While I'm not a big fan of Gore, the man does have an edge over GWB. He's just such a little kid trying to be his dad that I'd like to puke.
Guess you've never heard of Senator Albert Gore, Sr. then? Gore's father was in politics too, although I do not believe he ever made an attempt at the presidency. As for the tax issues you describe above, you just picked on one of my pet peeves: YES, ACROSS THE BOARD TAX CUTS BENEFIT THE RICH MOST OF ALL.
Let's examine why this is so. We have, in this country, what is known as a progressive income tax. The more you earn, the higher percentage of that income you give to the IRS.
Why is it "squandering" tax cuts to give the largest share back to the people who paid the largest share of the tax? ANYTHING else is what is unfair. No matter HOW much money a person makes, it is NOT right to feel you can dig a good chunk of it out of their pocket, because they can afford it.
Also, question: Isn't there some other place in the constitution that states that no US treaty can violate the provisions of the constitution? This is where the heart of the matter lies.
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
A treaty that violated the constitution could never be ratified (this would exceed the authority of the United States). As I am not a lawyer, I probably don't understand the subtleties ("Well, yes, I shot him, your honor, but Colt Firearms is the real criminal here") and my cut and dried view is probably being laughed at by attourneys right now.
It doesn't work once the story gets archived, so the links listed above won't function properly after then. Is there a solution in the works for the slashcode?
That was actually in the last release of slash... but it was removed when Taco found out it had been patented...:)
I'd send this by private email, but you don't have one listed. Just wanted to thank you for summing up the issue so succinctly. +5, Insightful in my book.
Recently I went to pickup my 6th grade little sister at her school, and I was sort of shocked to see that they still had P-90 computers.
This is a question for the poster, and not the candidates:
Why is it neccessary for an elementary or middle school to have faster machines than this? I work for a company that donates our obsolete equipment to community organizations (schools, churches, day-care, etc) and 99% of the machines donated over the last 18 months have been HP Vectra XU 5/90s, or Compaq Deskpro 4/66's!
What's this requirement for beefier hardware? At the educational level we're talking here, the idea should be basic familiarity with the machine, it's OS, and basic applications. A 90MHz Pentium will more than adaquately fill that need.
I live in Greene County, Tennessee, and our local high schools are over-crowded to the point where the gym, cafeteria, trailers parked outside, and any other enclosed, flat area is being used as a classroom. The average class size is over thirty. But they DO have modern PCs, and a 256k dedicated ISDN link running to a T1 shared between four schools. So I guess it balances out, huh?
Get a grip. There are far more important things to spend our educational dollars on than a faster machine from Dell that little Johnny can play quake on, run WMP, and use ICQ all at the same time.
I also don't understand how an alternative that is different in only one respect (open sourced) and supposedly has the exact same functionality is superior to the closed source version. To me, a well-designed program is a well-designed program, whether it was designed in total secrecy or GPLed.
It has nothing to do with the GPL in this case. What this is about is being able to SEE what this software REALLY does. The FBI has declined to allow the source to be inspected to ensure it only does what they say it does. They have rejected FOIA requests, and a federal judge has sided with them on the issue. Which really does beg the question: If all this thing is really doing is filtering all email looking for items related to a subject the FBI has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to be wiretapping (i.e. court ordered) then WHY is it too sensitive to show the public?
Personally, I side with the ACLU on this one: This thing must be stopped, and stopped NOW before it is used to circumvent the 4th ammendmant.
Lokks like another fine half-finnished product from Apple. How long before we see the trademark "multiple monitor support now available for a modest fee,... say $600 or so.
In a far off sort of way, I know this is a troll. But on the off chance it's not, and you either a) cannot read, or b) are amazingly blunt, I direct you to the title of the article:
MacOS X Beta Sneak Preview
Yes, that's right, it's a beta. Betas do not have all bells and whistles, which is why we refer to them as "betas" and not "finished products."
You may be a lawyer, but if so, you're a hideously bad one. I suspect you're just clueless.
