Self defence is a natural right; I'd consider a law purporting to grant it to me as insolent, if I considered it at all.
I agree with your first statement--self defense is indeed a natural right.
About your second point: the Bill of Rights does NOT NOT NOT "grant" any rights. The idea that is does is a misconception held by many--some out of ignorance, others because it fits their agenda. It guarantees them.
Your fox and henhouse analogy was particularly apt in describing a the situation wherein the government is constrained from doing certain things, and is also the final arbiter of whether or not it can do so. I admit that you've really got me thinking about my original post, and the absurdity of a government guaranteeing the right of its citizens to engage in open revolt against it--this is, of course, one of the first "rights" that would be curtailed by anyone bent on tyranny.
I've got to ask: Given that you are of the opinion (or so I have distilled from our talk) that a government based on a written constitution is pretty much civic masturbation, what's your alternative suggestion? I'm not asking this out of any desire to trade political barbs or start a flame war, I'm honestly curious. In the words of Homer Simpson: Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The analogy breaks down. The second amendment is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most fundamental is: it's the wrong approach entirely.
Flawed or not, it's still the law of the land. Don't like it? Go ahead and try to change it. But don't dismiss it out of hand because you believe it is "flawed."
I won't even address the rest of your post. It is so naive that I had to doublecheck to see if you were indeed the same person who made the eloquent point in the original post.
Create a constitution: require the fox to promise on his honor to be good -- said promise to be enforced by the fox, at his sole discretion, upon himself.
To continue your analogy, this is why the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the hens to arm themselves.
It would be an interesting experiment if/. kept a forum tracking promises made and broken by our "representatives". They could be graded, not based on qualitative subjective issues, but on actual objectively quantitative performances on a variety of actions (or lack of), or contrary actions that could be mapped back to their promises. Examples would be actions such as pushing promised legislature and voting on the legislature of others who help achieve the goal of the politician's promises(I think most people would be shocked by the number of our "representatives" who don't actually even show up to vote on major issues).
Two things:
1) Most issue organizations already track representattives and how they vote on issues dear to that organization. For example, Gun Owners of America allows you to enter your zip code and see how your reps voted on 2nd amendment legislation throughout the session.
2) Why are you wanting Slashdot to do this FOR you? You can do it yourself, and easily. The Library of Congress' Thomas system lets you see every piece of legislation that's been introduced in the last 15 years or so. Who voted for what, who sponsored what bills, what bills died in committee, etc. If you care enough to bitch about your elected representatives not doing what you voted them into office to do, then DO SOMETHING about it--don't expect someone else to do it for you.
I have to say, while I believe he's completely gotten rid of Microsoft, I DON'T believe his shop is 100% open source. I have no doubt that all of his workstations are running on linux, that he's using open office, and some open source mail client, but something, somewhere, is closed source.
The story author made the point that Compiere is not ready for prime time, and it's probably the best example of an open source ERP system. By those lights, I again come to my original statement: "It is not possible to have an open source only shop" with the following qualifier: Unless all you're using right now is windows/office.
He makes the point about how certain things are hard to find
None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorize the plaintiff's solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants' premises against their will. Id does not authorize the breading down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorizes entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff's must get the defendants' permission. But it does do this: it brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission - with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission they are guilty of contempt of court.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. I thought Orwell said 1984, not 1976!
That's the most shocking example of doublethink I've ever seen.
Accept that you can't be a COMPLETELY open source shop. It can't happen.
That said, take a look at Abas ERP http://www.abas.de/en/index.htm). The server runs on linux (or Windows, or HP-UX, or even AS/400 believe it or not) and the clients can run either windows/MS Office, or linux/Openoffice. It's a full featured ERP system, and is frankly pretty cheap. Dirt cheap. If you've priced ERP systems in the past, you'll be stunned.
If you're serious about going the "as open source as possible" route, give their Virginia office a call. Tell them then you heard about them from a large user in east Tennessee. If you think they're worth investigating further and want to see a business actually using it, I can arrange for you to tour my location and talk to my users.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Abas, but my company is a large customer.
I even wound up talking to India a few months ago while trying to order a replacement power supply and bigger Hard Drive for a Latitude laptop. Dell outsourced (or used to anyway) the SALES department for laptop components.
I work in a 2-man IT shop with around 75 users, and I have my own Dell sales rep, who has her own team of specialists. When I want something, I talk directly with one of them.
You're a corporate customer with an IT department big enough to have its very own PHB, and you're ordering through the normal sales channels? What gives?
