there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one
There is no second amendment that hands ANYTHING out to ANYONE. You're still completely misunderstanding the entire constitution. It doesn't "allow" something to happen, it prevents the government from interfering with something from happening.
If we applied your same complete confusion to the first amendment, you'd be suggesting that that amendment doesn't support providing printing presses to "just any douchebag." The first amendment isn't about handing out privilege or tools of communication to approved people any more than the second amendment is about handing out privilege or personal firearms. BOTH amendments are a chartered guarantee that the government CANNOT INFRINGE EXISTING RIGHTS in either area. The rights are considered inherent in their nature, and the founders went out of their way to make sure that the government couldn't interfere.
adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained
No. The constitution makes absolutely no requirement that farmer Jones is a good shot with the rifle he owns. Just like the first amendment makes no requirement that you learn how to use the shift key. Farmer Jones being a lousy marksman because the government hasn't trained or tested him in the military sense, or you being a lousy written communicator because the government hasn't trained or tested you in how to use the shift key on your keyboard make no difference with respect to farmer Brown's protected right to own a rifle, or your right to communicate, even if you can't make yourself clearer by hitting shift.
i love the constitution
No, you don't. You love the idea of an imaginary one that you're dreaming up, which instead of limiting the government's power over you as the framers intended, is instead the opposite - a document that places regulatory burdens on you. You have the entire purpose of the constitution exactly backwards. People who think the constitution grants rights to the people, and thus comes with baked-in limits on those rights, have never even seriously undertaking an elementary school level study of history.
i want it enforced as intended
Another sign you don't even understand what the constitution IS. The constitution isn't "enforced" against the citizens. It's not ABOUT the citizens. It's "enforced" against the government itself. The document is there to reign in government power, to protect us from its inevitable over-reaches. The founders couldn't be clearer about that. Everything else they leave up to the states, including things like criminal codes.
warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
So you think the act of owning a firearm is irresponsible? Or do you mean that you're worried about the irresponsible USE of a firearm? You know, the sort of thing for which we have countless laws in place which absolutely do hold you accountable for irresponsible behavior. Just like if you cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife, or run someone down with your car. The US Constitution isn't where criminal codes are defined. Do you think the framers though it was OK to cut someone's throat for no reason, or through recklessness while removing stumps from a farm field with barrels of black powder, accidentally blowing up people passing by on the road? No? Right. But in your backwards vision of the constitution, there would somewhere be an amendment that outlines the rights of people to use knives or explosives... but only with correct government training. Which is absurd, and you know it.
and i've supported my assertion in this thread
No, you haven't supported it at all. Exactly the opposite. You're displaying
Why? You don't like people commenting on an out-of-context quote that YOU posted? Still being hilarious.
avoiding the point you don't have an answer for
I've addressed it directly. You're doing everything possible to use lazy ad hominem and playing dumb in order to avoid dealing the basic facts.
The second amendment wasn't written as a skill mandate. Your attempt to portray it that way is laughable. Your completely out of context use of an historian's quote doesn't backup up your opinion, it directly contradicts it. I don't need to "show" you anything, but I can get a laugh from your attempt to twist things around. Unfortunately, it's not really very funny when people completely misunderstand the constitution. It's there to prevent the government from interfering with liberties, not to list out ways in which certain rights can be bestowed in the interests some particular goal that you're fabricating out of thin air from a misunderstood historical reference.
The constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. You want to treat it like a regulatory framework. Absurd.
So, you start your post by quoting someone who says the founders would be surprised by newer technology or by the evolution of tools and society? That's supposed to make the rest of your non-sequitor post more relevent?
who are you? just a nobody on the Internet
Like yourself, you mean? Why does your footprint on this web site, which includes your inability to do things like use the shift key, make you in any way more valuable to society or a more informed thinker? Please be specific about your credentials, skipping over the part about how an ancestor did something that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own actions or abilities.
it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
Right, It was intended to and written to protect the rights of you and me to free from government interference in our ability to defend ourselves, especially from an over-reaching armed force answering to politicians. Read what the founders actually said about why they realized the need to amend the country's charter specifically to prevent the government from in any way curtailing that right.
if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility
Out of curiosity, what do you think it helps to pretend that somebody has said something they haven't? How does that deception help? Please quote my endorsement of irresponsibility. Be specific about where I say irresponsibility is a good thing.
there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law
Leaving aside your embarassing need to use ad hominem in order to distract from a weakly supported position, how is saying that the constitution protects individuals from government interference with personal liberty in any way at odds with someone being personally responsible for their own actions? The people who think that the constitution is actually a prescription for government involvement in how others own items like cars, baseball bats, rifles, and matches are the ones who do NOT respect personal responsibility and consequences for one's choices. No, they are for prior restraint and a nanny state that saves people from their own liberty.
sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend
Since you choose to embrace the erosion of the constitution and the liberties that it defends, no, you're not allowed to call me "friend." You are not friendly to the constitution, nor to people who are glad it was written.
But since you're so worried about some "mouth breathing douchebag" getting a gun, you must be extremely anxious to have the constitution amended to deal with things that have proven to be far, far more dangerous than citizens owning guns. I'll be curious to hear your ideas on how to reduce people's liberties by getting rid of the cars that are involved in far more deaths, or the sports programs that injure and kill thousands of kids. Or the pipes, bats, and bare hands that are used to kill far more people than any sort of rifle or shotgun. To say nothing of knives, or matches.
Where is your handwringing concern about the "douchebags" who are allowed to own kitchen knives? The founding fathers certainly knew about how people could die by the knife or sword, but it never occurred to them to explicitly protect you from the government taking them away (because they would consider that to be completely preposterous)... so, with pointy, bladed tools being used in thousands and thousands of deaths every year, where is your panicky enthusiasm for having the government step in and prevent people you don't like from owning steak knives? Please address that directly.