He didn't confuse copyrights and patents, he said that the DMCA offers a new twist, he was finished the patent discussion and pointed out another law to consider. Like saying "You're safe from fraud laws. The conspiracy to commit laws might be another case though..."
Before you call someone clueless, you might want to look into the differences between sentences and paragraphs.:)
Don't feel bad, I had the same "huh?" reaction the first time I read the post, then figured it out on the second go.:)
Before everybody starts to scream about having these guys drawn and quartered, I'd like to remind the esteemed Slashdot audience about such thing as freedom, and in particular, the freedom of contract. If there is no monopoly situation (and it doesn't seem like it) then why in the world should anybody be prevented from making a product (even if you believe it's bad) and trying to sell it? After all, that's what market economy means: good products succeed and bad products fail. For a good example look at Divx (Circuit City idea to sell time-limited movies, etc.) Was there any regulation/legislation necessary? No. Did the stupid idea die on its own? Yes.
Same thing here. These guys have to compete with real textbooks which, among other things, have resale value. If you think that you'd like to keep that textbook as a reference even after the course is over, why, then, don't buy the time-limited version. As long as there is a choice, I don't see any problems.
Granted, if any attempt is made to force such textbooks on people, I'd be in the front rows of the lynching mob. Other than that I have no objections to having a choice between a $120 paper textbook and (hopefully) $20 time-limited DVD.
It's funny how all the pseudo-libertarians around here are unwilling to let the market decide...
This is such a massive pile of bullshit (the largest I have seen in some time, in fact) that I felt the need to quote the entire post. There IS no freedom in textbooks. A professor, who gets a FREE COPY of the book, decides to use it in his class. Who the fuck cares if the book costs as much as someone holding a part time job paying minimum wage makes in a WEEK (BEFORE TAXES). The reference to divx is flawed. You can choose to not buy a DVD player. You can choose not to buy DIVX movies. If you choose not to buy that $100 text book, you fail. Period.
It's rather funny, I've just gone back to college this summer. I had to buy books for my fall classes yesterday. Two text books, $96 a pop. One of the instructors commented, after the price was mentioned to him (Guess what, he didn't know. Like I said, HIS book is free), said, "Well, I guess you shouldn't spill coffee on it, ha ha"
In closing, and as a personal, direct rebuttal to your post: Get real.
Besides which, this isn't "nearly" as ridiculous. Have you seen the patents nVidia is claiming 3Dfx infringed? "System for accelerating the display of graphics" is one. "System for accelerating the transfer of graphic images" is another. In other words, nVidia's claiming ownership of the very concept of hardware graphics acceleration. Now that is ridiculous. 3Dfx's suit was ridiculous too, mind you, but it's got nothing on this.
Disclaimer: I have not read the patent, but I am willing to bet you haven't either. I haven't seen a single instance of the actual patent text posted to slashdot, just one or two line bytes, at most. Patents are always far more verbose than two lines.
Nvidia is not claiming "ownership of the very concept of hardware graphics acceleration." What they are claiming is to have invented a specific way of doing so, which is probably accurate.
If that were the case, I don't think they would have waited this long.
Why not? Makes alot more sense to kick your enemies when they're down. 3dfx's technology is just not progressing to the standard of the rest of the field, and Nvidia's management probably smelled blood on the water. What better time to tighten the screws?
Not that I am advocating the lawsuit or anything, but your comments have been akin to the perennial slashdot favorite, "Well, I'm going to patent air and charge you all for breathing!" and I'm curious whether you're just spouting off, or have an actual opinion on the matter, with something to back it up?
Do you live in a cave? One Nvidia CPU (Geforce 2 GTS Ultra) IS ALMOST TWICE AS FAST as FOUR equivilent generation 3dfx CPUs (Voodoo5 6000), without requiring things like an external power supply (for a graphics card?)
And you claim their can't compete with their chips? Now if only their marketting department were staffed by humans...
And anyway, PGP is not a system for controlling access to copyrighted works, so has little to do with the DMCA.
I beg your pardon? And just what exactly does it do, cook dinner and wash the dishes? Anything you write is technically copyrighted, and you are using PGP to ensure that only certain parties can access that material. Think about it.
