I'll even add one further: even if the Constitution doesn't have any reasonable interpretation which leads to an individual right to keep and bear arms, that only speaks to the protection of such a right, not to its existence.
I've read this several times and I cannot figure out what you are trying to say, perhaps it is just too late for me.
Even without legal protection, shouldn't the ACLU be standing up for individual rights?
The ACLU stands up for Constitutional rights and civil liberties, not simply individual rights. If the ACLU believes in a certain interpretation of an amendment, then why would they fight against the interpretation they believe in?
Why is the right to carry a weapon different to the ACLU? All of the reasons presented here and by the ACLU are cop-outs, and the ACLU is okay with that because the people who agree with the ACLU on most things tend to also feel that guns are bad.
As I said above, if the Constitution, the way the ACLU interprets it, does not give the right to bear arms, then why would they fight for that right? They do not fight for anarchy, if that is what you are proposing. The fight on right to privacy (based on Supreme Court rulings of substantive due process of the 14th amendment, thus technically in the Constitution) issues is not the same as the right to bear arms nor does it mean total and absolute privacy from everything.
Sorry to include this in a separate post, I forgot before.
Quoted from the ACLU's website, because I think it is a very good, valid point:
"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. "
I would hardly call that a cop-out answer. The second amendment is there to provide a right to state militias to hold arms to protect themselves against the federal government should they need to, which is somewhat loosely what the National Guard is, though I don't think anyone would really know what to do. Interpreting it as a right for individuals to bear arms, you lose the point of the amendment. Technology has simply evolved beyond muskets and cannons. In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.
Would you really trust individuals with a tank? How would the police even stop that? The dangerous escalation that would come from an individualistic interpretation of the second amendment would be fatal, simply because the second amendment is outdated.
Well, that would be true if individuals actually had a federal constitutional right to bear arms, but the truth is they don't. The ACLU interprets the US Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939) in the popular way, stating that the second amendment applies only to state regulated militias.
So, you are right, the ACLU takes a neutral position on the second amendment because they agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller. That and they do not find any real civil liberty issues with gun control.
Even if they did want to take up second amendment cases they would have a hard time, the one and only time the Supreme Court granted cert to a second amendment case was U.S. v. Miller. They regularly deny cert for second amendment cases.
This has actually been informative for me, I had actually thought the ACLU had argued second amendment (or at least state constitution) cases in the past. I stand corrected, though I agree with the ACLU's stance.
I read e-books from time to time on my PDA, outside, under the big blue ceiling, with no problems.
That being said, I do prefer the tangibility of paper books. There is something about turning the page, measuring how close to the end you are via a bookmark, etc, that adds extra appeal to a book.
If I drop $600 on a console that is being touted as the be-all-end-all of graphic capability, and I pop in a demo and the very first thing I see is a glitchy shadow, I would be more confused than anything as to why Sony is showing that off as a demo.
That being said I don't think graphics are the most important aspect of a console or gameplay, and so I am not going to buy a PS3.
The idea is not incompatible with science. If you want to believe that, go ahead, just as someone can believe the FSM created everything and have exactly as much credence, or a polytheist. However, it is not a theory, it is not a valid argument, and to want to teach it as such is wrong.
No one is trying to say you are not entitled to believe that or discuss it in a church, but calling it anything other than a belief, or comparing it to scientific theories, is wrong.
And as the other post on this level pointed out, amino acids have been created in a laboratory setting.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a war or military action anywhere where one of the goals wasn't to instill fear into the civilian populace. Isn't that what our whole "Shock and Awe" campaign was about anyway? Fear in the civilian populace means less resistance to ground troops, it makes sense. I would hardly the say that the object of war is to cause destruction either, it may not necessarily be solely to cause fear, but that is definitely part of it. Make them too scared to strike back.
After all, we do bomb civilian targets on a regular basis. Some of the more horrific ones happened during WWII (Dresden, Hiroshima) but are not limited to that (many civilian targets in Baghdad were hit when we bombed them).
I also don't think you would be able to say that the sole purpose of terrorism is fear. Many of them have goals in mind, be it to protest something or an attempt to force change. Whether something is war or terrorism seems to depend on which side you are on.