How does manually sending her official emails over to State archives not satisfy the letter of " ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."?
Because she didn't do it while she was holding that office, didn't do it when she left the office (despite the requirement that, as a federal employee, she turn over and all pieces of federal property and all records, and sign a sworn oath that she did so), and she only DID produce (on purposefully annoying hardcopies, minus all of the meta data, etc) whatever she felt like (we'll never know the criteria) after deleting half of it, once she got busted in the particulars of her stonewalling and foiling FOIA requests. You can't seriously be misunderstanding how that's not in keeping with the archival requirements present in federal law. Swearing you're doing something (being compliant) while deliberately sheltering the very records in question on a server in your house, and hoping nobody notices is NOT in keeping with the letter of the law. At all.
Why in the world would she adopt a defensive posture, eh?
Because despite your attempt at explaining away her husband's abuse (something for which any other chief executive would be fired by his board of directors in a minute) as being somebody else's fault, she's got a long history of being sleazy when it comes to record keeping and do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do above-the-law type behavior. It's one of the reasons she got fired from an investigative job for her ethics violations. It's the reason her behavior around the WH travel office mess was so roundly criticized. It's why the gosh-isn't-that-amazing magical materialization of sworn-to-be-missing subpoenaed law firm billing records (in her closet, in the White House) was met with eye rolling. It's why her conduct around the whole Hillarycare episode left such a bad taste in everyone's mouths, regardless of party affiliation. It's why the fact that she was wandering the planet on taxpayer dollars soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars for her family enterprise, which now pays and expenses her and her family lavishly, including the payroll for the non-cleared private staffers she used to pay through her official State correspondence while producing that joke of a stack of hardcopies... it's why anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity knows that the baked-in conflicts of interest there are at least as bad as they appear, and likely worse.
She's defensive because she should be. She's done a lot of crap that has earned her scorn and scrutiny and investigation. Her conscious decision to avoid FOIA-able record keeping at State, in contradiction to the law and the very policies she told OTHER people they had to follow - that may well go from investigation to prosecution.
You're hilarious. Your own citation illustrates your (now, obviously deliberate) misrepresentation of the founders' thinking behind the second amendment. You can keep stamping your feet and saying your point is being "avoided," or you can correct your understanding of the word "avoided" just like you need to adjust your understanding of history.
You seem to think that "not agreeing with your spin" is the same as "avoiding." Once again: no amount of side-bar commentary from people like Hamilton remarking on how handy it is to have a usable military when one is needed, or how a skilled (in weapon use) citizenry is more likely to be able to stand up to tyranny than an unskilled citizenry (this is a simple observation of fact) changes the fact that the amendment was written to be sure that nobody could confuse the nation's need to have a military available with the rights of the people to be individually armed if they so choose - that status being an essential counterbalance to an armed central government. They didn't protect that right because it was handy in forming armies, they protected that right BECAUSE there was going to be an army, and they didn't want to just re-create Britain's military monopoly of force all over again.
Your deliberate attempt to make the second amendment somehow about the maintenance of skills reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire constitution. It doesn't grant rights (it limits the government's ability to interfere with them). It doesn't define a right as being grudgingly necessary in order to maintain some set of skills should an army need to be raised or opposed - it simply recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms already exists and that they consider it so important (like speech, and assembly, etc) that they take a moment to explicitly prevent the government from interfering with it. Why? Because they knew it - like speech, and assembly, or the establishment of a state religion - was exactly the sort of thing that some future group of voted-in idiots would probably try to mess with.
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery?
No, owning a gun requires none of those things. Just like owning razor sharp kitchen knives or a gallon of gasoline requires none of those things. But if you use an axe, or a pistol, or a bucket of rat poison in a reckless or malicious way, there are going to be serious consequences - just like if you were to beat someone over the head with a baseball bat. But owning a baseball bat or a piece of steel pipe, despite their lethality (more people are killed every year using club-like items and blunt objects or bare hands than by all types of rifles used both maliciously and accidentally) is not something that requires mastery, no. What's required is mastery of your own civil behavior. True with guns, as well as with things that are far more deadly in society (like cars).
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
The founding fathers had nothing to say on your imagined thesis. People like Hamilton pointed out that people won't be able to resist tyranny if they're no good at using their own weapons, but that has NOTHING to do with "shall not be infringed," when it comes to preventing the government from interfering with their rights to own the weapons. You talk about cowardly intellectual dishonesty, and here you are completely fabricating some sort of early-version federal gun skill regulation that didn't exist, was never suggested, and would have been absolutely inconceivably ridiculous to the people who chartered the nation.
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
No, just against your completely BS fantasy of what it means. Next I suppose you'll tell us that they also thought the first amendment was really them saying that everyone should be able to conjugate verbs properly.
the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns
are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?
I'm pointing out that you are completely misunderstanding the second amendment, and are doing so deliberately (because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind - and it wasn't about a constitutional amendment designed to impact gun skills among the population). There is nobody with a shred of interest in this topic that hasn't already educated themselves on this topic. People who are pretending that the history of and debate surrounding that amendment at the time it was written don't exist and thus can't inform their 21st century mis-handling of the text - they should just stop talking. Because they're spouting nonsense.
you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point
I have no need to engage your point, because it's based on a complete misunderstanding on your part, or deliberate misdirection. Either way, I'm not "avoiding" your point, I'm telling you that your point isn't the basis of a valid conversation about the second amendment's history and purpose.
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained
Right. There's no way to establish and securely maintain a country without an orderly military, and that means an armed force. Which is why the founders made a big point of making sure that said militia wouldn't be the only armed people in the country. They'd just had enough of that from Britain, and saw the results. In other words, "We'll be having an army to help protect the country, but in order to keep things in balance, the rights of the rest of people to own their own arms shall not be infringed."