Also, there doesn't seem to be any way for Microsoft to do backward compatibility. I don't think there is any code in the entire world that would let a 2.0Ghz G5 chip emulate a P3 733.
Has anyone ever written a system by which a large number of average chess players could collaborate to play a single game?
Several years ago, there was a "Kasparov Against the World" event, wherein people could log into the net and vote for moved suggested by 5 grandmasters. This failed miserably (i.e. people sought to fix the voting, thus ruining the experiment.)
OTOH, WorldChessNetwork does a "Grandmaster v. Everyone" event once a week or so, where all logged in players play against a GM by discussing, and then voting for the move. I've NEVER seen the GM lose.
Oh, not so ironic. Just because i believe there should be controls on gun ownership doesn't mean I'm not patriotic or don't believe in defending my (and your) rights
I'm not suggesting your're not patriotic (for all I know, you're a member of the ACLU or a 1st or 4th amendment activist.) Unlike some of those I associate with, I see past the 2nd amendment to the entire constitution and bill of rights. I was, however, suggesting your sig was quite ironic given that the right to bear arms is one of those essential liberties, and gun control advocates, for the msot part, want to trade them for a little temporary safety.
I just don't interpret "An organized militia being..." as granting an unfettered right for everyone to own unlimited untraceable weapons.
Most weapons aren't untraceable (unless you're talking about something made before 1898 that's not required to ever be on paper, or something made before 1968 that might never have been logged in someone's records.) Most modern firearms are easily traceable, and traces are done all the time. I'm an FFL (type 03, collector) and would have to cooperate with BATF if any of the weapons I've ever owned ended up at a crime scene somewhere. From manufacturer, to distributor, to dealer, to original purchaser, and beyond, BATF tracks weapons found at crime scenes.
I don't believe we need much more than this--and certainly not a log of every gun owner and what they own.
When the Constitution was written the most advanced weapon was a musket and the military was actually made up of volunteers from state militias who brought their own guns. Things have changed.
I disagree with this statement--or at least the point you're trying to make with it--completely. That's like suggesting that since we didn't have radio, television, or the internet in 1791, that none of these things are protected by the 1st amendment. If the 2nd amendment truly is obsolete (and I don't agree that it is) then change the constitution the right way and (try to) amend it. Don't weaken the entire document by picking and choosing which parts of it are "relevent" to modern times.
Maybe you think I am more extreme than I really am
Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. The gun manufacturer lawsuits are a hot button for me, because there is little to no merit in any I've seen. I tend to assume things about proponents of them.
lets face it - if I blow away everyone in a McDonalds my biggest worry in being identified is the car I drove up in and NOT the ballistics of the weapons I used. That's just screwy in my opinion.
I agree--but I don't see the whole ballistic fingerprinting thing (which is what I Assume you're referring to--if not, I'm sorry) as being a tool to locate crmininals (which I agree is a good thing--anyone who blows away everyone at a mcdonalds is someone we need to find, using all the tools we can) but rather a means to backdoor gun registration--which is a neccessary prelude to confiscation.
I wish you would have replied to my other post--it would have been a much more interesting conversation, I think.:)
What percentage of the arms borne by National Guards are supplied by the guards themselves? When was the last time they relied on self-supply, the early 1800s? Is there some other government milita, with a different supply source?
If you'd have looked 10 USC 311, you'd have noticed that the National Guard is not the only component of the militia.
Furthermore, the last time our troops relied on self-supply (though not of arms per se) was... 2004. Army units don't have all the gear they need, and in many cases, the troops end up buying it themselves. One such area is ballistic vests--there, shamefully, aren't enough to go around, so the soldiers end up buying the $1000+ items themselves. There are websites out there dedicated to supplying troops with such items as they can collect the money and purchase them.
When we get a drivers license, we pass a driving test, which includes such things as parallel parking on the street, which we might never do. Even if we use exclusively valet services, and drive only on freeways, we are required to practice, and be certified in, dry runs of the more specific duties. We even have simulators for unexpected, and potentially grisly, crises and accidents.
You don't, however, need a driver's license to operate a car on private property. Only when you go on the public roads does the training you note above become required. Personally, I support this analogy when it comes to guns--anyone who wants to carry a weapon should have appropriate training. CCW licenses are a good thing, I think... at least when they're adminstered fairly (unlike states like California or New Jersey where you have to be the sheriff's best buddy in order to receive such a thing.)