Just because you believe it doesn't give it any evidence to it being true, material or whatever else you want to call evidence. I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have.
Seriously. If Wal-Mart will be profiting from each download sold then I simply won't buy the downloads. I haven't given Wal-Mart a red cent in years and I don't plan to start because it is through Apple.
There are adult games on Nintendo systems, it is just not their focus. I think very few would call Eternal Darkness or Resident Evil kids games. There are plenty more too: True Crime, Gun, NFS:Most Wanted, Rainbow Six.
Sure, they have few exclusive adult games, but the ones that are, like Killer 7 or Eternal Darkness, are spectacular. I do agree that they need more 3rd party support, and hopefully the cheaper price of making games for the Wii will encourage both creative (easier to be more risky when there is less investment) and fun games.
Secret military tribunals make it safer for you to fly?
Abandonment of due process for American citizens makes it safer for you to fly?
Airports that lack bomb detecting machines or only have one for the entire airport, lax security checks help you fly safer? It has been shown time and time again that airports, sea ports, trains and homeland security in general are only marginally safer or not safer at all. Tests have been done testing security, and many have failed, allowing weapons or shoe bombs or whatnot onto planes.
The administration is really good at passing hard hitting, rights reducing legislation and then not backing it up with nearly enough money to make it effective. However, because they don't let the Democrats table ANY of their terror security bills, they can call themselves tough on security and the Democrats weak, because they didn't pass any terror legislation!
Does partisan hackery really make it safer for you to fly? I think not.
Couldn't a conservative person exercise their morality on their own without forcing other people to exercise it with them?
I mean, if a conservative person is against abortion than the answer is simple: don't get an abortion. But that doesn't mean conservatives should make it law that you can't. Not everyone believes the same way.
Did it cause you a significant amount of hardship, comparable to what the average person would have if their computer were disabled for a few days or their car was vandalized? Did you have to hire someone to fix something that no longer worked, or take an hour to do it youself?
Yeah, because boycotts never helped oppressed people, right?
Problem though: if Google decided not to come on over to China's side, who would really care? The Chinese people certainly wouldn't hear about it, the government would just pull the plug on Google, blocking them though the firewall and the people would happily continue using MSN/Yahoo/Another search engine. Google certainly isn't creating any good over there in China, but at the same time, they aren't doing any evil either. Google speaking out against China's oppression would only hurt them.
Boycotts only work when they get press or people know about them. If no one finds out about the boycott, then it is a pointless one. Google not doing business in China and speaking out against them wouldn't help the Chinese and probably only hurt the already unstable US-China relations, something our govn't sure wouldn't want.
Exactly, the only real way to check is to do random checks. This includes checks of 90 year old grandmas. Random is random, its just the luck of the draw. Either that or check everyone, but profiling doesn't work because it is so easily bypassed using an unknowing accomplice.
And man, to think, with that 10-12 years of college and specialized training, you apparently know better! You must be an absolute genius!
Seriously though, doctors are trained to help with the tools they have. They know better than you do. They went to college that long for a reason. It even says in the article that it can be treated with anti-psychotics AND anti-biotics, which leaves me to wonder if it could be treated just as well with placebo.
It was also interesting that when the doc in the article but a cast over the lesions, they healed right up! Interesting. Sounds like self-inflicted to me.
The problem here isn't the doctors, it is the cultural stigma toward needing to be treated for a psychological disorder. People don't want to do it because they don't see it as a real disease.
Linus Torvalds was in The Code (2001) with Miguel de Icaza.
Miguel de Icaza was in Antitrust (2001) with Tim Robbins.
Tim Robbins (I) was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, forgot to address your points directly
I'll even add one further: even if the Constitution doesn't have any reasonable interpretation which leads to an individual right to keep and bear arms, that only speaks to the protection of such a right, not to its existence.
I've read this several times and I cannot figure out what you are trying to say, perhaps it is just too late for me. Even without legal protection, shouldn't the ACLU be standing up for individual rights?
The ACLU stands up for Constitutional rights and civil liberties, not simply individual rights. If the ACLU believes in a certain interpretation of an amendment, then why would they fight against the interpretation they believe in?