No. State Department IT is on the record discouraging her from doing this. Regardless, she's the Smartest Woman In The World, and can't even reconcile her husband's lie about only having ever sent two emails in his life with her narrative about this being "his" server filled with thousands of his emails which she just used for convenience? You can trust absolutely ZERO of what she's saying publicly on this subject.
How about Democrat Senators John Kerry and Tom Harkin traveling to Nicaragua to wheel and deal with Ortega in support of a plan opposed to that which was already being negotiated with rebels there.
Or how about Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA) playing defense for Saddam Hussein and saying that the administration were liars in their diplomatic dealings in front of the UN, regarding the sanctions against Saddam's regime?
How about Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), saying, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind..." blah blah blah, but in contrast to the diplomatic language being used by the administration.
Or how about Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN), led in person by Nancy Pelosi, bypassing the administration's diplomatic channels and going to Syria to meet with Assad to express their own opinions about how foreign policy should evolve on the matter, in contrast to the administration's position?
So, you're upset about a letter stating basic facts, but not by Democrat legislators going to stir the pot in person? No? Why? Please be specific.
Where have you been? People in congress and elsewhere have been trying to get her magically invisible, non-existent emails while she was in office and ever since. There's been considerable (and loud) complaints from entities like the Associated Press, congressional committees that have been stonewalled at every turn, and more, about State's inability and/or unwillingness to materialize this information. There is NO controversy - the facts of the matter aren't even in dispute. She's busted, and she's continuing to lie about it, as usual.
SHE didn't do the extra work. She has flunkies who work for her family enterprise to do things like that. They're paid out of the hundreds of millions of dollars she and Bill have raked in over the years, including the money she solicited from foreign governments while she was on the taxpayer dollar traveling the world. Money from foreign entities and governments that are the antithesis of her supposed world view regarding women's rights and the rest. Yup, she's got millions to work with, and private staff to paw through those emails. You know, the email records of the 4th person in line for the presidency, who corresponds with foreign counterparts, but who swears that not a single scrap of classified information was ever on her private server. How does she know? Because her no-clearance-having interns helped her dig through it.
Yes, printing out the bodies of those emails was another deliberate foot-dragging, stonewalling tactic deliberately meant to make her accountability harder to come by. It would be funny if it weren't so toxic, and if half the voters in the country weren't poised to crown her queen strictly because of her gender.
I don't really like her myself, but this is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous - calling her behavior (which hasn't changed in decades) exactly what it is? Oh no! It's so mean to describe her actions in simple terms! It's so mean to let people actually understand her real behavior! She's just a well meaning grandmother, right?
Physical security is still an important aspect of overall security.
Oh. Well, then, we don't have to worry about the rest of it, like the part where's it's connected - insecurely! - to the wider internet. Everything should be fine because nobody can walk in and take the server.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. Clinton's final day as secretary was February 1, 2013.
So? How does that excuse her from existing federal regulations? Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA regulation clearly says, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
She went out of her way to avoid that requirement. She made no provision to have her official emails mirrored over to State's mandated archives. Nor did she lift a finger to do so when she left office. That violates both the letter and the spirit of that crystal clear legal requirement. And when investigators in congress and other FOIA requesters finally understood why her stonewalling was so effective (there WERE no records at State for them to request, because she prevented that from happening!), she did what... pass along the data to be reviewed? No. She used employees of her family enterprise to print out 55,000 pages of email for them to have to manually wade through (another stalling tactic), and she and only she knows the criteria used to separate those from the 30,000+ messages she says she deleted before hand. Anyone who buys her laughable narrative on this topic is a fool or (more likely, since nobody's that dumb) one of her shills.
from TFS: "...you want to foster an open, welcoming, and empowered community."
And from the SUBJECT of the post, "On Firing..."
It's about how to jettison those people because their sense of entitlement is toxic to the project and to the people who have to put up with it. And that sense of entitlement is actually having a dire impact on our culture and our economy, and it is much worse than it has been, historically. And it is absolutely propped up and hugely made worse by people who - for ideological reasons - seek to transform our relationship with the government and the experience of passing through public schools into one where a witch's brew of baseless self esteem, boundless entitlement, and crippling dependency is the norm.
every older generation says this about the newest 20 something generation
Did "every generation" witness school kids being told that showing up is the definition of success? That participating in a event where someone else is doing the work is the same as having done the work yourself? Employers are now cursed with a tsunami of kids they have to painfully re-educate, when it's even possible before having to simply fire somebody because it's too difficult, so that those kids can recognize that being present while someone else produces something isn't the same as actually being productive. The depths of that giant cognitive dissonance has never been so severe, and the blame absolutely can and should be put at the feet of those who wake up every morning and go to work to preach that very problem as a virtue.
the topic at hand is how to deal with group dynamics while keeping the inclusive nature of the open source community
No, the topic at hand was "how to fire" people who are whiny under-producers, but who think they are entitled to have a place at the table anyway. Why are you trying to change the subject from what the OP specifically asked? Because it's uncomfortable to recognize that indeed some people are just no good at some things no matter how much they whine, and it's NOT about "group dynamics," it's about getting rid of them so the group can actually get something done once rid of them.
you act as if group dynamics didn't exist before the "aging and nouveau hippies" even existed
No, I maintain that we have an entire generation of people who can't grasp that there are such things as bad ideas, wrong strategies, lazy work ethics, and unwarranted senses of entitlement to place and influence. And that the people who are shaping young minds into thinking that way are of a very specific stripe, and that we all know them when we see them. The term "hippies" is shorthand, and you know exactly the type we're talking about. That those tend to also populate the left end of the political spectrum is a fact, and isn't a surprise.
you are one of those people who would rather somehow blame this on a political ideology rather than actually contribute anything useful to the conversation
No, I'm saying that the only thing that will solve problems like this is to prevent our schools (and the wider culture) from producing the sort of dim, whiny, entitlement-minded people who are the source of the friction being discussed. This isn't a FOSS "group dynamics" problem, it goes far wider than that, and now manifests itself in almost every area of society. The people who have the skills, the discipline, and the drive to actually get things done have always been saddled with whiny leeches, but we're now producing those grasping 20-something infants at an alarmingly higher rate.
