we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training
Except that's not what the amendment means, it's not what it says, and it's not what the people who wrote it said - in their MANY supporting letters and other documents - that they meant. You are going out of your way to avoid basic facts because you want to convert the constitution into a document that regulates individual freedoms.
I notice that when asked to cite the basis for a whole list of irrational assertions on your part, you're just ignoring that. Why? Because you don't have anything to go on.
I get it. You think that of all the dangerous things in the world, and despite the countless other ways that people are murdered every year, that you think guns shouldn't be allowed. Fine, that's your opinion. It's an opinion completely lacking any perspective, relative to everything else mentioned, but you're entitled to your opinion. What you're NOT entitled to are your own set of facts. Facts: the people who wrote the constitution explained exactly why they did it, and there are copious contemporary writings that demonstrate you have your understanding of not only wrong, but exactly backwards. The only possibility is that you're well aware of that, but are pretending otherwise because you're hoping that gullible readers will fall for it, in support of your agenda. Otherwise, you'd actually address the issues raised - which you won't, because you can't without showing that you're BSing about it.
The only thing you ARE doing is trotting out a link to some stats about Canadian homicide rates. That page indirectly brings up the notion of the high homicide rate in the US. Fine! Let's talk about that (again). If you remove from the US stats a handful of specific areas where urban gang crime is very high (even though, by your standards, it should be a paradise because of the most restrictive gun laws in the country), then the homicide rates are actually lower than elsewhere.
So I'll ask you again, on the off chance you're feeling braver this time: reconcile those facts. Don't link to a web site about Canada. Actually address the substance of the matter, directly, in your own words: how does a place like Chicago, which has some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the country - just the way you like it! - end up having a murder problem that accounts for a huge portion of the entire country's statistics? Is it possible that the problem is actually the people who are killing each other over gang turf? That happens in other places, too - only they use machetes and other implements... but for exactly the same reasons. You're confusing the tools with the people who use them, and then try to turn the constitution inside out in order to avoid making a judgement call about local behavior in certain demographic sub-groups.
do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?
You are also unable to understand the difference between "owning" and "using." To you belive that you shouldn't be allowed to own a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife without government-provided training? No? Why not? Be specific. Otherwise, your hypocrisy on the subject will be plain enough for even you to see.
I'm not debating that. I presume that the company doing the complaining here is suggesting that despite the existing and well-discussed concept of modularity, they had something proprietary that was new or especially creative in leveraging that general concept. That's the sort of nitty-gritty detail that an NDA is supposed to protect.
maybe we should control guns better, like all of our peers?
Oh, so you've abandoned the whole "the second amendment is actually a safety regulation" line of argument?
all easy guns in the usa means is far more homicides
So how do you explain the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, while homicides of all kinds (including those in which a gun was used) are steadily going down? Please be specific in reconciling your use of the word "more" with the actual stats, which show "less."
why aren't societies with strong gun controls drowning in rape and robbery like your hysteria says?
Please cite the sentence or passage, written by me, in which I hysterically describe what you're saying. An actual link, please.
extra guns does not mean less crime
Please reconcile that assertion with the actual observed facts: places like Miami saw an immediate drop in violent crime of all kinds, including murder, when citizens there were no longer as limited in their ability to own and carry firearms. A huge and growing violent crime problem there reversed itself and has been going down ever since, even as more people are owning - and in many cases, getting permits to carry - guns.
While you're explaining that, please explain how some of the most restrictive laws in the country (in Chicago, for example) exist in places where violent crime is steadily increasing? How can that be? How is it that your idea of making it harder for non-criminals to own a gun is causing more violent crime? Please be specific in explaining your theory.
all people like you mean to me is: you think every single altercation has to escalate to someone being dead.
Please cite a single example, ever, of my saying or implying any such thing. Be specific.
In the meantime, reconcile that irrational assertion with the fact that people use firearms hundreds of thousands of times a year in the US alone to prevent or stop violence from happening. Usually, without firing a single shot. How do you reconcile those statistics with your fantasy notion of every single altercation escalating to death? I know how: you're fantasizing.
it's just extra death for no reason
By "extra" you mean the opposite, right? Because there are fewer deaths now than five years ago, than ten years ago, or twenty five years ago. Spend a minute looking at the information published by the FBI, who have nicely bundled all of that information up for you, so that your completely made-up picture of the situation can be corrected with basic facts.
But at least you've given up thinking of the constitution as a body of regulations limiting your freedom. That's a start.
How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.
Or, show it to prospective customers/partners under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Like happens millions of times a year throughout most industries, and probably (I'd be very surprised to find otherwise) happened in this case.
So you're comparing an imagined "mass hysteria" that manifests itself as years-long legislative and regulatory exercises and countless court reviews and modifications... with low-information violent individual idiots who are hugely outnumbered by people who actually seek to defend and protect the victims of the sort of unwarranted assaults described?
the usa seems to think handing out guns is completely ok
Please link to something describing this gun hand-out program, especially to one that ignores existing federal laws about not letting crazy people buy them.
The real issue there is that crazy people aren't called crazy any more, because it's politically incorrect to do anything other than mainstream them and hope for the best.
laws that promote *irresponsible* gun use
Please cite actual laws that promote irresponsible gun use. Specifically.
the second amendment even says a "well-regulated" militia (meaning "well-trained").
Which has 100% nothing to do with the protections the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals. It's BECAUSE the founders knew that having a standing army and/or people ready to stand up a be an army was always going to be necessary, that they didn't want the government and it's approved soldiers to have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms. You've talked about this before, and walked away from the conversation whenever you're confronted with the actual history of the matter. Choosing to take the amendment's language out of context doesn't change things. The second amendment doesn't require training any more than first amendment requires you to learn how to capitalize your sentences - something you still haven't figured out. Both of those amendments, like others, exist to prevent government interference with your rights, not to limit them. That you think it's the opposite shows how you completely misunderstand the constitution and its history.
a gun is dangerous and requires responsible training
Just like kitchen knives, swords, horses, and matches, right? Please point to a single other place in the constitution or in any of the contemporary writings of the people who wrote it and the amendments where there's even a HINT of concern about it being part of the nation's founding charter that people aren't allowed to handle dangerous things without government training. Farmers even then were using black powder explosives to remove tree stumps in their fields. Which amendment addresses that? Please, be specific.
how can someone who is a responsible gun owner defend this status quo?
You mean, the steady, multi-decade decline in violence that happens to involve the use of guns? But more to the point, people mis-using cars kill a lot more people. People using objects like knives and baseball bats kill far more people than anyone using any sort of rifle. How can drivers and baseball fans defend this status quo, right? Right?
you would think gun owners would know more than anyone the need for responsible training first
Right. People who use all sorts of potentially lethal devices and substances generally know to learn about being safe before doing something dumb. But of course thousands of people die and kill other people doing dumb, reckless or malicious stuff with non-gun items every year. Your completely phony obsession with a fantasy notion that, of all of the dangerous items and activities in the world, ONE of them gets a constitutional amendment mandating safety training, and that that amendment, unlike all the others which exist to limit the government's reach exists to limit individual rights - it's laughable. Spend five minutes studying the entire purpose of the constitution, and you'll (if you're honest) understand that you have it completely backwards on the one amendment you're cherry-picking and twisting to suit your agenda.
Except... before a range of provisions were made, good old fashioned "take me to Cuba" style hijackings became regular occurrences. Once people saw it could be done, there were many, many people doing it or at least attempting it. It took fairly draconian measures to make it stop, thought it still occasionally happened. Which is why the people onboard at least the first couple of doomed aircraft on 9/11 had no expectation that the people who took over the cockpits were going to use them all as part of a guided missile.
So, your take on it now is that if we just made it obvious to everyone that in order to avoid the incredibly unusual event of a suicidal pilot being able to lock others out of the cockpit, we just allow anyone from the Crazy Islamist Or Otherwise Brigade to have a go at the cockpit's unsecured door? Not every aircraft has an air marshal or the equivalent onboard. The flight crew isn't generally armed or always going to be able to deal with, say, several guys willing to kill others in order to crash an aircraft. All they'd have to do is make it happen at the last minute during an approach, and splash a big pile of flaming wreckage into a large urban area. They've already tried that a couple times since, using explosives that thankfully failed for minor technical reasons.
The zealot wackadoos, in case you haven't noticed, have been busy increasing in number and willingness to kill themselves in order to kill others. I doubt that the number of suicidal professional pilots is changing in any meaningful way from "essentially none." The difference is that legions of crazies have expressed a continuing devotion to killing as many people as possible in as spectacular a way as possible, because Allah likes it that way. They advertise their desire to do it, and have demonstrated many attempts and plans since 9/11 to do more of the same. You really think that leaving cockpit doors unlocked won't matter because, after all, they've all decided that their previous buddies' actions were a bit over the top?
I wonder where the rest of the world is putting all of the cars that they ask to have put on huge freighters and shipped overseas? There must be some huge warehouses full of those vehicles. And all of the private exporters who gray-market US cars to destinations all over the planet must be truly perplexed by the money they receive, since no one is actually driving the cars.
I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of mass hysteria. That usually implies things like witch hunts where a large group of people react to an imagined threat. You know, like, witches or something. Or that poor woman beat to death the other day by a mob in Afghanistan because of a made-up story about something she did... which she didn't do.
Or, you've got cases like those that led to secured cockpits on commercial aircraft. You know, when actual terrorists - most without beards - killed thousands of people. No hysteria involved, it actually happened. And because of steps taken, that particular approach isn't going to happen again (though many people have since been tackled and restrained in-flight as they tried to gain access to the cockpit). No, now the bad guys are trying to anticipate when the planes will be above a population center, and bring them down by other means (like, say, by attempting to blow a hole in the fuselage while on approach over Detroit, or by shipping bomb-laden laser printers in the cargo, that sort of thing). Also not imagined in the throws of hysteria.
And how is that different for labor unions, huge non-profits, people like George Soros...? It's not. What the court did was strike down a law that was allowing SOME people to pool resources in the context of political communication while preventing other people from doing the same thing. Which is a clear violation of both the first and fourteenth amendments. If you want a law that limits speech, come up with one that applies to everybody in the same way, and which doesn't violate the constitution's protections.
Was that in a novel or something? Because it didn't happen in real life.
They have, though, ruled that you as a person don't give up things like the first amendment's protections just because you, say, start a neighborhood landscaping business and (gasp!) incorporate it.
The last time we eradicated some power-hungry murderous group in the middle-east, we created ISIS.
No, that happened because we left before there was a half-decent force in place to keep Iraq functioning, and because the many crossed "red lines" in Syria turn out to be no red lines at all (says the administration), and that conflict has been allowed to fester - a situation the sort of people who morphed their groups into ISIS just love.
In case you wonder how ISIS is receiving US support
So if you give your neighbor some used garden tools including a good brush clearing machete, and then your neighbor is run out of their house by MS13 so they can set up a meth lab, and they happen to use the machete to kill a rival drug dealer... are you supporting MS13?
wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along
And every other company and country and school that's played with the stuff, right? Because that patent dried up a long time ago, and many, many parties make and work with the stuff. Not to ruin your narrative or anything.
Yeah, but in California that sort of vagueness is still enough to have your business trashed by over-eager regulators who think that "probably" sounds close enough, even if it does mean "we drowned a rat in a vat of the stuff, and even though it died from lack of oxygen, it probably would have come down with cancer later anyway."
Meanwhile, being out in the fresh air and sunshine as much as our ancestors were will probably also give you cancer.
Even though they are little more than rednecks with AKs, we see articles on them all the time
Because where they are located as a group (not to be confused with the "lone wolf" types that the communication in question is trying to egg on), they've brutally killed thousands of people, and are armed with pretty nice toys, left behind by the courageous Iraqi regulars who went running for the hills when ISIS showed up.
Imagine if the same amount of press was done with some far right-wing militia group in the US.
If some group in the US did anything LIKE what ISIS is doing in across huge swaths of land in the Middle East, and did so with tens of thousands of people gleefully participating, then you'd see far MORE press about it that we're seeing about ISIS. But because there are no such huge groups of prisoner-burning, foreigner-decapitating militarized crazies occupying the equivalent of large portions of multiple states in the US, there's nothing to talk about.
ISIS's propaganda is working so well that even Europe has all but recognized them as a sovereign state.
Well, they control land, have a standing army, control and sell oil resources, and have people from around the world traveling to submit to their regime. That's about as (or more) put together as, say, Yemen is right now - a country that the EU recognizes.
If ISIS loses the ability to show some atrocity or chop off another head
So you're proposing control over the internet as a solution, here?
... against any future use of the term "doxes" in this or any other context. Happily, my last fatwah, condemning all who say things like, "I spent the last couple of hours updating all my Linux boxen" has proven very successful.
The only people who are going to check their favorite blog, see this sort of stuff, and then go try to act on it are... pretty damn dim/broken in the first place. Cunning isn't really a big part of the equation, not at the ISIS grunt level, and certainly not at the lone-wolf-"inspired-by" level. We've seen several examples of those inspired-by types in the last couple of months, and those guys were plain old nuts.
It has to be better than that, though. The would-be killers need to be shot down, and then the MPs need to pose the very dead Obi Wannabe Jihaddi next to a 12 year old girl holding a shotgun and smiling. The real damage to these guys and their social circle is found in humiliation and refutation of the way they characterize, among other things, girls and women. Another winning aftermath shot would involve the failed jihaddi's remains half-eaten by hogs.
I really liked the coverage, the other day, of a bunch of these macho warriors for allah being caught trying to flee their increasingly losing position in Tikrit while wearing women's clothes. That was delightful.
Ooh, We have a grammar Nazi who cares more about grammar then content.
Oh, look! An anonymous coward that trots out false dichotomies. And who doesn't understand that when people decide to be lazy, poor communicators, it means that they really don't think that what they're talking about is actually all that important (or, they assume that they're only talking to other people who are too dumb to parse the language correctly). Showing that you can't grasp something as fundamental as the difference between plural and possessive words means that you're probably not a careful or critical thinker, and that means that whatever point you're trying to make is probably also tainted by a lazy intellect.
It takes extra work to incorrectly add an apostrophe to a plural word. Why do it? It can't be incorrect typing that just coincidentally stuck an apostrophe right where you'd put one if you meant the possessive form. It's a failure to grasp the difference. Which means it's a written form that's simply being visually copied from having seen other people do the same thing. Which means the person using it isn't actually thinking about what they're saying. Pointing that out isn't a complaint about grammar, it's an observation about the merits of the communication generally, because of what the deliberately bad usage says about the person making the communication.
We all make typos. But this particular type of error is a sign of a larger case of not thinking about what one is even thinking in the first place.
Plants would use MUCH less water if people wouldn't graft water-wasting apostrophes onto them for no reason other than appealing for anti-intellectual street cred.
Slashdot Mirror
we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training
Except that's not what the amendment means, it's not what it says, and it's not what the people who wrote it said - in their MANY supporting letters and other documents - that they meant. You are going out of your way to avoid basic facts because you want to convert the constitution into a document that regulates individual freedoms.
... but for exactly the same reasons. You're confusing the tools with the people who use them, and then try to turn the constitution inside out in order to avoid making a judgement call about local behavior in certain demographic sub-groups.
I notice that when asked to cite the basis for a whole list of irrational assertions on your part, you're just ignoring that. Why? Because you don't have anything to go on.
I get it. You think that of all the dangerous things in the world, and despite the countless other ways that people are murdered every year, that you think guns shouldn't be allowed. Fine, that's your opinion. It's an opinion completely lacking any perspective, relative to everything else mentioned, but you're entitled to your opinion. What you're NOT entitled to are your own set of facts. Facts: the people who wrote the constitution explained exactly why they did it, and there are copious contemporary writings that demonstrate you have your understanding of not only wrong, but exactly backwards. The only possibility is that you're well aware of that, but are pretending otherwise because you're hoping that gullible readers will fall for it, in support of your agenda. Otherwise, you'd actually address the issues raised - which you won't, because you can't without showing that you're BSing about it.
The only thing you ARE doing is trotting out a link to some stats about Canadian homicide rates. That page indirectly brings up the notion of the high homicide rate in the US. Fine! Let's talk about that (again). If you remove from the US stats a handful of specific areas where urban gang crime is very high (even though, by your standards, it should be a paradise because of the most restrictive gun laws in the country), then the homicide rates are actually lower than elsewhere.
So I'll ask you again, on the off chance you're feeling braver this time: reconcile those facts. Don't link to a web site about Canada. Actually address the substance of the matter, directly, in your own words: how does a place like Chicago, which has some of the most draconian, restrictive gun laws in the country - just the way you like it! - end up having a murder problem that accounts for a huge portion of the entire country's statistics? Is it possible that the problem is actually the people who are killing each other over gang turf? That happens in other places, too - only they use machetes and other implements
do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?
You are also unable to understand the difference between "owning" and "using." To you belive that you shouldn't be allowed to own a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife without government-provided training? No? Why not? Be specific. Otherwise, your hypocrisy on the subject will be plain enough for even you to see.
I'm not debating that. I presume that the company doing the complaining here is suggesting that despite the existing and well-discussed concept of modularity, they had something proprietary that was new or especially creative in leveraging that general concept. That's the sort of nitty-gritty detail that an NDA is supposed to protect.
maybe we should control guns better, like all of our peers?
Oh, so you've abandoned the whole "the second amendment is actually a safety regulation" line of argument?
all easy guns in the usa means is far more homicides
So how do you explain the fact that gun ownership continues to climb, while homicides of all kinds (including those in which a gun was used) are steadily going down? Please be specific in reconciling your use of the word "more" with the actual stats, which show "less."
why aren't societies with strong gun controls drowning in rape and robbery like your hysteria says?
Please cite the sentence or passage, written by me, in which I hysterically describe what you're saying. An actual link, please.
extra guns does not mean less crime
Please reconcile that assertion with the actual observed facts: places like Miami saw an immediate drop in violent crime of all kinds, including murder, when citizens there were no longer as limited in their ability to own and carry firearms. A huge and growing violent crime problem there reversed itself and has been going down ever since, even as more people are owning - and in many cases, getting permits to carry - guns.
While you're explaining that, please explain how some of the most restrictive laws in the country (in Chicago, for example) exist in places where violent crime is steadily increasing? How can that be? How is it that your idea of making it harder for non-criminals to own a gun is causing more violent crime? Please be specific in explaining your theory.
all people like you mean to me is: you think every single altercation has to escalate to someone being dead.
Please cite a single example, ever, of my saying or implying any such thing. Be specific.
In the meantime, reconcile that irrational assertion with the fact that people use firearms hundreds of thousands of times a year in the US alone to prevent or stop violence from happening. Usually, without firing a single shot. How do you reconcile those statistics with your fantasy notion of every single altercation escalating to death? I know how: you're fantasizing.
it's just extra death for no reason
By "extra" you mean the opposite, right? Because there are fewer deaths now than five years ago, than ten years ago, or twenty five years ago. Spend a minute looking at the information published by the FBI, who have nicely bundled all of that information up for you, so that your completely made-up picture of the situation can be corrected with basic facts.