Although I have no legal opinion on the case, I think suing the RNA because they promote firearms is not more (or less) silly than suing 2600 because it promotes DeCSS. The MPAA has sued 2600 (and won). I wouldn't be suprised is there was a law suit (at some point) against the NRA. Of course, the NRA has a much deeper pocket than 2600.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, either. The current mindset in the gun control industry (and yes, it is an industry) is "legislation through litigation" -- a process by which gun manufacturers will conform to their agenda, or be bankrupted by meritless lawsuits -- and it's succeeding. Smith & Wesson was forced to sign an "agreement" which also applies to their distributors and dealers, and really handcuffs how they do business. Colt is essentially out of the civillian market. Ruger shut down their manufacturing lines for the summer. Oh, and taxes keep going up, which along with the legal fees are making firearms more and more expensive. Kind of like what the government did with cigarettes.
The NRA would be a much harder target, however. We have over three and a half million members (annual membership dues are $35, which works out to something like $122 million in income per year by simple math.) and growing and, as a result, have more friend sin congress than the gun industry itself. This year's election is probably the most important election of the 20th century, at least in terms of constitutional rights.
I'm curious, if you don't mind answering, about what the "average canadian" feels about the current firearms registration mess going on up there right now?
I'm really amazed that napster/gnutella/DeCSS would be illegal because you can do something illegal with them... yet I haven't seen a suit against the NRA and firearms companies....oh, it's true, nobody has ever committed a crime using a gun!
I should really know better than to respond to this, but on the off chance it isn't a troll, the firearms industry is currently the target of numerous (meritless) lawsuits by several dozen cities, one state (New York), the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and organizations such as Handgun Control, Inc. One would think the lawsuits were groundless, given the fact that firearms are one of the most heavily regulated legal products in the US, but apparently your friendly neighborhood government (who, as with cigarettes, get a rather large chunk out of every sale, FYI) doesn't agree.
As for suing the NRA, that would be more akin to suing Ziff-Davis because some users of computers have been convicted of crimes... your analogy jumps a bit too far there.
OK Win isn't selling either but 98 is still a current release... millenium isnt expected for another 24 months
Bzzt. WinME has gone gold is due out 2nd week of september, 6 weeks from now. I don't really take issue with any of your points (other than, perhaps, the fact that their software has revved three times in the last twelve months, which will cause retailers to become super-pissed. Look at the shelf life of your average game--there's no sign of THOSE coming off shelves anytime soon) but that glaring inaccuracy jumped out at me.
Hrm... couldn't this be construed as soon-to-be-illegal? Napster simply gives directions to data, helping people to infringe copyrights 80% of the time. So Fox-local gives directions to programs which give directions to data, helping people to infringe copyrights sometimes.
The American press still has a core "we will print what we want" attitude. I expect that is something like the above began to affect print media in addition to online media, the press industry associations would get involved pretty damned quick.
They all have their own politics, but in the end 99% of the people in publishing believe in freedom of the press.
I do love how we all feel that the Internet is a god-given right.
On a day to day basis, I think most of us forget that the internet evolved out of a government program and not through open-source advocacy.
I fail to see how these two statements are mutually exclusive. Or are you forgetting that little blurb about Of the People, by the People, and for the People? It really pushes my buttons when someone basically says, "It was developed by the government, so consider yourself LUCKY you can use it."
My tax dollars (okay, not many of those, as I was only born in 1974. But the tax dollars of my parents) went into creating this technical terror, and I will be damned if the DOJ takes the attitude of "we built it, so we can listen in"
Well it's obvious we will not change each others minds. But here are a couple of thoughts anyway.
I agree, but the discussion has been enjoyable anyway. I often look at polarizing issues (like gun control, abortion, school prayer, etc.) and notice that 99% of the people who get involved in them come to the table with their minds already made up. No amount of discussion will change the way they feel about the issue, especially if they find some documentation that seems to support their position. (For the record: Against, Undecided (Against on moral grounds, but the legal evidence is compelling), and Against (unless silent)).
how many other 1903 laws are still valid?
