A not-quite-smartphone? With a "kill switch?"
I'll pass. Now that HTC's offerings are really beginning to provide an excellent smartphone experience there's no reason to put up with the limitations designed into Android. I'll stick with my 6800 with a custom ROM for the time being.
The word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is used in the sense of "country" or "nation," and it therefore applies in the District. Also, the collective right/militia argument is, at best, an argument based on ignorance.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Nope, not in there. I hear that residents of the District currently enjoy all of the rights acknowledged under the US Constitution. Except that pesky right to bear arms, that is.
Hey, they made me take off my shoes. My shoes! Then they couldn't immediately identify an X-ray of my obscure, specialized electronic device, nor could they easily see through the ~5 miles of cable I routinely carry on when I travel (better not check it--those criminal baggage handlers would STEAL it.), so I was delayed by FIVE WHOLE MINUTES. I didn't say anything at the time, but now I'm waging a passive-aggressive internet-based war of words against the TSA. It seems like the most sensible way to express my neurotic fury at a mild inconvenience, and it's ever so easy to couch my rhetoric in terms of attacks on TSA employees' intelligence and rants about civil rights that display a depressing ignorance of actual law.
I don't care about the "plight of the Tibetans." The Chinese are terrible rulers who slaughtered quite a few people. The Tibetan elite who preceeded them were also terrible rulers who slaughtered quite a few people. "Free Tibet" is a popular slogan among the college student and young democrat/progressive crowd, but the country wasn't really free before the Chinese occupation.
It doesn't matter who is behind it. TSA is the organization most people encounter (let's face it--most of us travel by air these days), and so they're going to be scapegoated no matter what the article actually says.
Not that they're perfect, mind, but people seem to love crying about how unfair it is that they had their bags opened or had to be searched with a detector. I don't mind it when they're being polite and efficient. For all they know I've got a pound of C-4 in my notebook case and a detonator behind my belt buckle.
"more people today pass on massive debt than any sort of estate."
No. No they don't. At least in the US, your heirs are not liable for your debts. Perhaps next time you rant against "the aristocracy" you might do a bit of research first.
I've often wondered about this. If I just walk out the door, what are they going to do? Tackle me? Tie me up? What if I resist this?
It sounds like assault to me. I guess I ought to talk to a lawyer before I go back to shopping at stores that harass their customers like ths.
That's interesting, but I'd point out that burglars do tend to strike when the homeowner is out. At least, that's the conventional wisdom. I have no citation for this.
This statistic is tossed around quite a bit, but I'll bet you can't cite a source. There was one study that found this (I believe it was 21x more likely), but it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
There's no need to let reality prevent your anti-gun agenda, though. Carry on!
Roundup is also a key ingredient on the massively successful *cough* "War on drugs" as it is purchased in quantity by the US Government for spraying on South American fields to destroy the Coca crops.
I think that Monsanto has overlooked a potentially lucrative market for GM seeds.
IANAL, but I don't think that's quite true. Much of the U. S. has "merchant's privilege" laws in effect. For example, in my state (IN), you could be detained under IC35-33-6-2.
That's an interesting definition. So if, say, a country were to spray a neighbor with missiles the ensuing "collateral damage" (think bloody pieces of civilians scattered about) wouldn't render that country a "terrorist state" because the citizens weren't the "target?" Or, even better, if a country routinely trained foreign military personnel in the fine art of torture, would that qualify as terror if it was known that the knowledge would be used on non-military targets?
I don't believe that career politicians are capable of successfully working to reduce government interference in our lives. I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt it'll come in my lifetime. We're a nation of consumers, and consumers must be tended like the sheep they are.
Furthermore, if she really wants to increase privacy she can start by working to repeal the National Firearms Act of '34 and the related legislation passed '86. When the FedGov abandons its argument that the Commerce Clause is equivalent to carte blanc and permits Americans to exercise their inherent rights without fear of reprisal perhaps we'll have made a move toward a society in which privacy is valued and protected.
That's all. I'm off to Walmart to buy some ammunition and enjoy a greeter-provided strip search gratis.
Loucks
You don't appear to understand that "blind" is frequently not absolute. Legally blind people can frequently still see, just not well. There is nothing intrinsically unsafe about legally blind people hunting, especially with a companion along to help with distances.
I suspect that you don't have much experience with firearms. While someone could, potentially, hit a target while blindfolded, it's much more difficult than it looks. Any theoretical totally blind person who manages to pass a marksmanship test is more a statistical anomaly than an example of "enough practice."
Oh, and in a more general response: Why does everyone have such a negative knee-jerk reaction toward hunting? I can understand the perceptions of TX, having lived there for a year, but hunting isn't limited to drunken, illiterate hillbillies.
I don't know where you're located, A. C., but here in the USA we subscribe to the theory that a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty." The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the other way 'round.
Slashdot Mirror
A not-quite-smartphone? With a "kill switch?" I'll pass. Now that HTC's offerings are really beginning to provide an excellent smartphone experience there's no reason to put up with the limitations designed into Android. I'll stick with my 6800 with a custom ROM for the time being.
The word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is used in the sense of "country" or "nation," and it therefore applies in the District. Also, the collective right/militia argument is, at best, an argument based on ignorance.