ScentCone degrading the conversation into a political ideological rant
You don't think that the recent (last 20 years, but last 10 especially) change in applied teaching philosophies - the sort of thing that now insists there is no such thing as the winner of a game, or as a day that goes by without someone who merely shows up getting the same reward as the person who shows up and works very hard - has any ideological component? Are you so disconnected from what's going on in contemporary classrooms that you can't grasp the influence that world view (ideology) has in driving the decisions that teachers and administrators make when they ban score keeping, valedictorians, and the like? Are you such a moral relativist that you think there are no such things as differences between ideologies and thus no differences in how one approach or another might impact a young person's understanding of how the world works?
The topic at hand is the paralysis in dealing with over-inflated cases of self esteem. There is a very distinct group of people (and profession) that see pushing that inflation as a virtue rather than as the sabotage that it really is. Given your reaction, it looks like they did a number on you, too.
This is the same thing that has tone deaf twits showing up for American Idol, convinced by their moms that they could be stars.
The phony self esteem syndrome starts very early these days, and is made monumentally worse by PC-infested public schools. It's become so unfashionable to simply tell people that they're not the geniuses they think they are, and so impossible to avoid parental wrath when a kid is correctly identified as merely average (or, unthinkably, less than average), that we're now manufacturing the whiners mentioned by TFA as an entire generation.
Wondering how to deal with it in the context of FOSS projects completely misses the point. Scratching around at the symptoms in every venue in which they manifest themselves is pointless. This is a deep-seated cultural problem created and exacerbated by both aging and nouveau hippies in the education and social/gov circles.
So far, everything I've seen says she didn't break any rules.
She deliberately broke not only her boss's rules, but violated the rules she forced her own staffers to follow. But beyond that, she violated a plainly worded federal regulation: According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”
She made no provision to make that happen while she was Secretary of State, and nor did she pass along any of those records as she left office. She set up a private server in her house to avoid complying with both the administration's own rules and that very specific federal regulation. And once a congressional investigation had their fill of her stonewalling and realized why State wasn't sending them any of her correspondence, they told her to cough them up.. and she had her own family business employees print out, on paper, a culled/filtered collection of messages that have weeks-long and months-long gaps in the records - and no independent entity can say what criteria she used to decide what was, or was not official. And if even a single email exchanged between her and some other party in the course of her entire tenure as the country's chief diplomat involved any classified information, there's another whole area of federal law that comes into play.
Ah, I typo-ed. She was fourth in line, not second. You know, because of that pesky US Constitution, which says so in plain language as it establishes the presidential line of succession. Your idea of "never" is pretty strange, but it sure does make you sound righteous enraged and all! You're probably so furious that your hands were shaking too badly to use Google. Here, I'll help you:
As for "factual explanation," you're really going to cite a quote that refers to a blogger at Media Matters, the proudly partisan organization that exists specifically to boost the Clintons' political endeavors? Every one of Clinton's usual proxies are of course out spinning like crazy to say the situation is "muddy." Of course that's what they want to say. The NARA is clear: you don't get to be Secretary of State and hide your emails from your agency's archiving system. That's a federal regulation that she deliberately went out of her way to avoid. And her response when busted on it? Printed-out emails, deliberately avoiding all of the forensic details that come with email headers and date/time stamps, and forcing State to spend untold man hours scanning and transcribing, when she could simply be transparent about it and provide them electronically. Typical Clinton stonewalling at its finest.
Did not violate any rules regarding email retention
I'm curious. What is your agenda that you think lying about the situation will improve it? I mean, we know that's the historically Clintonian way of handling things when they get busted, but do you really think it helps when other people do it too, when the lies are so obviously debunked?
The 2009 National Archives regulation requires federal officials to use each agency's established communication archiving systems to retain secured copies of all communication. This federal requirement was very much in effect when she was Secretary of State. She never made arrangements to have her official communications mirrored onto State's servers, and when she left, SHE DID NOT PROVIDE COPIES. She only provided a pile of hardcopies of cherry-picked email printouts once congress discovered that she'd been holding out in violation of the Archives requirement. She got busted, and so she put employees of her family business to the task of pawing through records kept on an unsecure server in her house to decide, with her review, what to pass along. And what a shocker, there are gaps of weeks and months in the records they turned over. This is plain violation of the letter and spirit of the 2009 regulation.
She went out of her way to avoid keeping public records available while being the second person in line to the presidency, and while roaming the world accomplishing almost nothing as SoS, except for soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars for her family's enterprise from people who are the antithesis of what she weakly proclaims are her main ideological grounds for wanting now to be the president. So even if you still think that makes her a good choice, that doesn't change her deliberate violating of federal regulations - and that doesn't even get into whether or not even ONE email on that system included the receipt or transmission of even one classified item - what do you think are the odds that the Secretary of State, in exchanging email with her counterparts overseas, and with senior officials in the White House (including the president) never addressed even one classified issue?
Slashdot Mirror
there is no second amendment that supports handing out guns to any douchebag that wants one
There is no second amendment that hands ANYTHING out to ANYONE. You're still completely misunderstanding the entire constitution. It doesn't "allow" something to happen, it prevents the government from interfering with something from happening.