All of them?:) Unless repealed, that is. And note that the act was modified again in 1916, and has been tweaked a bit since. Arguably, the Selective Service Act also creates a de facto reserve militia, albiet one that is only called out in special circumstances and in a roundabout way.
you can not escape the fact the the government gave itself the right to regulate the militia and therefore the peoples right to bear arms
I think we've agreed to disagree on the overall point, no?
As for the declaration of independence it is not officially a part of our government. It is most probably one of the most dangerous documents ever written and no government would ever make it a part of it's constitution.
I couldn't agree more. It IS one of the most dangerous documents ever written, and while it is not an official part of our law (but just TRY finding an american law library that does not have a copy), it illustrates extremely clearly what the guiding principles that lead to the revolution, and consequently the United States, were.
I find it Ironic that the founding fathers esposed almost unlimited freedom when they wrote their declaration of independence but backed way off when they got around to forming their own government
It's worth noting that the declaration was written almost exclusively by Jefferson (although Franklin supposedly had a hand in it) and getting those signatures on that document was a very difficult task. This was probably not related to the principles outlined in the document, and had to do with it being treason against the King.
The constitution seems dim next to that document especially considering the fact that the bill of rights came later.
Actually, the constitution sets up a weak federal system where the government has only the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution, and allowed to it by the people and the states.
While the Constitution was designed this way, the design has been largely ignored since the mid 1800s, most blatantly with the civil war, new deal, prohibition, etc.
The Bill of rights is another matter. The reason it did not exist in the original Constitution was because it was redundant. The Constitution had already said everything the federal government could do--adding lists of things it could NOT do was something that could only weaken the overall document. Sadly, those who felt this way were eventually over-ruled, but they did make an attempt with the 9th and 10th ammendmants (also known as the "forgotten" ammendmants) which state:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"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."
Getting back to the 2nd ammendmant (I know, I know, we agreed to disagree, but I cannot help myself) the 9th makes a strong case for the private ownership of firearms--even if it is not an enumerated right, I still have it if I assert such (and my home state does not feel the need to smack me down, depending on ITS laws--which, in my case, it wouldn't; for the record, the TN state constitution reads: "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.")
I have to thank you for this discussion. It's allowed me to blow off some steam over recent events, and at least try to get our point of view out. You'd be surprised how it feels to have the NRA refered to facelessly as "The evil gun lobby" when, in reality, it's three and a half million law abiding american citizens, with Moses trying to lead them to the promised land:)
Up until about three months ago, I had not fired a weapon in about 14 years (since I was 12 or so--growing up in NY made that difficult) and even then, never pistols. But the way this issue has polarized, I guess I saw it as my duty as an american to get involved. So picked up target pistol shooting as a hobby, and started paying attention. What I saw surprised, disgusted, and enraged me.
The one thing I truly fear is that people like Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Sarah Brady, Rosie O'Donnel, and Bill Clinton will succeed in their eventual goal to begin the banning of firearms. And perversely, it's not because I will lose mine in the process--it's because there are a large number of extremely well armed american citizens who will not give up without a fight, and that fight will destroy our country... no matter who wins.
I'm sorry I got off the point, and I'll get off my soapbox now.
Wrong!. First of all you need a license to run just about any business.
Yes, you do, I never tried to deny that. But once you have one, you don't need ANOTHER license to sell cigarettes, ATF agents will not come into your 7-11 and check over your tax stamps, and you are not required to record every pack of cigarettes sold, its serial number, who you sold it to, where they live, their age, height, weight, eye color, drivers license number, and dick size!
You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript.
Fair enough, I didn't notice Knox (who is, by the way, a credible source himself) had cited a 3rd party. I have done considerable digging, and while the 5th circuit's website acknowledges that oral arguments have been heard, it has no transcripts. I suppose we will have to wait until the opinion is published, but here is the 2nd Ammendmant Foundation's story, along with links to others. If you are interested in researching yourself, the case number is 99-10331.
Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.
