As it stands with gun laws, I'm certainly not willing to go into a sporting good store, buy a gun, and hand it over to someone I don't know, even if there is a boat-load of cash being offered.
What's your point? I'm not willing to stick one of my guns in your face and demand your wallet. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that are willing to do this though.....
[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
You'll note that it doesn't say "require Commerce" (i.e: the individual mandate) or "prohibit commerce" (i.e: the controlled substances act, farm production quotas, etc.) The problem with the Constitution is that there's no way to account for idiots that will read shit into it that isn't there -- like the now debunked claim that the 2nd amendment only protected the right to join the National Guard.
No you wouldn't. You'd vote against Schumer, as I've done in every election since turning 18 and he would still be re-elected by the hordes of NYC voters that blindly pull the "Democrat" lever all the way across the ballot. Replace "Schumer" with "Cornyn" and "NYC" with "Rural Texas" and the example still applies.
Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase?
Bullshit. Congress can prohibit the states from putting up artificial barriers to trade without having the power to tell me that I can't grow my own wheat or cannabis.
they want to track phones because they could be used (as well as by nefarious people doing *other* nefarious things)... as part of weapons.
A good communications device is actually a much more dangerous weapon in the grand scheme of things than any firearm ever invented. Communications can be used to call for help, pass along intelligence, deploy resources, etc, etc. The telegraph changed society a lot more than the firearm. In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with any invention that had a bigger impact on human society than instant communications, except maybe for agriculture.
All of that explains why Government just can't stand the fact that people might find ways to communicate with one another without leaving an evidence trail behind. Take phone usage logs -- the law mandates that the telco keep them for a certain amount of time. Why is that? The phone company has no real business need to keep those records after you've paid your bill (and possibly for a few billing cycles after that to handle billing disputes) yet they are compelled by law to do so, even for those customers that aren't the subject of a criminal investigation.
It's interesting that nobody has mentioned this snippet from TFA yet:
Privacy advocates worry that prepaid cellphone registration might be a step toward something even more worrisome in their view: identity registration to access the Internet.
How long until the security establishment starts pushing for that?
assuming you overlook the glaring exception of the "Gun Show" loophole in many states.
The "gun show loophole" actually isn't. It's more properly described as a "private party sale loophole". Any business engaged in the routine sale of firearms needs to perform background checks, regardless of where that sale takes place. If you buy a gun from "Gun Store, Inc." at a gun show you'll fill out the same background check paperwork as you would if you were in the store itself.
Party party sales (i.e: I sell you one of my guns) aren't regulated in most states and don't require background checks. That's the loophole that people are referring to, but most of the anti-2A crowd won't call it a "private party loophole" because that doesn't conjure up scary images of unregulated gun shows.
He's saying that the original intent of the interstate commerce clause wasn't to grant Congress the power to control what we could purchase. It was to enable Congress to prevent the individual states from setting up trade barriers with one another, i.e: New York imposes a tariff on goods made in Pennsylvania.
Somehow I doubt that the framers imagined it being used to pass legislation compelling all Americans to purchase something from private enterprise (the health insurance mandate) or telling them that they can't indulge in cannabis consumption in the privacy of their own homes.
Anonymous speech isn't needed just to protect you from the Government. I work a Catholic hospital in the IT department. What if I want to express a pro-choice viewpoint without worrying about my job?
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
That's completely irrelevant to the argument that I was making and contributes nothing to this conversation. POS background checks don't catch people that kill, nor will a POS ID check for disposable cell phones catch criminals. Criminals will simply do with cell phones what they currently do with guns -- steal them or bribe others to purchase them on their behalf.
The end result will be the same that it was with firearms -- the law abiding people cede more power to the state while the criminals go about their business as they always have and always will.
Maybe they should legalize drugs and get rid of the top reason why people would want a anonymous phone in the first place, but I can only dream.
Why do you assume drugs are the "top reason" why one would want anonymous communications? What about a whistle blower? What about a witness to a crime?
You realize this legislation has support from no less a Democrat than Charles Schumer, right? You didn't even have to RTFA, it's right there in the summary.
When it comes to taking away our rights and expanding Government, Democrats and Republicans aren't really all that different. The only difference is which order you lose your rights in.