Your name isn't Adrian Fenty, is it?
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
Nope, not in there. I hear that residents of the District currently enjoy all of the rights acknowledged under the US Constitution. Except that pesky right to bear arms, that is.
Hey, they made me take off my shoes. My shoes! Then they couldn't immediately identify an X-ray of my obscure, specialized electronic device, nor could they easily see through the ~5 miles of cable I routinely carry on when I travel (better not check it--those criminal baggage handlers would STEAL it.), so I was delayed by FIVE WHOLE MINUTES. I didn't say anything at the time, but now I'm waging a passive-aggressive internet-based war of words against the TSA. It seems like the most sensible way to express my neurotic fury at a mild inconvenience, and it's ever so easy to couch my rhetoric in terms of attacks on TSA employees' intelligence and rants about civil rights that display a depressing ignorance of actual law.
I don't care about the "plight of the Tibetans." The Chinese are terrible rulers who slaughtered quite a few people. The Tibetan elite who preceeded them were also terrible rulers who slaughtered quite a few people. "Free Tibet" is a popular slogan among the college student and young democrat/progressive crowd, but the country wasn't really free before the Chinese occupation.
It doesn't matter who is behind it. TSA is the organization most people encounter (let's face it--most of us travel by air these days), and so they're going to be scapegoated no matter what the article actually says. Not that they're perfect, mind, but people seem to love crying about how unfair it is that they had their bags opened or had to be searched with a detector. I don't mind it when they're being polite and efficient. For all they know I've got a pound of C-4 in my notebook case and a detonator behind my belt buckle.
That's OK. He'll just take someone else's.
Then the universe needs to get a better office supply co.
"more people today pass on massive debt than any sort of estate."
No. No they don't. At least in the US, your heirs are not liable for your debts. Perhaps next time you rant against "the aristocracy" you might do a bit of research first.
I've often wondered about this. If I just walk out the door, what are they going to do? Tackle me? Tie me up? What if I resist this? It sounds like assault to me. I guess I ought to talk to a lawyer before I go back to shopping at stores that harass their customers like ths.
That's interesting, but I'd point out that burglars do tend to strike when the homeowner is out. At least, that's the conventional wisdom. I have no citation for this.
This statistic is tossed around quite a bit, but I'll bet you can't cite a source. There was one study that found this (I believe it was 21x more likely), but it has been pretty thoroughly debunked. There's no need to let reality prevent your anti-gun agenda, though. Carry on!
I think that Monsanto has overlooked a potentially lucrative market for GM seeds.
That's a good point, given that The Pirate Bay is no longer online and all.
Does anyone actually call them "Massive" games? Isn't MMO the usual term?
It seems to me that, at a minimum, exercise of those rights protected by the Constitution should not be valid reasons for termination.
But hey, what do I know. Guns are scary and evil! A million moms can't be wrong.
IANAL, but I don't think that's quite true. Much of the U. S. has "merchant's privilege" laws in effect. For example, in my state (IN), you could be detained under IC35-33-6-2.
That's an interesting definition. So if, say, a country were to spray a neighbor with missiles the ensuing "collateral damage" (think bloody pieces of civilians scattered about) wouldn't render that country a "terrorist state" because the citizens weren't the "target?" Or, even better, if a country routinely trained foreign military personnel in the fine art of torture, would that qualify as terror if it was known that the knowledge would be used on non-military targets?
I prefer to call it a "coalition" of "freedom fighters." Isn't semantic warfare fun?
Do you suppose India knows that "blur" means "nuke from orbit" in GoogleSpeak?
No problem: You're crazy. :-)
What do you mean by "a country like India?"
I don't believe that career politicians are capable of successfully working to reduce government interference in our lives. I'd love to see it happen, but I doubt it'll come in my lifetime. We're a nation of consumers, and consumers must be tended like the sheep they are. Furthermore, if she really wants to increase privacy she can start by working to repeal the National Firearms Act of '34 and the related legislation passed '86. When the FedGov abandons its argument that the Commerce Clause is equivalent to carte blanc and permits Americans to exercise their inherent rights without fear of reprisal perhaps we'll have made a move toward a society in which privacy is valued and protected. That's all. I'm off to Walmart to buy some ammunition and enjoy a greeter-provided strip search gratis. Loucks
You don't appear to understand that "blind" is frequently not absolute. Legally blind people can frequently still see, just not well. There is nothing intrinsically unsafe about legally blind people hunting, especially with a companion along to help with distances.
I suspect that you don't have much experience with firearms. While someone could, potentially, hit a target while blindfolded, it's much more difficult than it looks. Any theoretical totally blind person who manages to pass a marksmanship test is more a statistical anomaly than an example of "enough practice."
Oh, and in a more general response: Why does everyone have such a negative knee-jerk reaction toward hunting? I can understand the perceptions of TX, having lived there for a year, but hunting isn't limited to drunken, illiterate hillbillies.
I don't know where you're located, A. C., but here in the USA we subscribe to the theory that a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty." The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the other way 'round.
Loucks
I don't know about that first point: I need a gun. How else am I going to keep King George out of my business?
-Loucks-