"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't know about you, but to me, explicitly stating "The People" is a rather strong indication on just whose rights are being protected. The constitution is EXTREMELY specific in guaranteeing rights to the Government, the States, and the People, respectivly. If that ammendmant refered to the national guard (which, by the way, did not come into existance until 1917) the right would be reserved to the states, and not the people.
In addition to this, the Militia Act of 1903 readily defines what the militia is:
SEC. 1. That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective states... who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age and shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective states or territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve militia.
SEC. 2. That the vice-president of the United States... pilots... and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective States or territories shall be exempted from militia duty, without regard to age...
This was ammended by the National Defense Act of 1916, and later law, and the current law (title 10, section 311) can be found at The Cornell Law Library.
So, in a very real, and legal sense, I am a member of the militia. So are you, if you are a male US citizen between 17 and 45.
That's what the government does it collects information.
I find that statement to be truly offensive. It might be what it actually does, but in no way is that what it is SUPPOSED to do... I think Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1776, in an obscure document some people like to refer to as the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Again, I really don't need any more than this to tell me what our government is supposed to be. Do you?
They are making money off of the name of the popular bands, which are copyrighted.
Bzzzzzzt. Sorry to say, incorrect. You can start a band tomorrow and the only thing that prevents you from calling it "Metallica" is good taste. Titles and names are NOT copyrightable, although you CAN trademark them, depending on circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't mean anything. The letter X is commonly used as a filler when one wants a Three Letter Acronym, and only has a two word name.
Guess you've never heard of Senator Albert Gore, Sr. then? Gore's father was in politics too, although I do not believe he ever made an attempt at the presidency. As for the tax issues you describe above, you just picked on one of my pet peeves: YES, ACROSS THE BOARD TAX CUTS BENEFIT THE RICH MOST OF ALL.
Let's examine why this is so. We have, in this country, what is known as a progressive income tax. The more you earn, the higher percentage of that income you give to the IRS.
Why is it "squandering" tax cuts to give the largest share back to the people who paid the largest share of the tax? ANYTHING else is what is unfair. No matter HOW much money a person makes, it is NOT right to feel you can dig a good chunk of it out of their pocket, because they can afford it.
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
A treaty that violated the constitution could never be ratified (this would exceed the authority of the United States). As I am not a lawyer, I probably don't understand the subtleties ("Well, yes, I shot him, your honor, but Colt Firearms is the real criminal here") and my cut and dried view is probably being laughed at by attourneys right now.
Bah! Back in my day, we carved our own ICs out of wood, and we LIKED it that way! :)
That was actually in the last release of slash... but it was removed when Taco found out it had been patented... :)
Winston,
I'd send this by private email, but you don't have one listed. Just wanted to thank you for summing up the issue so succinctly. +5, Insightful in my book.
Zak
This is a question for the poster, and not the candidates:
Why is it neccessary for an elementary or middle school to have faster machines than this? I work for a company that donates our obsolete equipment to community organizations (schools, churches, day-care, etc) and 99% of the machines donated over the last 18 months have been HP Vectra XU 5/90s, or Compaq Deskpro 4/66's!
What's this requirement for beefier hardware? At the educational level we're talking here, the idea should be basic familiarity with the machine, it's OS, and basic applications. A 90MHz Pentium will more than adaquately fill that need.
I live in Greene County, Tennessee, and our local high schools are over-crowded to the point where the gym, cafeteria, trailers parked outside, and any other enclosed, flat area is being used as a classroom. The average class size is over thirty. But they DO have modern PCs, and a 256k dedicated ISDN link running to a T1 shared between four schools. So I guess it balances out, huh?
Get a grip. There are far more important things to spend our educational dollars on than a faster machine from Dell that little Johnny can play quake on, run WMP, and use ICQ all at the same time.
It has nothing to do with the GPL in this case. What this is about is being able to SEE what this software REALLY does. The FBI has declined to allow the source to be inspected to ensure it only does what they say it does. They have rejected FOIA requests, and a federal judge has sided with them on the issue. Which really does beg the question: If all this thing is really doing is filtering all email looking for items related to a subject the FBI has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to be wiretapping (i.e. court ordered) then WHY is it too sensitive to show the public?