Why is the right to carry a weapon different to the ACLU? All of the reasons presented here and by the ACLU are cop-outs, and the ACLU is okay with that because the people who agree with the ACLU on most things tend to also feel that guns are bad.
As I said above, if the Constitution, the way the ACLU interprets it, does not give the right to bear arms, then why would they fight for that right? They do not fight for anarchy, if that is what you are proposing. The fight on right to privacy (based on Supreme Court rulings of substantive due process of the 14th amendment, thus technically in the Constitution) issues is not the same as the right to bear arms nor does it mean total and absolute privacy from everything.
Sorry to include this in a separate post, I forgot before.
Quoted from the ACLU's website, because I think it is a very good, valid point:
"If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. "
I would hardly call that a cop-out answer. The second amendment is there to provide a right to state militias to hold arms to protect themselves against the federal government should they need to, which is somewhat loosely what the National Guard is, though I don't think anyone would really know what to do. Interpreting it as a right for individuals to bear arms, you lose the point of the amendment. Technology has simply evolved beyond muskets and cannons. In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.
Would you really trust individuals with a tank? How would the police even stop that? The dangerous escalation that would come from an individualistic interpretation of the second amendment would be fatal, simply because the second amendment is outdated.
Well, that would be true if individuals actually had a federal constitutional right to bear arms, but the truth is they don't. The ACLU interprets the US Supreme Court ruling of U.S. v. Miller (1939) in the popular way, stating that the second amendment applies only to state regulated militias.
So, you are right, the ACLU takes a neutral position on the second amendment because they agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller. That and they do not find any real civil liberty issues with gun control.
Even if they did want to take up second amendment cases they would have a hard time, the one and only time the Supreme Court granted cert to a second amendment case was U.S. v. Miller. They regularly deny cert for second amendment cases.
This has actually been informative for me, I had actually thought the ACLU had argued second amendment (or at least state constitution) cases in the past. I stand corrected, though I agree with the ACLU's stance.
I read e-books from time to time on my PDA, outside, under the big blue ceiling, with no problems. That being said, I do prefer the tangibility of paper books. There is something about turning the page, measuring how close to the end you are via a bookmark, etc, that adds extra appeal to a book.
Out of curiosity, which amendments of the BoR are you talking about?
I'm having some problems thinking of any of the rights that have come under fire recently that the ACLU hasn't stood up for off the top of my head.
If I drop $600 on a console that is being touted as the be-all-end-all of graphic capability, and I pop in a demo and the very first thing I see is a glitchy shadow, I would be more confused than anything as to why Sony is showing that off as a demo.
That being said I don't think graphics are the most important aspect of a console or gameplay, and so I am not going to buy a PS3.
The idea is not incompatible with science. If you want to believe that, go ahead, just as someone can believe the FSM created everything and have exactly as much credence, or a polytheist. However, it is not a theory, it is not a valid argument, and to want to teach it as such is wrong.
No one is trying to say you are not entitled to believe that or discuss it in a church, but calling it anything other than a belief, or comparing it to scientific theories, is wrong.
And as the other post on this level pointed out, amino acids have been created in a laboratory setting.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a war or military action anywhere where one of the goals wasn't to instill fear into the civilian populace. Isn't that what our whole "Shock and Awe" campaign was about anyway? Fear in the civilian populace means less resistance to ground troops, it makes sense. I would hardly the say that the object of war is to cause destruction either, it may not necessarily be solely to cause fear, but that is definitely part of it. Make them too scared to strike back.
After all, we do bomb civilian targets on a regular basis. Some of the more horrific ones happened during WWII (Dresden, Hiroshima) but are not limited to that (many civilian targets in Baghdad were hit when we bombed them).
I also don't think you would be able to say that the sole purpose of terrorism is fear. Many of them have goals in mind, be it to protest something or an attempt to force change. Whether something is war or terrorism seems to depend on which side you are on.
Just because you believe it doesn't give it any evidence to it being true, material or whatever else you want to call evidence. I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have.
No no, you got it backwards. Poor movies = lower profits. Lower profits = something is wrong. That something is obviously piracy.