I propose hunting not for "grins ang giggles", but to ensure that anyone with a gun who finds themself forced to choose whether to use it on a person, has at least fired it at an animal.
What exactly does this accomplish, other than perhaps desensitizing people who own weapons to the result of their use on a living target?
Many people who would shoot a person and regret it, or lose their cool and misuse the weapon in a crisis, would either realize that the decision to shoot is too much for them, or would learn to handle the responsibility, before their life, and that of others around them, is at stake.
Many training classes are offered to do just this. I've taken several, and recommend anyone who owns a firearm do so as well. It is not necessary to butcher an animal to learn the above.
Gun owners should have liability insurance, like drivers, and collectively pay the costs the risky hobby incurs every year.
I disagree--this is just another attempt to raise the barrier of entry into the shooting sports. Also, shooting is NOT a dangerous hobby--millions of people do it daily without hurting themselves or others.
We don't want dilletantes in any of the roles protected by the Constitution
I agree with you in spirit, but maybe not in practice. The constitution protects all equally. How would you feel being told you couldn't operate a website because you didn't have your journalists license, or preach whatever religion you subscribe to because you weren't an ordained minister?
To be clear, the 2nd Amendment is most clearly a justification for allowing the people to keep and bear arms, so those arms can supply state militias.
Well, yes and no. The people ARE the militia--they're not "supplying" arms to the state, they're supplying their own tools.
We don't have a self-armed militia.
You'd be surprised. Look up 10 USC 311, last updated in the 1950s.
So we should drop the 2nd Amendment, as we've de facto ignored and contravened it.
Only as far as allowing the state and federal government to infringe on the rights protected by it. The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms so that they may make up the body of the militia. The actual task of arming and training the militia is delegated to congress elsewhere in the constitution (namely Article 1, Section 8.)
I would favor an amendment stating "the 2nd amendment is repealed"
It certainly is your right to favor that--I've got to admit, I respect you for at least wanting to change the constitution instead of simply running roughshod over it like the Brady and VPC types.
In fact, I believe that every gun license should require the holder to attend at least one live animal hunt a year, a "dry run" for the otherwise purely theoretical scenario of shooting a person.
This would be an outrage. Despite what some would have you believe, gunowners aren't some bloodthirsty group who exist merely to kill things. Some of us, myself included, don't hunt, and really don't want to. I own guns for self defense, because I'm a collector, and because I shoot competitively. I certainly would not support something FORCING me to kill an animal on an anual basis, just for grins and giggles.
We'll all be much safer when guns are in the hands of people who have used them properly, rather than treating them like a toy, or a magic wand, or a safety blanket.
When the history was actually revealed, it turned out that we were far further ahead of the Soviets in almost all areas than anyone suspected.
The soviets also had an edge or two on us. I remember the story of the AA-12 missle (fighter launched, air to air) which was jokingly called the AMRAAMSKI because it was so similar to our AIM-120 AMRAAM missle. It turns out that alot of the missle design WAS actually our stuff, but that the Soviets had made significant improvements to the design--their copy was better than the original.
No, it isn't, and I agree with your correction of the parent post. However, I have to say, that threat most certainly IS plausible.
One of the biggest slams against open source is "How do you know what all of these random people around the world have put into the code," and I think that applies even more strongly against something that's been outsourced.
The solution to both, obviously, is to audit the code--if you're not satisfied it's safe, don't use it. But not everyone is sensible enough to do so...
Anyone who has read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" knows that the events which kick off the 3rd World War are indeed a Siberean oil line being blown up, thus damaging their oil reserves unrepairably.
Actually, it wasn't Siberia, it was Tadzhikistan (hence the muslim terrorists blowing the place up) and it wasn't a pipeline, it was an oilfield and associated refinery.
It also wasn't unrepairably damaged, just the repair window was so long (30+ months) that the Soviet economy would be ruined before the field started to produce again.
As much as I dislike the RIAA and how they treat artists, I have to disagree with your statement about them doing nothing.
They provide: Recording studios and equipment Initial cash for distribution Advertising Manufacturing
Actually, the ARTIST pays for almost all of that. All the Record companies actually do is provide a loan to the artist so that they can accomplish all of them above--and to top it all off, the record company ends up owning the end product.
It's like buying a house, paying the bank for 30 years, and at the end instead of giving you clear title, the bank says "Thanks for the house."