Personally, I side with the ACLU on this one: This thing must be stopped, and stopped NOW before it is used to circumvent the 4th ammendmant.
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but AOL bought ICQ some time ago.
In a far off sort of way, I know this is a troll. But on the off chance it's not, and you either a) cannot read, or b) are amazingly blunt, I direct you to the title of the article:
MacOS X Beta Sneak Preview
Yes, that's right, it's a beta. Betas do not have all bells and whistles, which is why we refer to them as "betas" and not "finished products."
I forsee a tough road ahead for the sheep, as DNA tagging of the actual animal a piece of clothing comes from becomes prominent:
:-)
"Is that casmir sweater REALLY casmir? Ewe betcha!"
Before you call someone clueless, you might want to look into the differences between sentences and paragraphs. :)
Don't feel bad, I had the same "huh?" reaction the first time I read the post, then figured it out on the second go. :)
Same thing here. These guys have to compete with real textbooks which, among other things, have resale value. If you think that you'd like to keep that textbook as a reference even after the course is over, why, then, don't buy the time-limited version. As long as there is a choice, I don't see any problems.
Granted, if any attempt is made to force such textbooks on people, I'd be in the front rows of the lynching mob. Other than that I have no objections to having a choice between a $120 paper textbook and (hopefully) $20 time-limited DVD.
It's funny how all the pseudo-libertarians around here are unwilling to let the market decide...
This is such a massive pile of bullshit (the largest I have seen in some time, in fact) that I felt the need to quote the entire post. There IS no freedom in textbooks. A professor, who gets a FREE COPY of the book, decides to use it in his class. Who the fuck cares if the book costs as much as someone holding a part time job paying minimum wage makes in a WEEK (BEFORE TAXES). The reference to divx is flawed. You can choose to not buy a DVD player. You can choose not to buy DIVX movies. If you choose not to buy that $100 text book, you fail. Period.
It's rather funny, I've just gone back to college this summer. I had to buy books for my fall classes yesterday. Two text books, $96 a pop. One of the instructors commented, after the price was mentioned to him (Guess what, he didn't know. Like I said, HIS book is free), said, "Well, I guess you shouldn't spill coffee on it, ha ha"
In closing, and as a personal, direct rebuttal to your post: Get real.
Disclaimer: I have not read the patent, but I am willing to bet you haven't either. I haven't seen a single instance of the actual patent text posted to slashdot, just one or two line bytes, at most. Patents are always far more verbose than two lines.
Nvidia is not claiming "ownership of the very concept of hardware graphics acceleration." What they are claiming is to have invented a specific way of doing so, which is probably accurate.
If that were the case, I don't think they would have waited this long.
Why not? Makes alot more sense to kick your enemies when they're down. 3dfx's technology is just not progressing to the standard of the rest of the field, and Nvidia's management probably smelled blood on the water. What better time to tighten the screws?
Not that I am advocating the lawsuit or anything, but your comments have been akin to the perennial slashdot favorite, "Well, I'm going to patent air and charge you all for breathing!" and I'm curious whether you're just spouting off, or have an actual opinion on the matter, with something to back it up?
What a nice, blanket statement. I'm sure you have specific problems to report, so let's hear them.
Do you live in a cave? One Nvidia CPU (Geforce 2 GTS Ultra) IS ALMOST TWICE AS FAST as FOUR equivilent generation 3dfx CPUs (Voodoo5 6000), without requiring things like an external power supply (for a graphics card?)
And you claim their can't compete with their chips? Now if only their marketting department were staffed by humans...
I beg your pardon? And just what exactly does it do, cook dinner and wash the dishes? Anything you write is technically copyrighted, and you are using PGP to ensure that only certain parties can access that material. Think about it.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, either. The current mindset in the gun control industry (and yes, it is an industry) is "legislation through litigation" -- a process by which gun manufacturers will conform to their agenda, or be bankrupted by meritless lawsuits -- and it's succeeding. Smith & Wesson was forced to sign an "agreement" which also applies to their distributors and dealers, and really handcuffs how they do business. Colt is essentially out of the civillian market. Ruger shut down their manufacturing lines for the summer. Oh, and taxes keep going up, which along with the legal fees are making firearms more and more expensive. Kind of like what the government did with cigarettes.