It will be justified under the 'interstate commerce' clause, the catch all used to justify everything from compelling Americans to buy health insurance to telling them that they can't set dried up bits of cannabis on fire and inhale the resulting smoke into their lungs. Any pretense of a limitation on Federal power died when SCOTUS said that the Federal Government has the power to prevent you from growing food for your own consumption.
I'm rather pessimistic about our chances of reversing this trend, absent a constitutional convention and/or revolution, neither of which will happen because both would require Americans to stop watching TV long enough to realize how many rights they are losing.
You should be looking at high-powered rifles, mines, and anti-armor weaponry. And these are universally banned within the US.
There isn't a single American jurisdiction that bans "high-powered rifles", so I must conclude that you have no idea what you are taking about.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
The fact that things took this long is a sign that nobody is really looking over the shoulders of the guys in charge here.
Or it's a sign that planning and logistics are not overnight affairs.....
This was a slow and lethargic bullshit response that started with BP trying to make money off the spilling oil
Huh?
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?
Resources take time to deploy. Research has to be done before repairs can be attempted. The criticism still isn't fair.
It's my understanding that they had plans for Top Kill from almost the beginning of this crisis but were doing investigation/research to ensure that it wouldn't make the problem worse. Or would you prefer that they move ahead blindly and ignore the possibility of doing more harm than good?
Slashdot Mirror
As it stands with gun laws, I'm certainly not willing to go into a sporting good store, buy a gun, and hand it over to someone I don't know, even if there is a boat-load of cash being offered.
What's your point? I'm not willing to stick one of my guns in your face and demand your wallet. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that are willing to do this though.....
Remember, in Korea, we were basically fighting to maintain the status quo ante
Then why did we advance to the Yalu?
It's worded just fine.
[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
You'll note that it doesn't say "require Commerce" (i.e: the individual mandate) or "prohibit commerce" (i.e: the controlled substances act, farm production quotas, etc.) The problem with the Constitution is that there's no way to account for idiots that will read shit into it that isn't there -- like the now debunked claim that the 2nd amendment only protected the right to join the National Guard.
In Italy you have to present your ID even when in internet cafes. It will be photocopied and kept forever along with your IP
Is that new? I was in Italy in 2004 and was able to use an internet cafe simply by tossing a few Euros on the counter and taking my assigned seat.
If I were in TX or NY I'd vote these guys out!
No you wouldn't. You'd vote against Schumer, as I've done in every election since turning 18 and he would still be re-elected by the hordes of NYC voters that blindly pull the "Democrat" lever all the way across the ballot. Replace "Schumer" with "Cornyn" and "NYC" with "Rural Texas" and the example still applies.
I couldn't tell you if it works or not, but logic would assume that it hasn't hurt
It doesn't say "shall not be infringed for longer than 72 hours", it says "shall not be infringed"
Really, don't you people realise the only way to achieve the latter is to have that dreadful power of control what you can purchase?
Bullshit. Congress can prohibit the states from putting up artificial barriers to trade without having the power to tell me that I can't grow my own wheat or cannabis.
they want to track phones because they could be used (as well as by nefarious people doing *other* nefarious things) ... as part of weapons.
A good communications device is actually a much more dangerous weapon in the grand scheme of things than any firearm ever invented. Communications can be used to call for help, pass along intelligence, deploy resources, etc, etc. The telegraph changed society a lot more than the firearm. In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with any invention that had a bigger impact on human society than instant communications, except maybe for agriculture.
All of that explains why Government just can't stand the fact that people might find ways to communicate with one another without leaving an evidence trail behind. Take phone usage logs -- the law mandates that the telco keep them for a certain amount of time. Why is that? The phone company has no real business need to keep those records after you've paid your bill (and possibly for a few billing cycles after that to handle billing disputes) yet they are compelled by law to do so, even for those customers that aren't the subject of a criminal investigation.
It's interesting that nobody has mentioned this snippet from TFA yet:
Privacy advocates worry that prepaid cellphone registration might be a step toward something even more worrisome in their view: identity registration to access the Internet.
How long until the security establishment starts pushing for that?
assuming you overlook the glaring exception of the "Gun Show" loophole in many states.
