"so not in militia = not a person? that must be convient"
I'm sorry.. Did you read my post? The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The founding fathers were very clear. If they meant for everyday citizens to have the right to own a weapon, don't you think they would have left out "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"? They didn't put it there to confuse people like yourself. They put it there specifically because they felt that the states needed an armed militia. The second amendment was not written to address an individual's rights to own a weapon. Apples and oranges.
"The US Constitution contains in it the 2nd Amendment, which promises the right of an armed citizenry."
I will most certainly set you straight. The National Rifle Association is very fond of the second half of the second amendment. They deliberately choose not to mention the first half of the second amendment. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Are you a member of your state's militia? No, you're probably not. As such, you have no constitutional right to own a firearm and 'bear arms'. The constitution was written 200 years ago. Had they been psychic, they would have written it better so that we don't need to have this discussion, but like us, they were human. Do I think we should make it illegal to own a weapon? No, because then only criminals would have weapons. Fight for your right to defend yourself, don't use the constitution as an excuse.
As for this video game, it may be in poor taste, but it's perfectly legal. There are many people that don't want be reminded of JFK's death, and they'll shy away from it. That's their choice. You have the right to free speech, but I don't have to listen to you. That's how free speech works. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to them.
And, if it matters, I declined the opportunity to moderate this discussion so that I could set you straight. Feel special.
Everyone keeps mentioning how surprised the candidates will be by these questions. I don't think so. They've both heard of the Internet. (Okay, maybe Bush hasn't..) Regardless, I'm sure they have people in their campaigns to dig this stuff up and make sure they're prepared for it.
The courts aren't always stupid. You had the right idea to bring up 2600, but you thought of the wrong lawsuit. The DeCSS case of DVD-CCA vs. 2600 Magazine wasn't really about linking. It was about DeCSS being a circumvention device and therefore illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The proper case that applies to this is Ford Motor Company vs. 2600 Magazine, and the story of fuckgeneralmotors.com. 2600 registered the domain to exercise their right to free speech and to prove a point. They also decided that anyone willing to type 'fuckgeneralmotors' into their address bar was probably dissatisfied with GMC and would probably be interesting in a different manufacturer. fuckgeneralmotors.com/ was pointed at Ford.com. Ford Motor Company sued 2600 Magazine believing that 2600 had no right to direct their site at ford.com without their permission. As the World Wide Web is built on linking, the judge quickly decided in favor of 2600 Magazine. And for all who may be interested, is currently pointed at Citroën's website.
As it is, Mr. Rothenburg is trying his hardest to make up for the errors that one of his employees has made. At least he has some common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
"so not in militia = not a person? that must be convient"
I'm sorry.. Did you read my post? The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The founding fathers were very clear. If they meant for everyday citizens to have the right to own a weapon, don't you think they would have left out "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"? They didn't put it there to confuse people like yourself. They put it there specifically because they felt that the states needed an armed militia. The second amendment was not written to address an individual's rights to own a weapon. Apples and oranges.
"The game is a disgusting murder-porno." Is that double-speak? Did you mean murder-death-kill?
"The US Constitution contains in it the 2nd Amendment, which promises the right of an armed citizenry."
I will most certainly set you straight. The National Rifle Association is very fond of the second half of the second amendment. They deliberately choose not to mention the first half of the second amendment. The second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Are you a member of your state's militia? No, you're probably not. As such, you have no constitutional right to own a firearm and 'bear arms'. The constitution was written 200 years ago. Had they been psychic, they would have written it better so that we don't need to have this discussion, but like us, they were human. Do I think we should make it illegal to own a weapon? No, because then only criminals would have weapons. Fight for your right to defend yourself, don't use the constitution as an excuse.
As for this video game, it may be in poor taste, but it's perfectly legal. There are many people that don't want be reminded of JFK's death, and they'll shy away from it. That's their choice. You have the right to free speech, but I don't have to listen to you. That's how free speech works. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen to them.
And, if it matters, I declined the opportunity to moderate this discussion so that I could set you straight. Feel special.
I would love to claim credit for that, but The Register has been calling them that for as long as I can remember.
Either way, it fits very well.
Copyright collective as a solution to the music p2p problem is not a new idea. Downhillbattle.org and the EFF have been saying that Voluntary Collective Licensing is the ideal solution for quite some time already. Even The Recording Industry Ass. Of America could get a piece of that money, even though it should go mostly to the artists.
Everyone keeps mentioning how surprised the candidates will be by these questions. I don't think so. They've both heard of the Internet. (Okay, maybe Bush hasn't..) Regardless, I'm sure they have people in their campaigns to dig this stuff up and make sure they're prepared for it.
The courts aren't always stupid. You had the right idea to bring up 2600, but you thought of the wrong lawsuit. The DeCSS case of DVD-CCA vs. 2600 Magazine wasn't really about linking. It was about DeCSS being a circumvention device and therefore illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The proper case that applies to this is Ford Motor Company vs. 2600 Magazine, and the story of fuckgeneralmotors.com. 2600 registered the domain to exercise their right to free speech and to prove a point. They also decided that anyone willing to type 'fuckgeneralmotors' into their address bar was probably dissatisfied with GMC and would probably be interesting in a different manufacturer. fuckgeneralmotors.com/ was pointed at Ford.com. Ford Motor Company sued 2600 Magazine believing that 2600 had no right to direct their site at ford.com without their permission. As the World Wide Web is built on linking, the judge quickly decided in favor of 2600 Magazine. And for all who may be interested, is currently pointed at Citroën's website.
As it is, Mr. Rothenburg is trying his hardest to make up for the errors that one of his employees has made. At least he has some common sense.