Anyone remember the days when Microsoft just wrote software? Why do they have to get their hands into everything? Can't they be satisfied just making umpteen billion dollars in profit a year on their operating system and office product line and leave the rest of the industry to try to eek out a profit on the crumbs leftover?
Maybe Microsoft thinks that their days of OS domination are numbered? Isn't that what most FOSS leaders like Linus, ESR, etc continue to say? That software is a commodity?
Despite what I think of their way of doing business, MS has some really smart people running it. I think it's more than a little likely they've considered the above, and want to make sure that the company survives life after the Windows monopoly.
There is a logical error in your argument because we have no way of knowing what the death rate from handguns would be in these cities if there were no gun control laws.
I agree--we can't know the answer to that. However, I never mentioned death rates--I merely pointed out that there is no shortage of armed crminals in New York, Chicago, or DC. In this, gun control has quite obviously failed in keeping weapons out of the hands of crminals, but succeeded wildly in disarming the law abiding. This is NOT debatable--it's fact.
Also, your argument that restrictions make no difference does not take into account that there is an extensive trade in guns purchased in other states and brought into these cities. If guns were more tightly controlled everywhere the availability of guns for criminals in these cities would likely be much less.
It would probably be less, but not MUCH less. Wittness the UK, where gun ownership among crminals has increased dramatically since 1997. Lawful owners have been all but eliminated, the number of unlawful owners have skyrocketed, and the UK's neighbors all have strict gun control laws--not to mention the UK is a damned island. Say all 50 states end up with gun laws similar to DC, and somehow the large number of guns already in the hands of people (280,000,000 of them--guns, not people, that is) are dealt with. You don't think some enterprising soul will start importing container loads of weapons from 3rd world countries, where full auto AK-47s go for $25? Or steal them from police, or the army?
The only answer to the "gun control doesn't work because the laws in $PLACE are less restrictive" is the complete destruction of every firearm on earth, and the removal of all knowledge required to produce more--which is about as probable as Bush submitting a balanced budget to congress.
Reports of the recent attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for who they sell to have been subtley spun by the gun lobby to make it appear ridiculous.
For the most part, they are.
Colt was selling handguns to a few large-volume gun dealers who were shipping those guns illegally to areas with restrictive gun laws. Colt knew these dealers were running guns to New York and selling them illegally (they hd been informed by law-enforcement) and yet did not stop selling to them.
"High Volume" dealers are more likely to see their products sold illegally, because they sell more guns. That said, if these dealers are commiting crimes they should be held both criminally and civilly responsible. There is an entire federal agency that has a mandate to do this! What the hell is BATFE doing if they're not arresting dealers who they KNOW (according to you) are committing felonies? Why do those dealers still have their FFLs? Why doesn't BATFE TELL Colt, S&W, etc that they're not allowed to ship weapons to those dealers anymore? What's the purpose of having this massive federal agency if it isn't doing it's job, and why should the manufacturer be blamed for the failings of government?
I'm just as concerned about gun runners as you are, you know--it's why I don't object to all the damned paperwork I have to keep (I'm a federally licensed gun collector, and have to put up with most of the same stuff a dealer has to) and why I don't object to the background check when I buy a weapon from a dealer. But what the goal of every major gun control group is is NOT "keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals" but the desctruction of the right to keep and bear arms. And these lawsuits are just a tool they're using to acheive that aim, and attempt to do with the courts what they cannot do with the legislature.
Why--constitutionally--is the 2nd amendment incompatible with a standing army?
I understand you personally believe the two are incompatible, but it seems to me that your belief is constructed ONLY to further your other conviction--namely that the 2nd amendment needs to be abolished--without ANYTHING to actually back it up. In short, your argument is "The 2nd amendment conflicts with a standing army because it reinforces my opinion that it is obsolete and needs to be done away with."
Slashdot Mirror
Self defence is a natural right; I'd consider a law purporting to grant it to me as insolent, if I considered it at all.
I agree with your first statement--self defense is indeed a natural right.
About your second point: the Bill of Rights does NOT NOT NOT "grant" any rights. The idea that is does is a misconception held by many--some out of ignorance, others because it fits their agenda. It guarantees them.
Your fox and henhouse analogy was particularly apt in describing a the situation wherein the government is constrained from doing certain things, and is also the final arbiter of whether or not it can do so. I admit that you've really got me thinking about my original post, and the absurdity of a government guaranteeing the right of its citizens to engage in open revolt against it--this is, of course, one of the first "rights" that would be curtailed by anyone bent on tyranny.
