing I've always found odd is that the arguments for the "collective" or "State" right almost always depends on twisting the meaning of words, ignoring the second sentence, or trying to imagine that "the people" means something different in this amendment than it does in the others.
There is something to be said for the power of the bread and circuses.
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK. Not necessarily. After all, what I said is more or less what happened. They tried for many years to work within the system. Only when that utterly failed did they throw off that system. This was the basis of my statement.
Yeah, because the US is Afghanistan. Yep, that's a valid comparison.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
Hmmm... Three-hundred million people in the US. Even if only 1% decided that they had enough and were ready to revolt, that would be an army of around three million people. Now, if we decided that only one tenth of that was worth anything, you've still got an army of Three-hundred thousand people. And yes, "they" have tanks, airplanes, bombs, and all that stuff. If you get a band of people to ambush one of those tanks, now "we" have a tank. This wouldn't be a pitched battle with armies in the field, but an insurgency type action. What do you think 300,000 insurgents could do? hmmm?
What?!!!! I want what you're smoking. I can attest to the pathetic driving capabilities of people from Philadelphia. Forget about stopping at a stop sign when there's oncoming traffic. Red light? Sure, we can fit five more cars through as the opposing traffic advances.
Merging traffic? Naw, you don't need to merge. Just stick your nose in. If the guy hits you, keep driving.
More referring to their tendency to stop at yield signs, or speeding up to keep you from merging in front of them, despite their being more than adequate room and an empty lane next to them on the highway. True, you get this in nearly every state to some degree, but PA is among the worst of it from what I've seen. Philly and Pittsburgh drivers are, on the whole, better than PA drivers elsewhere in the state - not saying they're good either, but that they're better than the rest of the state. and required response time may not leave time for signaling or other kinds of politeness.The only excuse for not using your turn signal is in an emergency situation or if you are the only car on the road at 2 AM. Other than that, turn signals should always be used.
Sorry but that's bull...go find some real traffic (e.g. Northern Jersey, NY) and see if you say the same. When things happen you don't have time to either think about being courteous or taking the extra time to think which way you are going and then hit the turn signal appropriately - you only have time to react and keep from hitting the obstacles in front of you - whether it is a deer running into the road, or someone hitting their brakes.Turn signals are a courtesy, nothing else. They allow you to communicate your intentions, and while when possible they should be used, there is no reason to use them when unnecessary. IF you've driven in real traffic conditions, then you'd recognize their proper use and how to use them both aggressively and courteously and when it just isn't worth it (like when you have a half mile between you and surrounding vehicles, which is more often than not the case in most of the U.S.). Failure to signal when you're not in immediate danger of hitting the car in front of you is a sign that you don't know how to drive. I've driven in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego and various other cities and areas big and small. There is no excuse for failure to signal. Any rational given to not do so outside of a legitimate emergency is either a sign of laziness or thoughtlessness.
Is tailgating just a way to get where you're going in a hurry?
Learn to drive.
You forgot that almost all of the "terrible" edits were the horrible and inconceivable act of removing....... ID NUMBERS!!!! Clearly this is propaganda on a scale not seen since World War II! Damn them and removing those ID Numbers!!! (The Castro edit, if I'm reading the diff right, took place just shy of two years ago.. breaking news indeed) And I agree, calling it the "Invasion of Afghanistan" is simply an attempt to spin it the other way. Is not "War in Afghanistan" more NPOV? I also see that certain types of mods are out in force.. How is the parent flamebait? Because he pointed out the facts?
No, I didn't. And now that I think about it I have no idea why I didn't, must not have had enough coffee or something. Anyway, sorry about that.
All you have to do is consider why the states would need such an amendment in the first place. There is no need for the Second to preform that task as the Tenth already does so:
Furthermore, the creation of state "militias" can be handled under Article I, Section 10:
And now some quotes on the subject:
No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
"Letters from the Federal Farmer" (Pamphlet, 1788)
The great object is that ever man be armed.
Patrick Henry
Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Federal Constitution
The people are confirmed by the next article in the right to keep and bear their private arms.
Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 (describing Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights)
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey
militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing
army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.
All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies
to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or
not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the
Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military
service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol
involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general
kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as
applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment
we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cq6jSE2-picJ:
In light of the proceeding, please pray tell how people with your world view invent this collective right hogwash. There is no evidence from the time period suggesting it, there is no way to correctly read the sentence that will support it. So please, tossing aside for a moment the relative crime statistics involved, what is the basis of your logic? Are you aware of some super secret Federalist paper that says: "Oh yeah, that Second amendment thing doesn't really mean what it says. It really means something totally different and inconsistent with the language of the rest of the Constitution. Feel free to ignore it at will."
I must point out that in the areas of the country that already have open carry, no war zone has developed. Despite the propaganda of certain organizations, most people are not willing to kill another, and if they are armed take the risk of getting killed themselves, over stupid things. If one thinks about it, no rational person would. And the irrational will likely do it whether there is a law or not.
Wow... so you're the kind of guy who would sell out all our Freedoms for safety. I must say, knowing that it will get me modded to hell, that makes you a coward and undeserving of those Freedoms. Franklin was right.
Thank you for pointing this out. Too damned many people either don't know this or forget it.
Ultimately, I blame the schools for failing to teach our young anything useful about history and their country. They can't tell you hardly a thing about the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.
PS: I know why, I'm just lamenting.
I, for one, will not be buying NWN2 due to lack of a Linux version. I imagine I am far from alone on this matter.
As there is no child, there is no crime.
Again, who wants to live in a world where talking/thinking about a crime can be prosecuted?
And yes, the cop should wait until he enters the bank and attempts to rob it. Until he does so, there is no crime.