When you look at the Second Amendment within the context of how the US was formed as an outgrowth of revolution against what was viewed as a tyrannical regime. Many of the underlying concepts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are essentially answers to the reasons for revolt and secession against Great Britain laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The Second Amendment was clearly intended to preserve liberties against future tyrants.
I have absolutely no problem with a sane, sober individual possessing a weapon. I myself am a Canadian, but I remember camping trips with my grandparents out in the backcountry of British Columbia, and he always kept his hunting rifle loaded (that would get him arrested in Canada these days), not because he even really hunted by that point, but because of the risk from bears and other predators with young kids around. I learned to shoot when I was pretty young, and while I have no more adoration for guns than I do for hammers or screwdrivers, I respect their power and believe firmly that whether anyone owns a gun or not, they should know how one works, both for gun safety and in the hopefully unlikely event they actually need to use one.
The fact of the matter is that if someone is out to kill lots of people, guns, while perhaps the most convenient method, are hardly the only one. Some college kid just stabbed five people to death at a house party, apparently with a knife that was in the house where the party was being held. If someone goes nuts and decides it's time to kill lots of people, there's damned little anyone can do about it. Maybe, if we're lucky, we find out about their dastardly plan in advance, but bad luck can take anyone out; whether it be a maniac with a weapon, a car accident, or hell, falling off a ladder.
What happens to the vast minority of people who always think they are in the vast majority?
They join some Libetarian populist movement and demand all government services with the exception of those they partake of to be slashed or eliminated?
And yes, oh ye mighty moderators, this is trolling.
Of course the Founders intended the constitution to be amended. But the position that the Second Amendment meant something other than the text is revisionism.
I'd say the mere fact that this ex-justice feels the need to add words to the Second Amendment to specifically alter and limit its context says to me he knows full well what the Founders intended. Now one can certainly debate whether the Second Amendment is still useful or desirable or however you want to frame it, but whatever side of the gun debate you sit on, to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.
Russia may cite what it likes, but as I've said before, the situation in Kosovo was such that Kosovo's secession was necessary to prevent further crimes against humanity; in particular ethnic cleansing that was almost certain to approach, if not become genocide. There is no indication that any Russian or other minority in Ukraine was under that kind of threat.
What is more, the secession of Kosovo was done under the watchful eye of numerous international agencies, whereas the Crimean "secession" was done with the Russian military and a puppet government running the entire show. To equate Kosovo and Crimea is ludicrous; both from the point of justification and from the point of how the secession was carried out.
It might be one thing if Putin and the Russian parliament hadn't been preparing annexation instruments at the very same time this referendum was being prepared.
Debian was a bit longer, so far as mainline releases go (I don't use testing branches). I have several servers and routers running 6.0, and they're all using OpenSSL 0.9.8, whereas my servers I use as KVM virtualization hosts are running Wheezy and did have vulnerable versions of OpenSSL. I had been thinking over the last few months that I should upgrade my old Debian Squeeze servers and appliances, a number of which are used for my OpenVPN WAN routers and remote client servers. I'm very glad my business/procrastination prevented me from upgrading these systems, and hence they remained untouched, and I don't have to go through the pain of regenerating keys and rolling them out to remote routers and to all the road warriors and work-at-home types.
Only if one buys that "security through obscurity" is a legitimate form of network safety. A decade's worth of Internet Explorer and ActiveX vulnerabilities would suggest you're wrong.
Indeed. If there are still a significant-enough number of OS/2 users out there to warrant OpenSSL upgrades, then someone will fill the need. But we all know there isn't enough users of these old OSs to actually warrant ancient code being maintained.
International law does not support annexations no matter how you read it. Self-determination is not in and of itself sufficient to see the borders of a sovereign state undermined. Good grief, what the hell do you think the UN was formed for, to prevent precisely what has happened.
The only reason the UN don't recognise it is because China has sufficient influence to make the member states maintain a rather silly fiction.
Well that, and the fact that Chiang Kai Shek insisted upon the pointless ruse that the Kuomintang was still the lawful government of mainland China, and was permitted to keep this delusion by US foreign policy for nearly a quarter century.
The USSR was a Western ally for precisely as long as it took to beat Nazi Germany. It wasn't a friend to the West before WWII (although I do concede Stalin had approached the Allies with concerns about Nazi Germany in 1938, though at the same time he had absolutely no problem exporting steel to Germany during the whole period), and it wasn't a friend after WWII. While Cold War propaganda may have exaggerated the economic and political ills of the Soviet Union somewhat, at the end of the day, it was no friend of the West.