I see nothing wrong with that logic.
I was really confused as to why they would want the bottom of my shoe. I guess fish makes more sense. Learning something new on /. every day!
Seriously. If Wal-Mart will be profiting from each download sold then I simply won't buy the downloads. I haven't given Wal-Mart a red cent in years and I don't plan to start because it is through Apple.
There are adult games on Nintendo systems, it is just not their focus. I think very few would call Eternal Darkness or Resident Evil kids games. There are plenty more too: True Crime, Gun, NFS:Most Wanted, Rainbow Six.
Sure, they have few exclusive adult games, but the ones that are, like Killer 7 or Eternal Darkness, are spectacular. I do agree that they need more 3rd party support, and hopefully the cheaper price of making games for the Wii will encourage both creative (easier to be more risky when there is less investment) and fun games.
Secret military tribunals make it safer for you to fly?
Abandonment of due process for American citizens makes it safer for you to fly?
Airports that lack bomb detecting machines or only have one for the entire airport, lax security checks help you fly safer? It has been shown time and time again that airports, sea ports, trains and homeland security in general are only marginally safer or not safer at all. Tests have been done testing security, and many have failed, allowing weapons or shoe bombs or whatnot onto planes.
The administration is really good at passing hard hitting, rights reducing legislation and then not backing it up with nearly enough money to make it effective. However, because they don't let the Democrats table ANY of their terror security bills, they can call themselves tough on security and the Democrats weak, because they didn't pass any terror legislation!
Does partisan hackery really make it safer for you to fly? I think not.
Insightful? This was one of the funniest things I've read on /. in a while.
No more reps, reps are capped out. It would just lessen reps from other states, which I can also imagine them liking none-too-much.
Couldn't a conservative person exercise their morality on their own without forcing other people to exercise it with them?
I mean, if a conservative person is against abortion than the answer is simple: don't get an abortion. But that doesn't mean conservatives should make it law that you can't. Not everyone believes the same way.
Did it cause you a significant amount of hardship, comparable to what the average person would have if their computer were disabled for a few days or their car was vandalized? Did you have to hire someone to fix something that no longer worked, or take an hour to do it youself?
Yes.
Such is the niche that Irish Cream fills.
Yeah, because boycotts never helped oppressed people, right?
Problem though: if Google decided not to come on over to China's side, who would really care? The Chinese people certainly wouldn't hear about it, the government would just pull the plug on Google, blocking them though the firewall and the people would happily continue using MSN/Yahoo/Another search engine. Google certainly isn't creating any good over there in China, but at the same time, they aren't doing any evil either. Google speaking out against China's oppression would only hurt them.
Boycotts only work when they get press or people know about them. If no one finds out about the boycott, then it is a pointless one. Google not doing business in China and speaking out against them wouldn't help the Chinese and probably only hurt the already unstable US-China relations, something our govn't sure wouldn't want.
Exactly, the only real way to check is to do random checks. This includes checks of 90 year old grandmas. Random is random, its just the luck of the draw. Either that or check everyone, but profiling doesn't work because it is so easily bypassed using an unknowing accomplice.
That is of course, unless you are labeled a "terrorist" here and sent off to some secret prison, never to be heard from again.
Does Sweden have secret prisons where they can hold you indefinatly, without a trial, and without a reason?
You can't forget that no-name Chris Farley.
And man, to think, with that 10-12 years of college and specialized training, you apparently know better! You must be an absolute genius!
Seriously though, doctors are trained to help with the tools they have. They know better than you do. They went to college that long for a reason. It even says in the article that it can be treated with anti-psychotics AND anti-biotics, which leaves me to wonder if it could be treated just as well with placebo.
It was also interesting that when the doc in the article but a cast over the lesions, they healed right up! Interesting. Sounds like self-inflicted to me.
The problem here isn't the doctors, it is the cultural stigma toward needing to be treated for a psychological disorder. People don't want to do it because they don't see it as a real disease.
Three Degrees
Linus Torvalds was in The Code (2001) with Miguel de Icaza.
Miguel de Icaza was in Antitrust (2001) with Tim Robbins.
Tim Robbins (I) was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon.