IMO, judges see themselves as being protectors of the innocent and punishers of the wicked. This is why the gun rights crowd got hammered in United States v. Miller; gangsters trying to get away with their crimes by appealing to the supreme court aren't exactly sympathetic defendants. By contrast, the Heller and McDonald decisions involved defendants carefully chosen as upstanding and law abiding citizens cruelly oppressed by government overstepping its bounds. Or to put it another way, Jack Miller was seen by the judges as an evildoer in need of their punishment whereas Dick Anthony Heller and Otis McDonald were seen by the judges as upstanding citizens in need of their protection.
In most cases and in the absence of binding precedent, IMO, judges all the way up to supreme court level will attempt to craft their decision in such a way as to produce an outcome that punishes the wicked and/or protects the innocent.
Which means the trick to getting a favorable outcome is carefully selecting who challenges the law. Let a slimebag criminal challenge the law first and we're all gonna get screwed in the rush to punish the wicked. Find someone cruelly oppressed by government drunk on its own power, on the other hand, and we've got a much better chance of a favorable outcome.
Your comment is based on a false premise: that the US government controls the internet. The US government does not control the internet. Control of the internet, such as it is, comes from organizations that are located within the borders of the United States but are not government departments or under the direct control of the US government except inasmuch as they are subject to US law. That, in my opinion, is a vastly superior situation to that which would obtain if the UN controlled the internet. And I say this as a non citizen of the US.
What is proposed is not removing control for the US government and handing it to the US, but removing control from non profit organizations that happen to exist in the US and handing it to the UN. Given the UNs structure, the US government would have more control over the internet if the internet were under the control of the UN.
The US government does not have the only say on the direction of the net as is. By contrast, the UN would have the only say on the direction of the net if control was transferred to it. A body in which few people place a great deal of faith.
If it is a place you have a right to be and the owner, leaseholder or a representative of the owner or leaseholder (security guards spring immediately to mind) has not forbidden audio and video recording, you may do so. If it is your home, you may do so. If it is your friends home, you may do so unless your friend forbids you to do so. It's always best to make the recording openly, being surreptitious may result in a successful wiretapping prosecution depending on what state you live in.
Freedom of the press does not refer to the profession of journalism, it refers to the printing press, which means the right to use a printing press and to distribute that which you have printed. This has been interpreted to cover radio, television and electronic information distribution as well.
If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
Sounds sensible. Except that it's not. Crime has been trending downward in the US for the last 2 decades at the same time gun control laws have been getting more permissive. At the same time, you can track which areas of the US have the greatest gun control simply by looking at a map of the US showing crime statistics. Now if your suggestion had merit, you'd look at that map and conclude that the areas with high crime had permissive gun control laws. Except that you'd be wrong.
advertising is an attempt to persuade someone to buy a product. You may argue that persuasion does not necessarily involve reason but IMO that's more an indictment of the reasoning that the advertisement tries to peddle than a serious argument that persuasion can be accomplished without reason.
The problem here is one you've already covered: polarization. You're either pro gun or anti gun. The pro gun folks aren't dealing with the people like you in the middle, they're dealing with people who would be perfectly happy to make the testing requirements so excessive that marine snipers couldn't pass, never mind joe blow who just wants to be able to protect himself.
When someone wearing armor is shot, they don't necessarily just shrug off the impact. The fact is, their body is still absorbing the energy of the bullet. The energy is just spread out a lot more widely. It's the difference between dead and cracked ribs or the difference between injured and serious bruising. He get's hit, chances are he's either falling over or taking a moment to recover. Either way, that gives the shooter and other bystanders the chance to generate a tactical advantage.
Cool. You do that. But if I'm stuck in a corner with the gunman between me and the exit, I'll thank you not to start dictating my response while fleeing for your life.
Yes. But nothing happens to you if you don't get a warrant and read it anyway. Because you are the person who is supposed to arrest you for breaking the law, and that just isn't happening.
Profit is, in fact, the creation of wealth. You take a bunch of input costs (labor, rent, materials etc) worth X and create a product or service worth X + Y, Y being profit. All those lovely socialist "rights" you're so enamored of only exist because of Y. without it, there are no roads, there are no police, there is no government. Degenerate and uncivilized indeed.
Actually, what we need are police who are accountable before the law. Not police who know they can illegally detain, search and shoot people with utter impunity because none of their buddies will arrest them and the prosecutor will not prosecute them.
Usually in these cases it's some scumbag trying to get away with shit and the court will go hunting for a rationale by which the evidence is admissible. In order to actually get an outcome which respects privacy, you would have to set it up such that it is a law abiding citizen getting his rights violated, like Heller v DC if you want a favorable ruling.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO, judges see themselves as being protectors of the innocent and punishers of the wicked. This is why the gun rights crowd got hammered in United States v. Miller; gangsters trying to get away with their crimes by appealing to the supreme court aren't exactly sympathetic defendants. By contrast, the Heller and McDonald decisions involved defendants carefully chosen as upstanding and law abiding citizens cruelly oppressed by government overstepping its bounds. Or to put it another way, Jack Miller was seen by the judges as an evildoer in need of their punishment whereas Dick Anthony Heller and Otis McDonald were seen by the judges as upstanding citizens in need of their protection.
