For years and years I heard how I would never amount to anything. Then, in only ONE day, I have TWO achievements.
Life is lookin' pretty good right now....
So, this comment was a troll, but the comments about Bush were not. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting the concept of a troll, or maybe, just maybe, someone needs to reevaluate their fairness in moderating.
Frankly, nearly this entire discussion is a troll. I would say more, but I have a bridge to hide under.
My favorite quote on this perspective is by Michael Kinsley:
"The purpose of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you're trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory."
-- Washington Post, January 8, 1990
[Emphasis mine].
It should be noted, for the record, that Michael Kinsley is NOT part of the gun fanatic crowd-- quite the opposite. Anyone who doubts this can simply check out The New Republic Online website to get the gist of their political perspective. As for my own perspective, I am a gun ownership advocate, though casting me as a fanatic might be stretching it a bit.
In defense of the perspective you claim invalid (and in support of Mickey Kaus' statement indirectly quoted above) I present the following argument. If you really believe the literalist perspective that you stated, then you must also agree that all legal decisions derived from the "right to privacy" should be null and void. This is obvious, as the word "privacy", along with all of its synonyms, appears nowhere in the Constitution. While obviously true, it is not so likely that you are willing to jump on this bandwagon, as many of the decisions based on this nonexistent right tend to align with the philosophy of those who wield the phrase "gun fanatic" as a diatribe.
As for the legal know-nothings on the Supreme Court, I would hazard this is not the case. I would also hazard that you are referring to UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled that possession of the shotgun you described could not be construed as protected because such a weapon would not fulfill the definition of providing for a well armed militia. The problem is that they also defined what a well armed militia was, and I don't think you are going to like their answer:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
--- UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) [Emphasis mine]
As a physically capable male, I appreciate the insight these know-nothings had into the definition of a Militia. While I myself am in possession of nothing more than a small handgun for self-defense, I can still appreciate the wisdom of our forefathers, and our Supreme Court justices, in providing for, and maintaining, this fundamental right.
Finally, as for the access to good hacking code, I agree completely. This is important, because I have found it is better to end on an agreeable note-- it cuts down on continued conversational clutter.
Slashdot Mirror
For years and years I heard how I would never amount to anything. Then, in only ONE day, I have TWO achievements. Life is lookin' pretty good right now....
So, this comment was a troll, but the comments about Bush were not. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting the concept of a troll, or maybe, just maybe, someone needs to reevaluate their fairness in moderating. Frankly, nearly this entire discussion is a troll. I would say more, but I have a bridge to hide under.
My favorite quote on this perspective is by Michael Kinsley:
"The purpose of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee was pretty clearly to protect political discourse. But liberals reject the notion that free speech is therefore limited to political topics, even broadly defined. True, that purpose is not inscribed in the amendment itself. But why leap to the conclusion that a broadly worded constitutional freedom ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") is narrowly limited by its stated purpose, unless you're trying to explain it away? My New Republic colleague Mickey Kaus says that if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory."
-- Washington Post, January 8, 1990 [Emphasis mine].
It should be noted, for the record, that Michael Kinsley is NOT part of the gun fanatic crowd-- quite the opposite. Anyone who doubts this can simply check out The New Republic Online website to get the gist of their political perspective. As for my own perspective, I am a gun ownership advocate, though casting me as a fanatic might be stretching it a bit.
In defense of the perspective you claim invalid (and in support of Mickey Kaus' statement indirectly quoted above) I present the following argument. If you really believe the literalist perspective that you stated, then you must also agree that all legal decisions derived from the "right to privacy" should be null and void. This is obvious, as the word "privacy", along with all of its synonyms, appears nowhere in the Constitution. While obviously true, it is not so likely that you are willing to jump on this bandwagon, as many of the decisions based on this nonexistent right tend to align with the philosophy of those who wield the phrase "gun fanatic" as a diatribe.
As for the legal know-nothings on the Supreme Court, I would hazard this is not the case. I would also hazard that you are referring to UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled that possession of the shotgun you described could not be construed as protected because such a weapon would not fulfill the definition of providing for a well armed militia. The problem is that they also defined what a well armed militia was, and I don't think you are going to like their answer:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
--- UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) [Emphasis mine]
As a physically capable male, I appreciate the insight these know-nothings had into the definition of a Militia. While I myself am in possession of nothing more than a small handgun for self-defense, I can still appreciate the wisdom of our forefathers, and our Supreme Court justices, in providing for, and maintaining, this fundamental right.
Finally, as for the access to good hacking code, I agree completely. This is important, because I have found it is better to end on an agreeable note-- it cuts down on continued conversational clutter.