I've got to ask: Given that you are of the opinion (or so I have distilled from our talk) that a government based on a written constitution is pretty much civic masturbation, what's your alternative suggestion? I'm not asking this out of any desire to trade political barbs or start a flame war, I'm honestly curious. In the words of Homer Simpson: Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The analogy breaks down. The second amendment is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most fundamental is: it's the wrong approach entirely.
Flawed or not, it's still the law of the land. Don't like it? Go ahead and try to change it. But don't dismiss it out of hand because you believe it is "flawed."
I won't even address the rest of your post. It is so naive that I had to doublecheck to see if you were indeed the same person who made the eloquent point in the original post.
Create a constitution: require the fox to promise on his honor to be good -- said promise to be enforced by the fox, at his sole discretion, upon himself.
To continue your analogy, this is why the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the hens to arm themselves.
It would be an interesting experiment if /. kept a forum tracking promises made and broken by our "representatives". They could be graded, not based on qualitative subjective issues, but on actual objectively quantitative performances on a variety of actions (or lack of), or contrary actions that could be mapped back to their promises. Examples would be actions such as pushing promised legislature and voting on the legislature of others who help achieve the goal of the politician's promises(I think most people would be shocked by the number of our "representatives" who don't actually even show up to vote on major issues).
Two things:
1) Most issue organizations already track representattives and how they vote on issues dear to that organization. For example, Gun Owners of America allows you to enter your zip code and see how your reps voted on 2nd amendment legislation throughout the session.
2) Why are you wanting Slashdot to do this FOR you? You can do it yourself, and easily. The Library of Congress' Thomas system lets you see every piece of legislation that's been introduced in the last 15 years or so. Who voted for what, who sponsored what bills, what bills died in committee, etc. If you care enough to bitch about your elected representatives not doing what you voted them into office to do, then DO SOMETHING about it--don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Does it do BOMs and manufacturing activities?
Yes. The system was actually designed with small-midsized manufacturers as the target customer base--or so I've been told, at any rate.
BOMs, worksteps, scheduling, job time accounting, serialization, etc.
Yeah, it could never happen.
I have to say, while I believe he's completely gotten rid of Microsoft, I DON'T believe his shop is 100% open source. I have no doubt that all of his workstations are running on linux, that he's using open office, and some open source mail client, but something, somewhere, is closed source.
The story author made the point that Compiere is not ready for prime time, and it's probably the best example of an open source ERP system. By those lights, I again come to my original statement: "It is not possible to have an open source only shop" with the following qualifier: Unless all you're using right now is windows/office.
He makes the point about how certain things are hard to find
None of us would wish to whittle down that principle in the slightest. But the order sought in this case is not a search warrant. It does not authorize the plaintiff's solicitors or anyone else to enter the defendants' premises against their will. Id does not authorize the breading down of any doors, nor the slipping in by a back door, nor getting in by an open door or window. It only authorizes entry and inspection by the permission of the defendants. The plaintiff's must get the defendants' permission. But it does do this: it brings pressure on the defendants to give permission. It does more. It actually orders them to give permission - with, I suppose, the result that if they do not give permission they are guilty of contempt of court.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. I thought Orwell said 1984, not 1976!
That's the most shocking example of doublethink I've ever seen.
What about you silly Brits, are you next?
Next? They were FIRST!
Cameras now watch pretty much everything that happens in larger cities in the UK. Think about that for a minute.
Accept that you can't be a COMPLETELY open source shop. It can't happen.
That said, take a look at Abas ERP http://www.abas.de/en/index.htm). The server runs on linux (or Windows, or HP-UX, or even AS/400 believe it or not) and the clients can run either windows/MS Office, or linux/Openoffice. It's a full featured ERP system, and is frankly pretty cheap. Dirt cheap. If you've priced ERP systems in the past, you'll be stunned.
If you're serious about going the "as open source as possible" route, give their Virginia office a call. Tell them then you heard about them from a large user in east Tennessee. If you think they're worth investigating further and want to see a business actually using it, I can arrange for you to tour my location and talk to my users.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Abas, but my company is a large customer.
Not unless they did it this week. I got one of those "Shawn" people about two weeks ago.
If you're calling for Inspiron or Dimension, you get an Indian. If you're calling for Latitue, Precision, or Optiplex, you get an American.
I even wound up talking to India a few months ago while trying to order a replacement power supply and bigger Hard Drive for a Latitude laptop. Dell outsourced (or used to anyway) the SALES department for laptop components.