In most cases and in the absence of binding precedent, IMO, judges all the way up to supreme court level will attempt to craft their decision in such a way as to produce an outcome that punishes the wicked and/or protects the innocent.
Which means the trick to getting a favorable outcome is carefully selecting who challenges the law. Let a slimebag criminal challenge the law first and we're all gonna get screwed in the rush to punish the wicked. Find someone cruelly oppressed by government drunk on its own power, on the other hand, and we've got a much better chance of a favorable outcome.
paint the whole thing white and hope [directly away from the sun] is the right direction.
Your comment is based on a false premise: that the US government controls the internet. The US government does not control the internet. Control of the internet, such as it is, comes from organizations that are located within the borders of the United States but are not government departments or under the direct control of the US government except inasmuch as they are subject to US law. That, in my opinion, is a vastly superior situation to that which would obtain if the UN controlled the internet. And I say this as a non citizen of the US.
What is proposed is not removing control for the US government and handing it to the US, but removing control from non profit organizations that happen to exist in the US and handing it to the UN. Given the UNs structure, the US government would have more control over the internet if the internet were under the control of the UN.
The US government does not have the only say on the direction of the net as is. By contrast, the UN would have the only say on the direction of the net if control was transferred to it. A body in which few people place a great deal of faith.
yes
If it is a place you have a right to be and the owner, leaseholder or a representative of the owner or leaseholder (security guards spring immediately to mind) has not forbidden audio and video recording, you may do so. If it is your home, you may do so. If it is your friends home, you may do so unless your friend forbids you to do so. It's always best to make the recording openly, being surreptitious may result in a successful wiretapping prosecution depending on what state you live in.
Freedom of the press does not refer to the profession of journalism, it refers to the printing press, which means the right to use a printing press and to distribute that which you have printed. This has been interpreted to cover radio, television and electronic information distribution as well.
Why indeed. If you need to ask, you're obviously past helping.
That's the European dream apparently
I think that's kinda the point of his remark.
If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
Sounds sensible. Except that it's not. Crime has been trending downward in the US for the last 2 decades at the same time gun control laws have been getting more permissive. At the same time, you can track which areas of the US have the greatest gun control simply by looking at a map of the US showing crime statistics. Now if your suggestion had merit, you'd look at that map and conclude that the areas with high crime had permissive gun control laws. Except that you'd be wrong.
Stand your ground has no relevance to the Trayvon Martin shooting. Zimmerman isn't claiming the shooting was justified under stand your ground.
You can want anything you want. If you can find the authority in the constitution to do so, you can even enforce your will on the rest of us.
Find the authority to do that in your state and the federal constitution first.
advertising is an attempt to persuade someone to buy a product. You may argue that persuasion does not necessarily involve reason but IMO that's more an indictment of the reasoning that the advertisement tries to peddle than a serious argument that persuasion can be accomplished without reason.
Only if they want to. You're exempt since I assume you don't want to.
you mean mexico? First words in the linked wiki: "Gun politics in Mexico have resulted in some of the strictest gun laws in the world"
Lots of people reload their own ammo. It's simple and cheap. Even compared to manufacturing something like the sten submachine gun
The problem here is one you've already covered: polarization. You're either pro gun or anti gun. The pro gun folks aren't dealing with the people like you in the middle, they're dealing with people who would be perfectly happy to make the testing requirements so excessive that marine snipers couldn't pass, never mind joe blow who just wants to be able to protect himself.
When someone wearing armor is shot, they don't necessarily just shrug off the impact. The fact is, their body is still absorbing the energy of the bullet. The energy is just spread out a lot more widely. It's the difference between dead and cracked ribs or the difference between injured and serious bruising. He get's hit, chances are he's either falling over or taking a moment to recover. Either way, that gives the shooter and other bystanders the chance to generate a tactical advantage.
Cool. You do that. But if I'm stuck in a corner with the gunman between me and the exit, I'll thank you not to start dictating my response while fleeing for your life.
Yes. But nothing happens to you if you don't get a warrant and read it anyway. Because you are the person who is supposed to arrest you for breaking the law, and that just isn't happening.
Profit is, in fact, the creation of wealth. You take a bunch of input costs (labor, rent, materials etc) worth X and create a product or service worth X + Y, Y being profit. All those lovely socialist "rights" you're so enamored of only exist because of Y. without it, there are no roads, there are no police, there is no government. Degenerate and uncivilized indeed.
Actually, what we need are police who are accountable before the law. Not police who know they can illegally detain, search and shoot people with utter impunity because none of their buddies will arrest them and the prosecutor will not prosecute them.
Usually in these cases it's some scumbag trying to get away with shit and the court will go hunting for a rationale by which the evidence is admissible. In order to actually get an outcome which respects privacy, you would have to set it up such that it is a law abiding citizen getting his rights violated, like Heller v DC if you want a favorable ruling.