The South was not just fighting for the right of states to have slaves. The whole issue of the status of slavery in the states that would be formed out of the territories was probably the largest single factor. The slave states were not just interested in maintaining slavery within their borders, they wanted to have slavery perpetuated as much as possible throughout the Continent United States.
Newsclips of people dancing around does not evidence of unimpeded electoral intent make. In an election such as this, where the borders of a sovereign state are to be redrawn and some of its territory annexed by a much more powerful neighbor, the standards of what constitutes a legitimate election are all the higher, and justifying it under the grounds that you watched a television program where a bunch of people were happy simply does not suffice.
Napoleon I and the III were famous for holding referendums, but I doubt anyone would confuse them with champions of democracy.
Whatever the level of support (and we will really never know with any certainty, considering the referendum was backed by the very state that has now annexed Crimea), the point is the same. The sovereign territory of nation states are supposed to be nearly-inviolable against annexation. Special cases exist where the population of a region has been heavily persecuted (ie. Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor), or where the situation between the governing power and the political entity had been as a client state (ie. Marshall Islands, Namibia). In a few other cases there has been mutually agreed upon terms for separation, as with the splitting of Czechoslovaki into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Merely having a large number of people of an ethnicity in a specific region is not in and of itself an argument for secession, and most certainly not an argument for a seceding polity to be annexed by another power. Now maybe the end run of a properly handled transition in Ukrainian politics may have been the departure of Crimea and other southern and eastern areas of the country, but the idea that there is any legitimacy to a referendum on allowing a polity to be annexed when the country that is to gain the region is the occupying power is absurd.
Was there actually any threat against ethnic Russians anywhere in Ukraine? There seems a long distance to be traveled from angry protesters to the kind of ethnic cleansing that one would expect would be necessary for an external power to walk in and force a separation referendum, even more dubious when the power doing that puts on the ballot "Do you want to join us..."
And I got downmodded into oblivion. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about. The whack job Libertarian with some sort of social disorder who goes around declaring that any successful woman is an uppety attention whore, and proper women like nice feminine jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at the Second Amendment within the context of how the US was formed as an outgrowth of revolution against what was viewed as a tyrannical regime. Many of the underlying concepts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are essentially answers to the reasons for revolt and secession against Great Britain laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The Second Amendment was clearly intended to preserve liberties against future tyrants.
I have absolutely no problem with a sane, sober individual possessing a weapon. I myself am a Canadian, but I remember camping trips with my grandparents out in the backcountry of British Columbia, and he always kept his hunting rifle loaded (that would get him arrested in Canada these days), not because he even really hunted by that point, but because of the risk from bears and other predators with young kids around. I learned to shoot when I was pretty young, and while I have no more adoration for guns than I do for hammers or screwdrivers, I respect their power and believe firmly that whether anyone owns a gun or not, they should know how one works, both for gun safety and in the hopefully unlikely event they actually need to use one.
The fact of the matter is that if someone is out to kill lots of people, guns, while perhaps the most convenient method, are hardly the only one. Some college kid just stabbed five people to death at a house party, apparently with a knife that was in the house where the party was being held. If someone goes nuts and decides it's time to kill lots of people, there's damned little anyone can do about it. Maybe, if we're lucky, we find out about their dastardly plan in advance, but bad luck can take anyone out; whether it be a maniac with a weapon, a car accident, or hell, falling off a ladder.
CTRL-S is your friend.
They join some Libetarian populist movement and demand all government services with the exception of those they partake of to be slashed or eliminated?
And yes, oh ye mighty moderators, this is trolling.
I support more mod points for the irony challenged!
How about "The Founders and over two centuries of jurisprudence." Is that sufficiently pedantic for you?
Apparently some company in Redmond, WA is putting out a mobile clone of OpenOffice.
Of course the Founders intended the constitution to be amended. But the position that the Second Amendment meant something other than the text is revisionism.
I'd say the mere fact that this ex-justice feels the need to add words to the Second Amendment to specifically alter and limit its context says to me he knows full well what the Founders intended. Now one can certainly debate whether the Second Amendment is still useful or desirable or however you want to frame it, but whatever side of the gun debate you sit on, to pretend that the Founders meant anything other than general gun ownership is revisionism of the most extreme kind.
Russia may cite what it likes, but as I've said before, the situation in Kosovo was such that Kosovo's secession was necessary to prevent further crimes against humanity; in particular ethnic cleansing that was almost certain to approach, if not become genocide. There is no indication that any Russian or other minority in Ukraine was under that kind of threat.
What is more, the secession of Kosovo was done under the watchful eye of numerous international agencies, whereas the Crimean "secession" was done with the Russian military and a puppet government running the entire show. To equate Kosovo and Crimea is ludicrous; both from the point of justification and from the point of how the secession was carried out.