The "gun show loophole" actually isn't. It's more properly described as a "private party sale loophole". Any business engaged in the routine sale of firearms needs to perform background checks, regardless of where that sale takes place. If you buy a gun from "Gun Store, Inc." at a gun show you'll fill out the same background check paperwork as you would if you were in the store itself.
Party party sales (i.e: I sell you one of my guns) aren't regulated in most states and don't require background checks. That's the loophole that people are referring to, but most of the anti-2A crowd won't call it a "private party loophole" because that doesn't conjure up scary images of unregulated gun shows.
He's saying that the original intent of the interstate commerce clause wasn't to grant Congress the power to control what we could purchase. It was to enable Congress to prevent the individual states from setting up trade barriers with one another, i.e: New York imposes a tariff on goods made in Pennsylvania.
Somehow I doubt that the framers imagined it being used to pass legislation compelling all Americans to purchase something from private enterprise (the health insurance mandate) or telling them that they can't indulge in cannabis consumption in the privacy of their own homes.
Anonymous speech isn't needed just to protect you from the Government. I work a Catholic hospital in the IT department. What if I want to express a pro-choice viewpoint without worrying about my job?
A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
That's completely irrelevant to the argument that I was making and contributes nothing to this conversation. POS background checks don't catch people that kill, nor will a POS ID check for disposable cell phones catch criminals. Criminals will simply do with cell phones what they currently do with guns -- steal them or bribe others to purchase them on their behalf.
The end result will be the same that it was with firearms -- the law abiding people cede more power to the state while the criminals go about their business as they always have and always will.
This law has many problems, but that's not one of them.
What happens when the criminals just steal the phone or pay someone to buy it for them?
People made the same arguments against POS background checks for firearms but we still wound up with those....
Never underestimate the amount of liberty that people are willing to sacrifice in exchange for the illusion of security.
Maybe they should legalize drugs and get rid of the top reason why people would want a anonymous phone in the first place, but I can only dream.
Why do you assume drugs are the "top reason" why one would want anonymous communications? What about a whistle blower? What about a witness to a crime?
Next they'll outlaw "straw purchases" of cell phones. Then they'll give the ATFE a new letter: ATFET has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? ;)
You realize this legislation has support from no less a Democrat than Charles Schumer, right? You didn't even have to RTFA, it's right there in the summary.
When it comes to taking away our rights and expanding Government, Democrats and Republicans aren't really all that different. The only difference is which order you lose your rights in.
It will be justified under the 'interstate commerce' clause, the catch all used to justify everything from compelling Americans to buy health insurance to telling them that they can't set dried up bits of cannabis on fire and inhale the resulting smoke into their lungs. Any pretense of a limitation on Federal power died when SCOTUS said that the Federal Government has the power to prevent you from growing food for your own consumption.
I'm rather pessimistic about our chances of reversing this trend, absent a constitutional convention and/or revolution, neither of which will happen because both would require Americans to stop watching TV long enough to realize how many rights they are losing.
You should be looking at high-powered rifles, mines, and anti-armor weaponry. And these are universally banned within the US.
There isn't a single American jurisdiction that bans "high-powered rifles", so I must conclude that you have no idea what you are taking about.
The fact that things took this long is a sign that nobody is really looking over the shoulders of the guys in charge here.
Or it's a sign that planning and logistics are not overnight affairs.....
This was a slow and lethargic bullshit response that started with BP trying to make money off the spilling oil
Huh?
Do you think he's an undersea oil well engineer with the resources of the company the size of BP?
Resources take time to deploy. Research has to be done before repairs can be attempted. The criticism still isn't fair.
It's my understanding that they had plans for Top Kill from almost the beginning of this crisis but were doing investigation/research to ensure that it wouldn't make the problem worse. Or would you prefer that they move ahead blindly and ignore the possibility of doing more harm than good?
If it was a CFL you'd also be fishing mercury out of your hair.....
and wait for some tiny country like Panama to invade us
That might be easier said than done.....
If she's like my mother in-law she'll look at you with a blank expression and say "What's Mach mean?"
Bush isn't my boy and did not receive my vote in 2000 or 2004.