I work in a 2-man IT shop with around 75 users, and I have my own Dell sales rep, who has her own team of specialists. When I want something, I talk directly with one of them.
You're a corporate customer with an IT department big enough to have its very own PHB, and you're ordering through the normal sales channels? What gives?
Tomorrow, the judge rules on whether SCO has "identified with specificity" the alleged infringements.
... To be held before Judge Wells.
Magistrate Notice of Hearing
Motion hearing set for 10:00 2/6/04 for all pending motions:
You might want to get a calendar from this year. Feb 6th is Friday--tomorrow is the 4th.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any way for Microsoft to do backward compatibility. I don't think there is any code in the entire world that would let a 2.0Ghz G5 chip emulate a P3 733.
:)
Because, after all, it's not like Microsoft bought virtualPC or anything, right?
Has anyone ever written a system by which a large number of average chess players could collaborate to play a single game?
Several years ago, there was a "Kasparov Against the World" event, wherein people could log into the net and vote for moved suggested by 5 grandmasters. This failed miserably (i.e. people sought to fix the voting, thus ruining the experiment.)
OTOH, WorldChessNetwork does a "Grandmaster v. Everyone" event once a week or so, where all logged in players play against a GM by discussing, and then voting for the move. I've NEVER seen the GM lose.
Oh, not so ironic. Just because i believe there should be controls on gun ownership doesn't mean I'm not patriotic or don't believe in defending my (and your) rights
:)
I'm not suggesting your're not patriotic (for all I know, you're a member of the ACLU or a 1st or 4th amendment activist.) Unlike some of those I associate with, I see past the 2nd amendment to the entire constitution and bill of rights. I was, however, suggesting your sig was quite ironic given that the right to bear arms is one of those essential liberties, and gun control advocates, for the msot part, want to trade them for a little temporary safety.
I just don't interpret "An organized militia being..." as granting an unfettered right for everyone to own unlimited untraceable weapons.
Most weapons aren't untraceable (unless you're talking about something made before 1898 that's not required to ever be on paper, or something made before 1968 that might never have been logged in someone's records.) Most modern firearms are easily traceable, and traces are done all the time. I'm an FFL (type 03, collector) and would have to cooperate with BATF if any of the weapons I've ever owned ended up at a crime scene somewhere. From manufacturer, to distributor, to dealer, to original purchaser, and beyond, BATF tracks weapons found at crime scenes.
I don't believe we need much more than this--and certainly not a log of every gun owner and what they own.
When the Constitution was written the most advanced weapon was a musket and the military was actually made up of volunteers from state militias who brought their own guns. Things have changed.
I disagree with this statement--or at least the point you're trying to make with it--completely. That's like suggesting that since we didn't have radio, television, or the internet in 1791, that none of these things are protected by the 1st amendment. If the 2nd amendment truly is obsolete (and I don't agree that it is) then change the constitution the right way and (try to) amend it. Don't weaken the entire document by picking and choosing which parts of it are "relevent" to modern times.
Maybe you think I am more extreme than I really am
Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. The gun manufacturer lawsuits are a hot button for me, because there is little to no merit in any I've seen. I tend to assume things about proponents of them.
lets face it - if I blow away everyone in a McDonalds my biggest worry in being identified is the car I drove up in and NOT the ballistics of the weapons I used. That's just screwy in my opinion.
I agree--but I don't see the whole ballistic fingerprinting thing (which is what I Assume you're referring to--if not, I'm sorry) as being a tool to locate crmininals (which I agree is a good thing--anyone who blows away everyone at a mcdonalds is someone we need to find, using all the tools we can) but rather a means to backdoor gun registration--which is a neccessary prelude to confiscation.
I wish you would have replied to my other post--it would have been a much more interesting conversation, I think.
What percentage of the arms borne by National Guards are supplied by the guards themselves? When was the last time they relied on self-supply, the early 1800s? Is there some other government milita, with a different supply source?
If you'd have looked 10 USC 311, you'd have noticed that the National Guard is not the only component of the militia.
Furthermore, the last time our troops relied on self-supply (though not of arms per se) was... 2004. Army units don't have all the gear they need, and in many cases, the troops end up buying it themselves. One such area is ballistic vests--there, shamefully, aren't enough to go around, so the soldiers end up buying the $1000+ items themselves. There are websites out there dedicated to supplying troops with such items as they can collect the money and purchase them.