If we applied your same complete confusion to the first amendment, you'd be suggesting that that amendment doesn't support providing printing presses to "just any douchebag." The first amendment isn't about handing out privilege or tools of communication to approved people any more than the second amendment is about handing out privilege or personal firearms. BOTH amendments are a chartered guarantee that the government CANNOT INFRINGE EXISTING RIGHTS in either area. The rights are considered inherent in their nature, and the founders went out of their way to make sure that the government couldn't interfere.
adhering faithfully to the second amendment requires us to make sure all gun owners are adequately trained
No. The constitution makes absolutely no requirement that farmer Jones is a good shot with the rifle he owns. Just like the first amendment makes no requirement that you learn how to use the shift key. Farmer Jones being a lousy marksman because the government hasn't trained or tested him in the military sense, or you being a lousy written communicator because the government hasn't trained or tested you in how to use the shift key on your keyboard make no difference with respect to farmer Brown's protected right to own a rifle, or your right to communicate, even if you can't make yourself clearer by hitting shift.
i love the constitution
No, you don't. You love the idea of an imaginary one that you're dreaming up, which instead of limiting the government's power over you as the framers intended, is instead the opposite - a document that places regulatory burdens on you. You have the entire purpose of the constitution exactly backwards. People who think the constitution grants rights to the people, and thus comes with baked-in limits on those rights, have never even seriously undertaking an elementary school level study of history.
i want it enforced as intended
Another sign you don't even understand what the constitution IS. The constitution isn't "enforced" against the citizens. It's not ABOUT the citizens. It's "enforced" against the government itself. The document is there to reign in government power, to protect us from its inevitable over-reaches. The founders couldn't be clearer about that. Everything else they leave up to the states, including things like criminal codes.
warped by irresponsible assholes going against conservative principles of personal accountability
So you think the act of owning a firearm is irresponsible? Or do you mean that you're worried about the irresponsible USE of a firearm? You know, the sort of thing for which we have countless laws in place which absolutely do hold you accountable for irresponsible behavior. Just like if you cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife, or run someone down with your car. The US Constitution isn't where criminal codes are defined. Do you think the framers though it was OK to cut someone's throat for no reason, or through recklessness while removing stumps from a farm field with barrels of black powder, accidentally blowing up people passing by on the road? No? Right. But in your backwards vision of the constitution, there would somewhere be an amendment that outlines the rights of people to use knives or explosives ... but only with correct government training. Which is absurd, and you know it.
and i've supported my assertion in this thread
No, you haven't supported it at all. Exactly the opposite. You're displaying
i stopped reading there
Why? You don't like people commenting on an out-of-context quote that YOU posted? Still being hilarious.
avoiding the point you don't have an answer for
I've addressed it directly. You're doing everything possible to use lazy ad hominem and playing dumb in order to avoid dealing the basic facts.
The second amendment wasn't written as a skill mandate. Your attempt to portray it that way is laughable. Your completely out of context use of an historian's quote doesn't backup up your opinion, it directly contradicts it. I don't need to "show" you anything, but I can get a laugh from your attempt to twist things around. Unfortunately, it's not really very funny when people completely misunderstand the constitution. It's there to prevent the government from interfering with liberties, not to list out ways in which certain rights can be bestowed in the interests some particular goal that you're fabricating out of thin air from a misunderstood historical reference.
The constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. You want to treat it like a regulatory framework. Absurd.
who are you? just a nobody on the Internet
Like yourself, you mean? Why does your footprint on this web site, which includes your inability to do things like use the shift key, make you in any way more valuable to society or a more informed thinker? Please be specific about your credentials, skipping over the part about how an ancestor did something that has nothing whatsoever to do with your own actions or abilities.
it will be enforced as *actually written and intended*
Right, It was intended to and written to protect the rights of you and me to free from government interference in our ability to defend ourselves, especially from an over-reaching armed force answering to politicians. Read what the founders actually said about why they realized the need to amend the country's charter specifically to prevent the government from in any way curtailing that right.
if you think you are going to win an argument by endorsing irresponsibility
Out of curiosity, what do you think it helps to pretend that somebody has said something they haven't? How does that deception help? Please quote my endorsement of irresponsibility. Be specific about where I say irresponsibility is a good thing.
there must be some inkling somewhere back in the dust in your skull that the *conservative* principle of personal *responsibility* is the foundation of morality and law
Leaving aside your embarassing need to use ad hominem in order to distract from a weakly supported position, how is saying that the constitution protects individuals from government interference with personal liberty in any way at odds with someone being personally responsible for their own actions? The people who think that the constitution is actually a prescription for government involvement in how others own items like cars, baseball bats, rifles, and matches are the ones who do NOT respect personal responsibility and consequences for one's choices. No, they are for prior restraint and a nanny state that saves people from their own liberty.
sorry but "a hand a gun to any mouth breathing douchebag who wants one" is not a winning position friend
Since you choose to embrace the erosion of the constitution and the liberties that it defends, no, you're not allowed to call me "friend." You are not friendly to the constitution, nor to people who are glad it was written.
... so, with pointy, bladed tools being used in thousands and thousands of deaths every year, where is your panicky enthusiasm for having the government step in and prevent people you don't like from owning steak knives? Please address that directly.
But since you're so worried about some "mouth breathing douchebag" getting a gun, you must be extremely anxious to have the constitution amended to deal with things that have proven to be far, far more dangerous than citizens owning guns. I'll be curious to hear your ideas on how to reduce people's liberties by getting rid of the cars that are involved in far more deaths, or the sports programs that injure and kill thousands of kids. Or the pipes, bats, and bare hands that are used to kill far more people than any sort of rifle or shotgun. To say nothing of knives, or matches.
Where is your handwringing concern about the "douchebags" who are allowed to own kitchen knives? The founding fathers certainly knew about how people could die by the knife or sword, but it never occurred to them to explicitly protect you from the government taking them away (because they would consider that to be completely preposterous)
How does manually sending her official emails over to State archives not satisfy the letter of " ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."?
