I must say, though elaborate, this was the biggest swath of blather I've heard this year. The election was voted on by the electors and certified by the Congress. The President was subsequently inaugurated. Various law suits and complaints to challenge the election (or results thereof) were summarily dismissed as meritless. This matter is by all means settled.
As far as Diebold goes, I'm sure those machines are as fine as anything else out there. In case you don't remember what happened in Florida in 2000, where people couldn't even figure out how to punch a butterfly ballot, they are probably even wonderful in comparison. Especially when it comes to tallying the vote - faster on the order of magnitude. Florida had its tally at a few hours after polling places closed. Ohio (paper ballot) finished the tally several days later.
Now, the "appearance" of conflict of interest which you allege. You are quite welcome to petition your legislature to obtain other voting equipment. I wish you well in your endeavors. But let me tell you something. The notion that Diebold would somehow rig the election through distributed computing in the individual machines (because the tally is traced) for whatever perceived gains, is ridiculous. You do understand that if a whistle-blower - an employee involved in the development of the voting machine - even CLAIMED that such shenanigans were abound, that this would be tramendously costly to the company. After all, the company wants to sell voting equipment, not get itself out of business...
Now please explain to me how on God's green earth this compares with your suppositions? Both which claim to be deterministic on events that are hypothetical and have no basis in reality. The election did actually happen.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that this says that Congress shall not force people to worship in any certain way(s), nor shall it not prevent people from free exercise of religion. Also, the Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of press. Nor shall it enact law depriving people to peaceably assemble (congregate, protest or whatever the cause). It shall neither enact law preventing people from petitioning their Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II
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.
Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon. Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Constitution describes rights granted to described parties. These rights are absolute and may not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless the Federal Government is permitted to do something by the Constitution, the right to such action is delegated to the several States or the people. The States may not usurp such rights to regulate matters which the Constitution has prohibited them to regulate, such as being forbidden to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms...
The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges? I speak of such things as abortion, which according to said Amendments is a right for States to legislate against;
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
"Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, "in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right." The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances."
George Bush won the election with 286 electors voting for him, to Kerry's 251 votes. Dissenters are welcome to challenge these results based on whatever appropriate charges.
Failure to prove that the challenge has merit sort of settles the matter, don't you think?
Seems illogical that I have a right to political speech, but my wife and I do not.
I agree, the construct 'group' doesn't exist in the Constitution as far as I know. But then again, the Supreme Court has been able to find non-existing language in the Constitution before, so it may very well be introduced by judicial fiat.
Since a 'group' is nothing more than several individuals it seems logical that the NRA and George Soros should have equal rights to political speech.
What about this is not "logical"? Seems quite reasonable to conclude that opportunity precipitates crime. After all, he who commits a crime is a douche bag.
Specifically you havent referred to any statistics, much less cited any data. In fact, all you have done is dismissed studies and claims as 'unimpressive' and 'Crap'. Go figure.
That aside, I'm not sure what the naivete is that you're referring to. Are you invalidating the premise or the evaluation? Neither appear naive or fuzzy to me. Incidentally, your 'complex social' problem would require a fuzzy evaluation in the first place.
I maintain that the only way one can see logical flaws in Amendment II is to invalidate the premise.
The ACLU does not advocate the repeal of Amendment II, something I would disagree with but at least respect them for. After all, I don't think that one should be forced to like guns.
Instead they take the infantile stance to fabricate some sort of ludicrous construct that 'the people' refers to a collective. Well, how does one measure a 'collective'? Is it two people? Is it a township, a village or a city? How many people are required to form a 'collective'? What if I don't wish to be part of that 'collective' yet I still consider myself 'people'?
Now, I don't know of ONE case that the ACLU has taken to defend somebody's Amendment II rights. None. If you can produce documentation of such, kindly let me know.
Yes, the ACLU is in my opinion about as anti-gun as it gets.
You would probably have to ask the criminals why they prefer guns over baseball bats. Alas, I do not believe that the criminals will peacefully surrender their firearms to the authorities, even if they were given free baseball bats.
Slashdot Mirror
I must say, though elaborate, this was the biggest swath of blather I've heard this year. The election was voted on by the electors and certified by the Congress. The President was subsequently inaugurated. Various law suits and complaints to challenge the election (or results thereof) were summarily dismissed as meritless. This matter is by all means settled.
As far as Diebold goes, I'm sure those machines are as fine as anything else out there. In case you don't remember what happened in Florida in 2000, where people couldn't even figure out how to punch a butterfly ballot, they are probably even wonderful in comparison. Especially when it comes to tallying the vote - faster on the order of magnitude. Florida had its tally at a few hours after polling places closed. Ohio (paper ballot) finished the tally several days later.