When we get a drivers license, we pass a driving test, which includes such things as parallel parking on the street, which we might never do. Even if we use exclusively valet services, and drive only on freeways, we are required to practice, and be certified in, dry runs of the more specific duties. We even have simulators for unexpected, and potentially grisly, crises and accidents.
You don't, however, need a driver's license to operate a car on private property. Only when you go on the public roads does the training you note above become required. Personally, I support this analogy when it comes to guns--anyone who wants to carry a weapon should have appropriate training. CCW licenses are a good thing, I think... at least when they're adminstered fairly (unlike states like California or New Jersey where you have to be the sheriff's best buddy in order to receive such a thing.)
I propose hunting not for "grins ang giggles", but to ensure that anyone with a gun who finds themself forced to choose whether to use it on a person, has at least fired it at an animal.
What exactly does this accomplish, other than perhaps desensitizing people who own weapons to the result of their use on a living target?
Many people who would shoot a person and regret it, or lose their cool and misuse the weapon in a crisis, would either realize that the decision to shoot is too much for them, or would learn to handle the responsibility, before their life, and that of others around them, is at stake.
Many training classes are offered to do just this. I've taken several, and recommend anyone who owns a firearm do so as well. It is not necessary to butcher an animal to learn the above.
Gun owners should have liability insurance, like drivers, and collectively pay the costs the risky hobby incurs every year.
I disagree--this is just another attempt to raise the barrier of entry into the shooting sports. Also, shooting is NOT a dangerous hobby--millions of people do it daily without hurting themselves or others.
We don't want dilletantes in any of the roles protected by the Constitution
I agree with you in spirit, but maybe not in practice. The constitution protects all equally. How would you feel being told you couldn't operate a website because you didn't have your journalists license, or preach whatever religion you subscribe to because you weren't an ordained minister?
To be clear, the 2nd Amendment is most clearly a justification for allowing the people to keep and bear arms, so those arms can supply state militias.
Well, yes and no. The people ARE the militia--they're not "supplying" arms to the state, they're supplying their own tools.
We don't have a self-armed militia.
You'd be surprised. Look up 10 USC 311, last updated in the 1950s.
So we should drop the 2nd Amendment, as we've de facto ignored and contravened it.
Only as far as allowing the state and federal government to infringe on the rights protected by it. The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms so that they may make up the body of the militia. The actual task of arming and training the militia is delegated to congress elsewhere in the constitution (namely Article 1, Section 8.)
I would favor an amendment stating "the 2nd amendment is repealed"
It certainly is your right to favor that--I've got to admit, I respect you for at least wanting to change the constitution instead of simply running roughshod over it like the Brady and VPC types.
In fact, I believe that every gun license should require the holder to attend at least one live animal hunt a year, a "dry run" for the otherwise purely theoretical scenario of shooting a person.
This would be an outrage. Despite what some would have you believe, gunowners aren't some bloodthirsty group who exist merely to kill things. Some of us, myself included, don't hunt, and really don't want to. I own guns for self defense, because I'm a collector, and because I shoot competitively. I certainly would not support something FORCING me to kill an animal on an anual basis, just for grins and giggles.
We'll all be much safer when guns are in the hands of people who have used them properly, rather than treating them like a toy, or a magic wand, or a safety blanket.
On this, we agree completely.
When the history was actually revealed, it turned out that we were far further ahead of the Soviets in almost all areas than anyone suspected.
The soviets also had an edge or two on us. I remember the story of the AA-12 missle (fighter launched, air to air) which was jokingly called the AMRAAMSKI because it was so similar to our AIM-120 AMRAAM missle. It turns out that alot of the missle design WAS actually our stuff, but that the Soviets had made significant improvements to the design--their copy was better than the original.
That's not at all what's going on today...is it?
No, it isn't, and I agree with your correction of the parent post. However, I have to say, that threat most certainly IS plausible.
One of the biggest slams against open source is "How do you know what all of these random people around the world have put into the code," and I think that applies even more strongly against something that's been outsourced.
The solution to both, obviously, is to audit the code--if you're not satisfied it's safe, don't use it. But not everyone is sensible enough to do so...
Anyone who has read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" knows that the events which kick off the 3rd World War are indeed a Siberean oil line being blown up, thus damaging their oil reserves unrepairably.
:)
Actually, it wasn't Siberia, it was Tadzhikistan (hence the muslim terrorists blowing the place up) and it wasn't a pipeline, it was an oilfield and associated refinery.
It also wasn't unrepairably damaged, just the repair window was so long (30+ months) that the Soviet economy would be ruined before the field started to produce again.