Because she didn't do it while she was holding that office, didn't do it when she left the office (despite the requirement that, as a federal employee, she turn over and all pieces of federal property and all records, and sign a sworn oath that she did so), and she only DID produce (on purposefully annoying hardcopies, minus all of the meta data, etc) whatever she felt like (we'll never know the criteria) after deleting half of it, once she got busted in the particulars of her stonewalling and foiling FOIA requests. You can't seriously be misunderstanding how that's not in keeping with the archival requirements present in federal law. Swearing you're doing something (being compliant) while deliberately sheltering the very records in question on a server in your house, and hoping nobody notices is NOT in keeping with the letter of the law. At all.
Why in the world would she adopt a defensive posture, eh?
Because despite your attempt at explaining away her husband's abuse (something for which any other chief executive would be fired by his board of directors in a minute) as being somebody else's fault, she's got a long history of being sleazy when it comes to record keeping and do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do above-the-law type behavior. It's one of the reasons she got fired from an investigative job for her ethics violations. It's the reason her behavior around the WH travel office mess was so roundly criticized. It's why the gosh-isn't-that-amazing magical materialization of sworn-to-be-missing subpoenaed law firm billing records (in her closet, in the White House) was met with eye rolling. It's why her conduct around the whole Hillarycare episode left such a bad taste in everyone's mouths, regardless of party affiliation. It's why the fact that she was wandering the planet on taxpayer dollars soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars for her family enterprise, which now pays and expenses her and her family lavishly, including the payroll for the non-cleared private staffers she used to pay through her official State correspondence while producing that joke of a stack of hardcopies ... it's why anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity knows that the baked-in conflicts of interest there are at least as bad as they appear, and likely worse.
She's defensive because she should be. She's done a lot of crap that has earned her scorn and scrutiny and investigation. Her conscious decision to avoid FOIA-able record keeping at State, in contradiction to the law and the very policies she told OTHER people they had to follow - that may well go from investigation to prosecution.
You seem to think that "not agreeing with your spin" is the same as "avoiding." Once again: no amount of side-bar commentary from people like Hamilton remarking on how handy it is to have a usable military when one is needed, or how a skilled (in weapon use) citizenry is more likely to be able to stand up to tyranny than an unskilled citizenry (this is a simple observation of fact) changes the fact that the amendment was written to be sure that nobody could confuse the nation's need to have a military available with the rights of the people to be individually armed if they so choose - that status being an essential counterbalance to an armed central government. They didn't protect that right because it was handy in forming armies, they protected that right BECAUSE there was going to be an army, and they didn't want to just re-create Britain's military monopoly of force all over again.
Your deliberate attempt to make the second amendment somehow about the maintenance of skills reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire constitution. It doesn't grant rights (it limits the government's ability to interfere with them). It doesn't define a right as being grudgingly necessary in order to maintain some set of skills should an army need to be raised or opposed - it simply recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms already exists and that they consider it so important (like speech, and assembly, etc) that they take a moment to explicitly prevent the government from interfering with it. Why? Because they knew it - like speech, and assembly, or the establishment of a state religion - was exactly the sort of thing that some future group of voted-in idiots would probably try to mess with.
furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery?
No, owning a gun requires none of those things. Just like owning razor sharp kitchen knives or a gallon of gasoline requires none of those things. But if you use an axe, or a pistol, or a bucket of rat poison in a reckless or malicious way, there are going to be serious consequences - just like if you were to beat someone over the head with a baseball bat. But owning a baseball bat or a piece of steel pipe, despite their lethality (more people are killed every year using club-like items and blunt objects or bare hands than by all types of rifles used both maliciously and accidentally) is not something that requires mastery, no. What's required is mastery of your own civil behavior. True with guns, as well as with things that are far more deadly in society (like cars).
the founding fathers clearly did not think that
The founding fathers had nothing to say on your imagined thesis. People like Hamilton pointed out that people won't be able to resist tyranny if they're no good at using their own weapons, but that has NOTHING to do with "shall not be infringed," when it comes to preventing the government from interfering with their rights to own the weapons. You talk about cowardly intellectual dishonesty, and here you are completely fabricating some sort of early-version federal gun skill regulation that didn't exist, was never suggested, and would have been absolutely inconceivably ridiculous to the people who chartered the nation.
do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?
No, just against your completely BS fantasy of what it means. Next I suppose you'll tell us that they also thought the first amendment was really them saying that everyone should be able to conjugate verbs properly.
the founding fathers desired americans to be well trained with guns
are you denying that is what is in the wording of the second amendment?
I'm pointing out that you are completely misunderstanding the second amendment, and are doing so deliberately (because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind - and it wasn't about a constitutional amendment designed to impact gun skills among the population). There is nobody with a shred of interest in this topic that hasn't already educated themselves on this topic. People who are pretending that the history of and debate surrounding that amendment at the time it was written don't exist and thus can't inform their 21st century mis-handling of the text - they should just stop talking. Because they're spouting nonsense.
you avoided my point, which is a coward's way of conceding a point
I have no need to engage your point, because it's based on a complete misunderstanding on your part, or deliberate misdirection. Either way, I'm not "avoiding" your point, I'm telling you that your point isn't the basis of a valid conversation about the second amendment's history and purpose.
Sure I did. I addressed the actual point, instead of your imaginary one.
I think it is safe to say that the rapid spread of cheap weapons, serialized or not, is just going to lead to more gun accidents, and more gun deaths
That must explain the continuing, decades-long decline in all of those things. Right? Right.
btw, "well regulated" in colonial america speak means well trained
Right. There's no way to establish and securely maintain a country without an orderly military, and that means an armed force. Which is why the founders made a big point of making sure that said militia wouldn't be the only armed people in the country. They'd just had enough of that from Britain, and saw the results. In other words, "We'll be having an army to help protect the country, but in order to keep things in balance, the rights of the rest of people to own their own arms shall not be infringed."