The NRA would be a much harder target, however. We have over three and a half million members (annual membership dues are $35, which works out to something like $122 million in income per year by simple math.) and growing and, as a result, have more friend sin congress than the gun industry itself. This year's election is probably the most important election of the 20th century, at least in terms of constitutional rights.
I'm curious, if you don't mind answering, about what the "average canadian" feels about the current firearms registration mess going on up there right now?
I should really know better than to respond to this, but on the off chance it isn't a troll, the firearms industry is currently the target of numerous (meritless) lawsuits by several dozen cities, one state (New York), the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and organizations such as Handgun Control, Inc. One would think the lawsuits were groundless, given the fact that firearms are one of the most heavily regulated legal products in the US, but apparently your friendly neighborhood government (who, as with cigarettes, get a rather large chunk out of every sale, FYI) doesn't agree. As for suing the NRA, that would be more akin to suing Ziff-Davis because some users of computers have been convicted of crimes... your analogy jumps a bit too far there.
Bzzt. WinME has gone gold is due out 2nd week of september, 6 weeks from now. I don't really take issue with any of your points (other than, perhaps, the fact that their software has revved three times in the last twelve months, which will cause retailers to become super-pissed. Look at the shelf life of your average game--there's no sign of THOSE coming off shelves anytime soon) but that glaring inaccuracy jumped out at me.
The American press still has a core "we will print what we want" attitude. I expect that is something like the above began to affect print media in addition to online media, the press industry associations would get involved pretty damned quick.
They all have their own politics, but in the end 99% of the people in publishing believe in freedom of the press.
On a day to day basis, I think most of us forget that the internet evolved out of a government program and not through open-source advocacy.
I fail to see how these two statements are mutually exclusive. Or are you forgetting that little blurb about Of the People, by the People, and for the People? It really pushes my buttons when someone basically says, "It was developed by the government, so consider yourself LUCKY you can use it."
My tax dollars (okay, not many of those, as I was only born in 1974. But the tax dollars of my parents) went into creating this technical terror, and I will be damned if the DOJ takes the attitude of "we built it, so we can listen in"
I agree, but the discussion has been enjoyable anyway. I often look at polarizing issues (like gun control, abortion, school prayer, etc.) and notice that 99% of the people who get involved in them come to the table with their minds already made up. No amount of discussion will change the way they feel about the issue, especially if they find some documentation that seems to support their position. (For the record: Against, Undecided (Against on moral grounds, but the legal evidence is compelling), and Against (unless silent)).
how many other 1903 laws are still valid?
All of them? :) Unless repealed, that is. And note that the act was modified again in 1916, and has been tweaked a bit since. Arguably, the Selective Service Act also creates a de facto reserve militia, albiet one that is only called out in special circumstances and in a roundabout way.
you can not escape the fact the the government gave itself the right to regulate the militia and therefore the peoples right to bear arms
I think we've agreed to disagree on the overall point, no?
As for the declaration of independence it is not officially a part of our government. It is most probably one of the most dangerous documents ever written and no government would ever make it a part of it's constitution.
I couldn't agree more. It IS one of the most dangerous documents ever written, and while it is not an official part of our law (but just TRY finding an american law library that does not have a copy), it illustrates extremely clearly what the guiding principles that lead to the revolution, and consequently the United States, were.
I find it Ironic that the founding fathers esposed almost unlimited freedom when they wrote their declaration of independence but backed way off when they got around to forming their own government
It's worth noting that the declaration was written almost exclusively by Jefferson (although Franklin supposedly had a hand in it) and getting those signatures on that document was a very difficult task. This was probably not related to the principles outlined in the document, and had to do with it being treason against the King.
The constitution seems dim next to that document especially considering the fact that the bill of rights came later.