It might be one thing if Putin and the Russian parliament hadn't been preparing annexation instruments at the very same time this referendum was being prepared.
Debian was a bit longer, so far as mainline releases go (I don't use testing branches). I have several servers and routers running 6.0, and they're all using OpenSSL 0.9.8, whereas my servers I use as KVM virtualization hosts are running Wheezy and did have vulnerable versions of OpenSSL. I had been thinking over the last few months that I should upgrade my old Debian Squeeze servers and appliances, a number of which are used for my OpenVPN WAN routers and remote client servers. I'm very glad my business/procrastination prevented me from upgrading these systems, and hence they remained untouched, and I don't have to go through the pain of regenerating keys and rolling them out to remote routers and to all the road warriors and work-at-home types.
Only if one buys that "security through obscurity" is a legitimate form of network safety. A decade's worth of Internet Explorer and ActiveX vulnerabilities would suggest you're wrong.
Indeed. If there are still a significant-enough number of OS/2 users out there to warrant OpenSSL upgrades, then someone will fill the need. But we all know there isn't enough users of these old OSs to actually warrant ancient code being maintained.
International law does not support annexations no matter how you read it. Self-determination is not in and of itself sufficient to see the borders of a sovereign state undermined. Good grief, what the hell do you think the UN was formed for, to prevent precisely what has happened.
So Russia should immediately let Chechnya go, right?
Well that, and the fact that Chiang Kai Shek insisted upon the pointless ruse that the Kuomintang was still the lawful government of mainland China, and was permitted to keep this delusion by US foreign policy for nearly a quarter century.
The USSR was a Western ally for precisely as long as it took to beat Nazi Germany. It wasn't a friend to the West before WWII (although I do concede Stalin had approached the Allies with concerns about Nazi Germany in 1938, though at the same time he had absolutely no problem exporting steel to Germany during the whole period), and it wasn't a friend after WWII. While Cold War propaganda may have exaggerated the economic and political ills of the Soviet Union somewhat, at the end of the day, it was no friend of the West.
The South was not just fighting for the right of states to have slaves. The whole issue of the status of slavery in the states that would be formed out of the territories was probably the largest single factor. The slave states were not just interested in maintaining slavery within their borders, they wanted to have slavery perpetuated as much as possible throughout the Continent United States.
Newsclips of people dancing around does not evidence of unimpeded electoral intent make. In an election such as this, where the borders of a sovereign state are to be redrawn and some of its territory annexed by a much more powerful neighbor, the standards of what constitutes a legitimate election are all the higher, and justifying it under the grounds that you watched a television program where a bunch of people were happy simply does not suffice.
Napoleon I and the III were famous for holding referendums, but I doubt anyone would confuse them with champions of democracy.
Whatever the level of support (and we will really never know with any certainty, considering the referendum was backed by the very state that has now annexed Crimea), the point is the same. The sovereign territory of nation states are supposed to be nearly-inviolable against annexation. Special cases exist where the population of a region has been heavily persecuted (ie. Kosovo, South Sudan, East Timor), or where the situation between the governing power and the political entity had been as a client state (ie. Marshall Islands, Namibia). In a few other cases there has been mutually agreed upon terms for separation, as with the splitting of Czechoslovaki into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Merely having a large number of people of an ethnicity in a specific region is not in and of itself an argument for secession, and most certainly not an argument for a seceding polity to be annexed by another power. Now maybe the end run of a properly handled transition in Ukrainian politics may have been the departure of Crimea and other southern and eastern areas of the country, but the idea that there is any legitimacy to a referendum on allowing a polity to be annexed when the country that is to gain the region is the occupying power is absurd.
Was there actually any threat against ethnic Russians anywhere in Ukraine? There seems a long distance to be traveled from angry protesters to the kind of ethnic cleansing that one would expect would be necessary for an external power to walk in and force a separation referendum, even more dubious when the power doing that puts on the ballot "Do you want to join us..."
Which is rather like claiming the residents of South Tyrol are Austrian, and perhaps more apropos to the Crimean situation, stating Austria is German.
How precisely Russia threatening to swallow up any of its neighbors' territory because ethnic Russians live there differs from Anschluss escapes.me.
And I got downmodded into oblivion. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about. The whack job Libertarian with some sort of social disorder who goes around declaring that any successful woman is an uppety attention whore, and proper women like nice feminine jobs.
I'm waiting to blame Obama's successor for the lack of a 1999 moonbase.
You're posting on a site where Libertarian aspies make up a significant minority, so you'd best get used to these sorts of comments.