Now, the "appearance" of conflict of interest which you allege. You are quite welcome to petition your legislature to obtain other voting equipment. I wish you well in your endeavors. But let me tell you something. The notion that Diebold would somehow rig the election through distributed computing in the individual machines (because the tally is traced) for whatever perceived gains, is ridiculous. You do understand that if a whistle-blower - an employee involved in the development of the voting machine - even CLAIMED that such shenanigans were abound, that this would be tramendously costly to the company. After all, the company wants to sell voting equipment, not get itself out of business...
Now please explain to me how on God's green earth this compares with your suppositions? Both which claim to be deterministic on events that are hypothetical and have no basis in reality. The election did actually happen.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that this says that Congress shall not force people to worship in any certain way(s), nor shall it not prevent people from free exercise of religion. Also, the Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of press. Nor shall it enact law depriving people to peaceably assemble (congregate, protest or whatever the cause). It shall neither enact law preventing people from petitioning their Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Constitution describes rights granted to described parties. These rights are absolute and may not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless the Federal Government is permitted to do something by the Constitution, the right to such action is delegated to the several States or the people. The States may not usurp such rights to regulate matters which the Constitution has prohibited them to regulate, such as being forbidden to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms...
The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges? I speak of such things as abortion, which according to said Amendments is a right for States to legislate against;
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
"Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, "in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right." The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances."
Unbelievable.
George Bush won the election with 286 electors voting for him, to Kerry's 251 votes. Dissenters are welcome to challenge these results based on whatever appropriate charges.
Failure to prove that the challenge has merit sort of settles the matter, don't you think?
How can a boolean be something other than true or false? Are you arguing that the election was 'slightly stolen'?
Seems illogical that I have a right to political speech, but my wife and I do not.
I agree, the construct 'group' doesn't exist in the Constitution as far as I know. But then again, the Supreme Court has been able to find non-existing language in the Constitution before, so it may very well be introduced by judicial fiat.
Since a 'group' is nothing more than several individuals it seems logical that the NRA and George Soros should have equal rights to political speech.
Either the election was stolen or it wasn't. Seems that if you cannot prove that it was stolen, it must not have been stolen.
Ah, the spirit of the crime...
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html
What about this is not "logical"? Seems quite reasonable to conclude that opportunity precipitates crime. After all, he who commits a crime is a douche bag.
You, Sir, have clearly got the message. Top of the morning to ya!
Specifically you havent referred to any statistics, much less cited any data. In fact, all you have done is dismissed studies and claims as 'unimpressive' and 'Crap'. Go figure.
That aside, I'm not sure what the naivete is that you're referring to. Are you invalidating the premise or the evaluation? Neither appear naive or fuzzy to me. Incidentally, your 'complex social' problem would require a fuzzy evaluation in the first place.
Amen.
I maintain that the only way one can see logical flaws in Amendment II is to invalidate the premise.
The ACLU does not advocate the repeal of Amendment II, something I would disagree with but at least respect them for. After all, I don't think that one should be forced to like guns.
Instead they take the infantile stance to fabricate some sort of ludicrous construct that 'the people' refers to a collective. Well, how does one measure a 'collective'? Is it two people? Is it a township, a village or a city? How many people are required to form a 'collective'? What if I don't wish to be part of that 'collective' yet I still consider myself 'people'?
Now, I don't know of ONE case that the ACLU has taken to defend somebody's Amendment II rights. None. If you can produce documentation of such, kindly let me know.
Yes, the ACLU is in my opinion about as anti-gun as it gets.
It just struck me... Perhaps we should have a law against criminal posession of firearms?
You would probably have to ask the criminals why they prefer guns over baseball bats. Alas, I do not believe that the criminals will peacefully surrender their firearms to the authorities, even if they were given free baseball bats.
In other words, I don't get your point.
"What if you ended up shooting the male half of a couple who are into kinky sex, roleplaying, B&D?"
What business did I have intruding in their dwelling in the first place? Oh, that's right, that'd make me a criminal.
http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/
Help with the collective effort in proving that assault weapons are dangerous!
What exactly does the death penalty for shop lifting have to do with the right to defend one's family and property?
x pe riment.pdf
Also, I did check the statistics. Why don't you too?
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/failed/FailedE
Just one thing. The ACLU is decidedly anti-gun;
i ce s.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePract
Stealing a handgun is a crime. The point being that criminals don't follow the law.
I somehow seriously doubt that disarming law-abiding citizens will - even long term - curb criminals from obtaining firearms.
Are you saying that the gun made him do it?
Good catch!
Armored steel doors: $16,000.
Steel bar windows: $9,000.
Alarm system: $500.
Shooting a criminal trying to mutilate a family member: Priceless.
No, that would be a crime. To own a firearm and not commit a crime, is not a crime. It seems that the DoJ is down with that;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
You're right, if that criminal didn't have a gun, he might have stabbed the guitarist instead.
I agree that the gun should work properly. I also agree that instruments besides firearms may be used as weapons.
x pe riment.pdf
For research, statistics and other scientific data which you apparently have not read, I suggest the following paper;
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/failed/FailedE