But at least you've given up thinking of the constitution as a body of regulations limiting your freedom. That's a start.
How can you claim something is a trade secret if you show it to others? If you want to keep your design proprietary, patent it.
Or, show it to prospective customers/partners under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Like happens millions of times a year throughout most industries, and probably (I'd be very surprised to find otherwise) happened in this case.
So you're comparing an imagined "mass hysteria" that manifests itself as years-long legislative and regulatory exercises and countless court reviews and modifications ... with low-information violent individual idiots who are hugely outnumbered by people who actually seek to defend and protect the victims of the sort of unwarranted assaults described?
the usa seems to think handing out guns is completely ok
Please link to something describing this gun hand-out program, especially to one that ignores existing federal laws about not letting crazy people buy them.
The real issue there is that crazy people aren't called crazy any more, because it's politically incorrect to do anything other than mainstream them and hope for the best.
laws that promote *irresponsible* gun use
Please cite actual laws that promote irresponsible gun use. Specifically.
the second amendment even says a "well-regulated" militia (meaning "well-trained").
Which has 100% nothing to do with the protections the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals. It's BECAUSE the founders knew that having a standing army and/or people ready to stand up a be an army was always going to be necessary, that they didn't want the government and it's approved soldiers to have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms. You've talked about this before, and walked away from the conversation whenever you're confronted with the actual history of the matter. Choosing to take the amendment's language out of context doesn't change things. The second amendment doesn't require training any more than first amendment requires you to learn how to capitalize your sentences - something you still haven't figured out. Both of those amendments, like others, exist to prevent government interference with your rights, not to limit them. That you think it's the opposite shows how you completely misunderstand the constitution and its history.
a gun is dangerous and requires responsible training
Just like kitchen knives, swords, horses, and matches, right? Please point to a single other place in the constitution or in any of the contemporary writings of the people who wrote it and the amendments where there's even a HINT of concern about it being part of the nation's founding charter that people aren't allowed to handle dangerous things without government training. Farmers even then were using black powder explosives to remove tree stumps in their fields. Which amendment addresses that? Please, be specific.
how can someone who is a responsible gun owner defend this status quo?
You mean, the steady, multi-decade decline in violence that happens to involve the use of guns? But more to the point, people mis-using cars kill a lot more people. People using objects like knives and baseball bats kill far more people than anyone using any sort of rifle. How can drivers and baseball fans defend this status quo, right? Right?
you would think gun owners would know more than anyone the need for responsible training first
Right. People who use all sorts of potentially lethal devices and substances generally know to learn about being safe before doing something dumb. But of course thousands of people die and kill other people doing dumb, reckless or malicious stuff with non-gun items every year. Your completely phony obsession with a fantasy notion that, of all of the dangerous items and activities in the world, ONE of them gets a constitutional amendment mandating safety training, and that that amendment, unlike all the others which exist to limit the government's reach exists to limit individual rights - it's laughable. Spend five minutes studying the entire purpose of the constitution, and you'll (if you're honest) understand that you have it completely backwards on the one amendment you're cherry-picking and twisting to suit your agenda.
Except ... before a range of provisions were made, good old fashioned "take me to Cuba" style hijackings became regular occurrences. Once people saw it could be done, there were many, many people doing it or at least attempting it. It took fairly draconian measures to make it stop, thought it still occasionally happened. Which is why the people onboard at least the first couple of doomed aircraft on 9/11 had no expectation that the people who took over the cockpits were going to use them all as part of a guided missile.
So, your take on it now is that if we just made it obvious to everyone that in order to avoid the incredibly unusual event of a suicidal pilot being able to lock others out of the cockpit, we just allow anyone from the Crazy Islamist Or Otherwise Brigade to have a go at the cockpit's unsecured door? Not every aircraft has an air marshal or the equivalent onboard. The flight crew isn't generally armed or always going to be able to deal with, say, several guys willing to kill others in order to crash an aircraft. All they'd have to do is make it happen at the last minute during an approach, and splash a big pile of flaming wreckage into a large urban area. They've already tried that a couple times since, using explosives that thankfully failed for minor technical reasons.
The zealot wackadoos, in case you haven't noticed, have been busy increasing in number and willingness to kill themselves in order to kill others. I doubt that the number of suicidal professional pilots is changing in any meaningful way from "essentially none." The difference is that legions of crazies have expressed a continuing devotion to killing as many people as possible in as spectacular a way as possible, because Allah likes it that way. They advertise their desire to do it, and have demonstrated many attempts and plans since 9/11 to do more of the same. You really think that leaving cockpit doors unlocked won't matter because, after all, they've all decided that their previous buddies' actions were a bit over the top?
I wonder where the rest of the world is putting all of the cars that they ask to have put on huge freighters and shipped overseas? There must be some huge warehouses full of those vehicles. And all of the private exporters who gray-market US cars to destinations all over the planet must be truly perplexed by the money they receive, since no one is actually driving the cars.
anti-bearded-terrorist mass hysteria
I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of mass hysteria. That usually implies things like witch hunts where a large group of people react to an imagined threat. You know, like, witches or something. Or that poor woman beat to death the other day by a mob in Afghanistan because of a made-up story about something she did ... which she didn't do.
Or, you've got cases like those that led to secured cockpits on commercial aircraft. You know, when actual terrorists - most without beards - killed thousands of people. No hysteria involved, it actually happened. And because of steps taken, that particular approach isn't going to happen again (though many people have since been tackled and restrained in-flight as they tried to gain access to the cockpit). No, now the bad guys are trying to anticipate when the planes will be above a population center, and bring them down by other means (like, say, by attempting to blow a hole in the fuselage while on approach over Detroit, or by shipping bomb-laden laser printers in the cargo, that sort of thing). Also not imagined in the throws of hysteria.
And how is that different for labor unions, huge non-profits, people like George Soros...? It's not. What the court did was strike down a law that was allowing SOME people to pool resources in the context of political communication while preventing other people from doing the same thing. Which is a clear violation of both the first and fourteenth amendments. If you want a law that limits speech, come up with one that applies to everybody in the same way, and which doesn't violate the constitution's protections.
The same SCOTUS that ruled corporation are people
Was that in a novel or something? Because it didn't happen in real life.
They have, though, ruled that you as a person don't give up things like the first amendment's protections just because you, say, start a neighborhood landscaping business and (gasp!) incorporate it.
The last time we eradicated some power-hungry murderous group in the middle-east, we created ISIS.
No, that happened because we left before there was a half-decent force in place to keep Iraq functioning, and because the many crossed "red lines" in Syria turn out to be no red lines at all (says the administration), and that conflict has been allowed to fester - a situation the sort of people who morphed their groups into ISIS just love.
Have the crazies who use words like "rape culture" or "safe space" ever cared about laws, or even common sense?
Even by asking that, you are triggering. How dare you.
The deal was made after the trouble started and is ongoing
Non-spun, non-insane, credible citation required.
In case you wonder how ISIS is receiving US support
So if you give your neighbor some used garden tools including a good brush clearing machete, and then your neighbor is run out of their house by MS13 so they can set up a meth lab, and they happen to use the machete to kill a rival drug dealer ... are you supporting MS13?
Get a grip.
wherein we find out that Monsanto has known it all along
And every other company and country and school that's played with the stuff, right? Because that patent dried up a long time ago, and many, many parties make and work with the stuff. Not to ruin your narrative or anything.
Science doesn't work that way - religion does
Yeah, but in California that sort of vagueness is still enough to have your business trashed by over-eager regulators who think that "probably" sounds close enough, even if it does mean "we drowned a rat in a vat of the stuff, and even though it died from lack of oxygen, it probably would have come down with cancer later anyway."
Meanwhile, being out in the fresh air and sunshine as much as our ancestors were will probably also give you cancer.
Even though they are little more than rednecks with AKs, we see articles on them all the time
Because where they are located as a group (not to be confused with the "lone wolf" types that the communication in question is trying to egg on), they've brutally killed thousands of people, and are armed with pretty nice toys, left behind by the courageous Iraqi regulars who went running for the hills when ISIS showed up.
Imagine if the same amount of press was done with some far right-wing militia group in the US.
If some group in the US did anything LIKE what ISIS is doing in across huge swaths of land in the Middle East, and did so with tens of thousands of people gleefully participating, then you'd see far MORE press about it that we're seeing about ISIS. But because there are no such huge groups of prisoner-burning, foreigner-decapitating militarized crazies occupying the equivalent of large portions of multiple states in the US, there's nothing to talk about.
ISIS's propaganda is working so well that even Europe has all but recognized them as a sovereign state.
Well, they control land, have a standing army, control and sell oil resources, and have people from around the world traveling to submit to their regime. That's about as (or more) put together as, say, Yemen is right now - a country that the EU recognizes.
If ISIS loses the ability to show some atrocity or chop off another head
So you're proposing control over the internet as a solution, here?
... against any future use of the term "doxes" in this or any other context. Happily, my last fatwah, condemning all who say things like, "I spent the last couple of hours updating all my Linux boxen" has proven very successful.
The only people who are going to check their favorite blog, see this sort of stuff, and then go try to act on it are ... pretty damn dim/broken in the first place. Cunning isn't really a big part of the equation, not at the ISIS grunt level, and certainly not at the lone-wolf-"inspired-by" level. We've seen several examples of those inspired-by types in the last couple of months, and those guys were plain old nuts.
It has to be better than that, though. The would-be killers need to be shot down, and then the MPs need to pose the very dead Obi Wannabe Jihaddi next to a 12 year old girl holding a shotgun and smiling. The real damage to these guys and their social circle is found in humiliation and refutation of the way they characterize, among other things, girls and women. Another winning aftermath shot would involve the failed jihaddi's remains half-eaten by hogs.
I really liked the coverage, the other day, of a bunch of these macho warriors for allah being caught trying to flee their increasingly losing position in Tikrit while wearing women's clothes. That was delightful.
Ooh, We have a grammar Nazi who cares more about grammar then content.
Oh, look! An anonymous coward that trots out false dichotomies. And who doesn't understand that when people decide to be lazy, poor communicators, it means that they really don't think that what they're talking about is actually all that important (or, they assume that they're only talking to other people who are too dumb to parse the language correctly). Showing that you can't grasp something as fundamental as the difference between plural and possessive words means that you're probably not a careful or critical thinker, and that means that whatever point you're trying to make is probably also tainted by a lazy intellect.
It takes extra work to incorrectly add an apostrophe to a plural word. Why do it? It can't be incorrect typing that just coincidentally stuck an apostrophe right where you'd put one if you meant the possessive form. It's a failure to grasp the difference. Which means it's a written form that's simply being visually copied from having seen other people do the same thing. Which means the person using it isn't actually thinking about what they're saying. Pointing that out isn't a complaint about grammar, it's an observation about the merits of the communication generally, because of what the deliberately bad usage says about the person making the communication.
We all make typos. But this particular type of error is a sign of a larger case of not thinking about what one is even thinking in the first place.
Plant's lose water through transpiration.
Plants would use MUCH less water if people wouldn't graft water-wasting apostrophes onto them for no reason other than appealing for anti-intellectual street cred.
I too endorse the utilization of slave labor to build our cars
Well at least be serious. You endorse the utilization of slave employers.
Kids learn from their mistakes.
Yup, except for the dead ones. Also hard for the other people they kill to learn to avoid being around teenage drivers.