Actually, the constitution sets up a weak federal system where the government has only the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution, and allowed to it by the people and the states.
While the Constitution was designed this way, the design has been largely ignored since the mid 1800s, most blatantly with the civil war, new deal, prohibition, etc.
The Bill of rights is another matter. The reason it did not exist in the original Constitution was because it was redundant. The Constitution had already said everything the federal government could do--adding lists of things it could NOT do was something that could only weaken the overall document. Sadly, those who felt this way were eventually over-ruled, but they did make an attempt with the 9th and 10th ammendmants (also known as the "forgotten" ammendmants) which state:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"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."
Getting back to the 2nd ammendmant (I know, I know, we agreed to disagree, but I cannot help myself) the 9th makes a strong case for the private ownership of firearms--even if it is not an enumerated right, I still have it if I assert such (and my home state does not feel the need to smack me down, depending on ITS laws--which, in my case, it wouldn't; for the record, the TN state constitution reads: "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.")
I have to thank you for this discussion. It's allowed me to blow off some steam over recent events, and at least try to get our point of view out. You'd be surprised how it feels to have the NRA refered to facelessly as "The evil gun lobby" when, in reality, it's three and a half million law abiding american citizens, with Moses trying to lead them to the promised land :)
Up until about three months ago, I had not fired a weapon in about 14 years (since I was 12 or so--growing up in NY made that difficult) and even then, never pistols. But the way this issue has polarized, I guess I saw it as my duty as an american to get involved. So picked up target pistol shooting as a hobby, and started paying attention. What I saw surprised, disgusted, and enraged me.
The one thing I truly fear is that people like Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Sarah Brady, Rosie O'Donnel, and Bill Clinton will succeed in their eventual goal to begin the banning of firearms. And perversely, it's not because I will lose mine in the process--it's because there are a large number of extremely well armed american citizens who will not give up without a fight, and that fight will destroy our country... no matter who wins.
I'm sorry I got off the point, and I'll get off my soapbox now.
Yes, you do, I never tried to deny that. But once you have one, you don't need ANOTHER license to sell cigarettes, ATF agents will not come into your 7-11 and check over your tax stamps, and you are not required to record every pack of cigarettes sold, its serial number, who you sold it to, where they live, their age, height, weight, eye color, drivers license number, and dick size!
You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript.
Fair enough, I didn't notice Knox (who is, by the way, a credible source himself) had cited a 3rd party. I have done considerable digging, and while the 5th circuit's website acknowledges that oral arguments have been heard, it has no transcripts. I suppose we will have to wait until the opinion is published, but here is the 2nd Ammendmant Foundation's story, along with links to others. If you are interested in researching yourself, the case number is 99-10331.
Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.
"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't know about you, but to me, explicitly stating "The People" is a rather strong indication on just whose rights are being protected. The constitution is EXTREMELY specific in guaranteeing rights to the Government, the States, and the People, respectivly. If that ammendmant refered to the national guard (which, by the way, did not come into existance until 1917) the right would be reserved to the states, and not the people.
In addition to this, the Militia Act of 1903 readily defines what the militia is:
SEC. 1. That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective states... who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age and shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective states or territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve militia.
SEC. 2. That the vice-president of the United States... pilots... and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective States or territories shall be exempted from militia duty, without regard to age...
This was ammended by the National Defense Act of 1916, and later law, and the current law (title 10, section 311) can be found at The Cornell Law Library.
So, in a very real, and legal sense, I am a member of the militia. So are you, if you are a male US citizen between 17 and 45.
That's what the government does it collects information.
I find that statement to be truly offensive. It might be what it actually does, but in no way is that what it is SUPPOSED to do... I think Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1776, in an obscure document some people like to refer to as the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Again, I really don't need any more than this to tell me what our government is supposed to be. Do you?
They are making money off of the name of the popular bands, which are copyrighted.
Bzzzzzzt. Sorry to say, incorrect. You can start a band tomorrow and the only thing that prevents you from calling it "Metallica" is good taste. Titles and names are NOT copyrightable, although you CAN trademark them, depending on circumstances.