No. State Department IT is on the record discouraging her from doing this. Regardless, she's the Smartest Woman In The World, and can't even reconcile her husband's lie about only having ever sent two emails in his life with her narrative about this being "his" server filled with thousands of his emails which she just used for convenience? You can trust absolutely ZERO of what she's saying publicly on this subject.
How about Democrat Senators John Kerry and Tom Harkin traveling to Nicaragua to wheel and deal with Ortega in support of a plan opposed to that which was already being negotiated with rebels there.
..." blah blah blah, but in contrast to the diplomatic language being used by the administration.
Or how about Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA) playing defense for Saddam Hussein and saying that the administration were liars in their diplomatic dealings in front of the UN, regarding the sanctions against Saddam's regime?
How about Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), saying, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind
Or how about Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN), led in person by Nancy Pelosi, bypassing the administration's diplomatic channels and going to Syria to meet with Assad to express their own opinions about how foreign policy should evolve on the matter, in contrast to the administration's position?
So, you're upset about a letter stating basic facts, but not by Democrat legislators going to stir the pot in person? No? Why? Please be specific.
Where have you been? People in congress and elsewhere have been trying to get her magically invisible, non-existent emails while she was in office and ever since. There's been considerable (and loud) complaints from entities like the Associated Press, congressional committees that have been stonewalled at every turn, and more, about State's inability and/or unwillingness to materialize this information. There is NO controversy - the facts of the matter aren't even in dispute. She's busted, and she's continuing to lie about it, as usual.
What was her purpose in doing that extra work?
SHE didn't do the extra work. She has flunkies who work for her family enterprise to do things like that. They're paid out of the hundreds of millions of dollars she and Bill have raked in over the years, including the money she solicited from foreign governments while she was on the taxpayer dollar traveling the world. Money from foreign entities and governments that are the antithesis of her supposed world view regarding women's rights and the rest. Yup, she's got millions to work with, and private staff to paw through those emails. You know, the email records of the 4th person in line for the presidency, who corresponds with foreign counterparts, but who swears that not a single scrap of classified information was ever on her private server. How does she know? Because her no-clearance-having interns helped her dig through it.
Yes, printing out the bodies of those emails was another deliberate foot-dragging, stonewalling tactic deliberately meant to make her accountability harder to come by. It would be funny if it weren't so toxic, and if half the voters in the country weren't poised to crown her queen strictly because of her gender.
I don't really like her myself, but this is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous - calling her behavior (which hasn't changed in decades) exactly what it is? Oh no! It's so mean to describe her actions in simple terms! It's so mean to let people actually understand her real behavior! She's just a well meaning grandmother, right?
Physical security is still an important aspect of overall security.
Oh. Well, then, we don't have to worry about the rest of it, like the part where's it's connected - insecurely! - to the wider internet. Everything should be fine because nobody can walk in and take the server.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. Clinton's final day as secretary was February 1, 2013.
So? How does that excuse her from existing federal regulations? Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA regulation clearly says, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
... pass along the data to be reviewed? No. She used employees of her family enterprise to print out 55,000 pages of email for them to have to manually wade through (another stalling tactic), and she and only she knows the criteria used to separate those from the 30,000+ messages she says she deleted before hand. Anyone who buys her laughable narrative on this topic is a fool or (more likely, since nobody's that dumb) one of her shills.
She went out of her way to avoid that requirement. She made no provision to have her official emails mirrored over to State's mandated archives. Nor did she lift a finger to do so when she left office. That violates both the letter and the spirit of that crystal clear legal requirement. And when investigators in congress and other FOIA requesters finally understood why her stonewalling was so effective (there WERE no records at State for them to request, because she prevented that from happening!), she did what
from TFS: "...you want to foster an open, welcoming, and empowered community."
And from the SUBJECT of the post, "On Firing..."
It's about how to jettison those people because their sense of entitlement is toxic to the project and to the people who have to put up with it. And that sense of entitlement is actually having a dire impact on our culture and our economy, and it is much worse than it has been, historically. And it is absolutely propped up and hugely made worse by people who - for ideological reasons - seek to transform our relationship with the government and the experience of passing through public schools into one where a witch's brew of baseless self esteem, boundless entitlement, and crippling dependency is the norm.
every older generation says this about the newest 20 something generation
Did "every generation" witness school kids being told that showing up is the definition of success? That participating in a event where someone else is doing the work is the same as having done the work yourself? Employers are now cursed with a tsunami of kids they have to painfully re-educate, when it's even possible before having to simply fire somebody because it's too difficult, so that those kids can recognize that being present while someone else produces something isn't the same as actually being productive. The depths of that giant cognitive dissonance has never been so severe, and the blame absolutely can and should be put at the feet of those who wake up every morning and go to work to preach that very problem as a virtue.
the topic at hand is how to deal with group dynamics while keeping the inclusive nature of the open source community
No, the topic at hand was "how to fire" people who are whiny under-producers, but who think they are entitled to have a place at the table anyway. Why are you trying to change the subject from what the OP specifically asked? Because it's uncomfortable to recognize that indeed some people are just no good at some things no matter how much they whine, and it's NOT about "group dynamics," it's about getting rid of them so the group can actually get something done once rid of them.
you act as if group dynamics didn't exist before the "aging and nouveau hippies" even existed
No, I maintain that we have an entire generation of people who can't grasp that there are such things as bad ideas, wrong strategies, lazy work ethics, and unwarranted senses of entitlement to place and influence. And that the people who are shaping young minds into thinking that way are of a very specific stripe, and that we all know them when we see them. The term "hippies" is shorthand, and you know exactly the type we're talking about. That those tend to also populate the left end of the political spectrum is a fact, and isn't a surprise.
you are one of those people who would rather somehow blame this on a political ideology rather than actually contribute anything useful to the conversation
No, I'm saying that the only thing that will solve problems like this is to prevent our schools (and the wider culture) from producing the sort of dim, whiny, entitlement-minded people who are the source of the friction being discussed. This isn't a FOSS "group dynamics" problem, it goes far wider than that, and now manifests itself in almost every area of society. The people who have the skills, the discipline, and the drive to actually get things done have always been saddled with whiny leeches, but we're now producing those grasping 20-something infants at an alarmingly higher rate.