Not that I'm nitpicking, or anything...
As much as I dislike the RIAA and how they treat artists, I have to disagree with your statement about them doing nothing.
They provide:
Recording studios and equipment
Initial cash for distribution
Advertising
Manufacturing
Actually, the ARTIST pays for almost all of that. All the Record companies actually do is provide a loan to the artist so that they can accomplish all of them above--and to top it all off, the record company ends up owning the end product.
It's like buying a house, paying the bank for 30 years, and at the end instead of giving you clear title, the bank says "Thanks for the house."
Anyone remember the days when Microsoft just wrote software? Why do they have to get their hands into everything? Can't they be satisfied just making umpteen billion dollars in profit a year on their operating system and office product line and leave the rest of the industry to try to eek out a profit on the crumbs leftover?
Maybe Microsoft thinks that their days of OS domination are numbered? Isn't that what most FOSS leaders like Linus, ESR, etc continue to say? That software is a commodity?
Despite what I think of their way of doing business, MS has some really smart people running it. I think it's more than a little likely they've considered the above, and want to make sure that the company survives life after the Windows monopoly.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
By the way, your sig is incredibly ironic, given the conversation we're having.
There is a logical error in your argument because we have no way of knowing what the death rate from handguns would be in these cities if there were no gun control laws.
I agree--we can't know the answer to that. However, I never mentioned death rates--I merely pointed out that there is no shortage of armed crminals in New York, Chicago, or DC. In this, gun control has quite obviously failed in keeping weapons out of the hands of crminals, but succeeded wildly in disarming the law abiding. This is NOT debatable--it's fact.
Also, your argument that restrictions make no difference does not take into account that there is an extensive trade in guns purchased in other states and brought into these cities. If guns were more tightly controlled everywhere the availability of guns for criminals in these cities would likely be much less.
It would probably be less, but not MUCH less. Wittness the UK, where gun ownership among crminals has increased dramatically since 1997. Lawful owners have been all but eliminated, the number of unlawful owners have skyrocketed, and the UK's neighbors all have strict gun control laws--not to mention the UK is a damned island. Say all 50 states end up with gun laws similar to DC, and somehow the large number of guns already in the hands of people (280,000,000 of them--guns, not people, that is) are dealt with. You don't think some enterprising soul will start importing container loads of weapons from 3rd world countries, where full auto AK-47s go for $25? Or steal them from police, or the army?
The only answer to the "gun control doesn't work because the laws in $PLACE are less restrictive" is the complete destruction of every firearm on earth, and the removal of all knowledge required to produce more--which is about as probable as Bush submitting a balanced budget to congress.
Reports of the recent attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for who they sell to have been subtley spun by the gun lobby to make it appear ridiculous.
For the most part, they are.
Colt was selling handguns to a few large-volume gun dealers who were shipping those guns illegally to areas with restrictive gun laws. Colt knew these dealers were running guns to New York and selling them illegally (they hd been informed by law-enforcement) and yet did not stop selling to them.
"High Volume" dealers are more likely to see their products sold illegally, because they sell more guns. That said, if these dealers are commiting crimes they should be held both criminally and civilly responsible. There is an entire federal agency that has a mandate to do this! What the hell is BATFE doing if they're not arresting dealers who they KNOW (according to you) are committing felonies? Why do those dealers still have their FFLs? Why doesn't BATFE TELL Colt, S&W, etc that they're not allowed to ship weapons to those dealers anymore? What's the purpose of having this massive federal agency if it isn't doing it's job, and why should the manufacturer be blamed for the failings of government?
I'm just as concerned about gun runners as you are, you know--it's why I don't object to all the damned paperwork I have to keep (I'm a federally licensed gun collector, and have to put up with most of the same stuff a dealer has to) and why I don't object to the background check when I buy a weapon from a dealer. But what the goal of every major gun control group is is NOT "keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals" but the desctruction of the right to keep and bear arms. And these lawsuits are just a tool they're using to acheive that aim, and attempt to do with the courts what they cannot do with the legislature.
You STILL haven't answered the question though:
Why--constitutionally--is the 2nd amendment incompatible with a standing army?
I understand you personally believe the two are incompatible, but it seems to me that your belief is constructed ONLY to further your other conviction--namely that the 2nd amendment needs to be abolished--without ANYTHING to actually back it up. In short, your argument is "The 2nd amendment conflicts with a standing army because it reinforces my opinion that it is obsolete and needs to be done away with."