ScentCone degrading the conversation into a political ideological rant
You don't think that the recent (last 20 years, but last 10 especially) change in applied teaching philosophies - the sort of thing that now insists there is no such thing as the winner of a game, or as a day that goes by without someone who merely shows up getting the same reward as the person who shows up and works very hard - has any ideological component? Are you so disconnected from what's going on in contemporary classrooms that you can't grasp the influence that world view (ideology) has in driving the decisions that teachers and administrators make when they ban score keeping, valedictorians, and the like? Are you such a moral relativist that you think there are no such things as differences between ideologies and thus no differences in how one approach or another might impact a young person's understanding of how the world works?
Wow, you've got some real baggage, don't you?
The topic at hand is the paralysis in dealing with over-inflated cases of self esteem. There is a very distinct group of people (and profession) that see pushing that inflation as a virtue rather than as the sabotage that it really is. Given your reaction, it looks like they did a number on you, too.
This is the same thing that has tone deaf twits showing up for American Idol, convinced by their moms that they could be stars.
The phony self esteem syndrome starts very early these days, and is made monumentally worse by PC-infested public schools. It's become so unfashionable to simply tell people that they're not the geniuses they think they are, and so impossible to avoid parental wrath when a kid is correctly identified as merely average (or, unthinkably, less than average), that we're now manufacturing the whiners mentioned by TFA as an entire generation.
Wondering how to deal with it in the context of FOSS projects completely misses the point. Scratching around at the symptoms in every venue in which they manifest themselves is pointless. This is a deep-seated cultural problem created and exacerbated by both aging and nouveau hippies in the education and social/gov circles.
So far, everything I've seen says she didn't break any rules.
She deliberately broke not only her boss's rules, but violated the rules she forced her own staffers to follow. But beyond that, she violated a plainly worded federal regulation: According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”
.. and she had her own family business employees print out, on paper, a culled/filtered collection of messages that have weeks-long and months-long gaps in the records - and no independent entity can say what criteria she used to decide what was, or was not official. And if even a single email exchanged between her and some other party in the course of her entire tenure as the country's chief diplomat involved any classified information, there's another whole area of federal law that comes into play.
She made no provision to make that happen while she was Secretary of State, and nor did she pass along any of those records as she left office. She set up a private server in her house to avoid complying with both the administration's own rules and that very specific federal regulation. And once a congressional investigation had their fill of her stonewalling and realized why State wasn't sending them any of her correspondence, they told her to cough them up
She was NEVER in-line for being president.
Ah, I typo-ed. She was fourth in line, not second. You know, because of that pesky US Constitution, which says so in plain language as it establishes the presidential line of succession. Your idea of "never" is pretty strange, but it sure does make you sound righteous enraged and all! You're probably so furious that your hands were shaking too badly to use Google. Here, I'll help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
As for "factual explanation," you're really going to cite a quote that refers to a blogger at Media Matters, the proudly partisan organization that exists specifically to boost the Clintons' political endeavors? Every one of Clinton's usual proxies are of course out spinning like crazy to say the situation is "muddy." Of course that's what they want to say. The NARA is clear: you don't get to be Secretary of State and hide your emails from your agency's archiving system. That's a federal regulation that she deliberately went out of her way to avoid. And her response when busted on it? Printed-out emails, deliberately avoiding all of the forensic details that come with email headers and date/time stamps, and forcing State to spend untold man hours scanning and transcribing, when she could simply be transparent about it and provide them electronically. Typical Clinton stonewalling at its finest.
Did not violate any rules regarding email retention
I'm curious. What is your agenda that you think lying about the situation will improve it? I mean, we know that's the historically Clintonian way of handling things when they get busted, but do you really think it helps when other people do it too, when the lies are so obviously debunked?
The 2009 National Archives regulation requires federal officials to use each agency's established communication archiving systems to retain secured copies of all communication. This federal requirement was very much in effect when she was Secretary of State. She never made arrangements to have her official communications mirrored onto State's servers, and when she left, SHE DID NOT PROVIDE COPIES. She only provided a pile of hardcopies of cherry-picked email printouts once congress discovered that she'd been holding out in violation of the Archives requirement. She got busted, and so she put employees of her family business to the task of pawing through records kept on an unsecure server in her house to decide, with her review, what to pass along. And what a shocker, there are gaps of weeks and months in the records they turned over. This is plain violation of the letter and spirit of the 2009 regulation.
She went out of her way to avoid keeping public records available while being the second person in line to the presidency, and while roaming the world accomplishing almost nothing as SoS, except for soliciting hundreds of millions of dollars for her family's enterprise from people who are the antithesis of what she weakly proclaims are her main ideological grounds for wanting now to be the president. So even if you still think that makes her a good choice, that doesn't change her deliberate violating of federal regulations - and that doesn't even get into whether or not even ONE email on that system included the receipt or transmission of even one classified item - what do you think are the odds that the Secretary of State, in exchanging email with her counterparts overseas, and with senior officials in the White House (including the president) never addressed even one classified issue?
Which is another way to STILL skip talking about the actual subject matter. Fox! Fox! Fox! Anything but the topic at hand! Fox! FOX FOX FOX!