Tweet
Quoting your own ineffective troll is the epitome of gauche, Kuci.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
I actually wasn't trolling (I'm serious), but did expect someone would call me on it.Comment
-
I tend to ignore silly, irrelevant and probably undecidable tangents like this when I'm busy discussing something seriously.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No one has picked up on this? I am absolutely shocked that a statement of the form "the US government/constitution is possibly the best there is" has not drawn somebody's ire.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
The first amendment speaks of speech only. Period. AFAIK it was originally interpreted to include all all types of speech available to any individual, and so would logically include any type of speech available today.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Bull****.
The second amendment, by contrast, is in the context of a the need for a well regulated militia. Even the defenders of it as creating an individual right, see that right as playing a role in enabling the individual to serve in a militia. Even if you hold that protects individual right to own firearms (and I do not, and a fortiori to hand guns, given that the basic weapon of a militia man would be a musket, and the equivalent today would be rifle) it doesnt make sense to extend such a right even to cannon, which WERE around then, but were NOT held by individual militia members, AFAIK. AFAIK no one at the time held or envisioned that the 2nd amendment would apply to cannon, or frigates, for example. In which case, by extension, theres no reason to apply it to howitzers or nukes. There IS reason to apply it to standard infantry weapons which did not exist in the 18th c, such as standard breechloading multishot rifles.
Whether it would logically extend to automatic weapons, would be I suppose an area for debate. I can see someone arguing on the basis of this decision that the 2nd amendment DOES extend to automatic weapons (AK 47s and the like) Given that the decision protects handguns, which were not standard equippage of an 18th c militiaman, AFAIK, its hard not to derive that result.
Of course I think the case was wrongly decided.
And I further think that extending it to automatic weapons will be an excellent way to gather momentum for a repeal of the 2nd amendment."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
However its incorrect. The constitution had already been signed and ratified. To get it ratified a promise had been made to pass a bill or rights, but the specifics of the bill of rights were determined in Congress after the Constitution was in place.Originally posted by Spiffor
First sensible post in this thread
(the second sensible post being LordShiva's
)
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
KH: You see what contortions people will go through to make their politics fit into the dictates of the 2nd amendment?
It's sad.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
My post was not incorrect!Originally posted by lord of the mark
However its incorrect.
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No one has picked up on this? I am absolutely shocked that a statement of the form "the US government/constitution is possibly the best there is" has not drawn somebody's ire.
As the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has proceeded from the womb and long gestation of progressive history, so the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
— W. E. Gladstone"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
The Internet is personal. A nuclear weapon is not. The is no practical use for a nuclear weapon as a personal arm, this is completely unlike the internet were it is useful to person's free expression.Originally posted by KrazyHorse There are no personal alternatives to the Internet, you numbskull.APOSTOLNIK BEANIE BERET BICORNE BIRETTA BOATER BONNET BOWLER CAP CAPOTAIN CHADOR COIF CORONET CROWN DO-RAG FEDORA FEZ GALERO HAIRNET HAT HEADSCARF HELMET HENNIN HIJAB HOOD KABUTO KERCHIEF KOLPIK KUFI MITRE MORTARBOARD PERUKE PICKELHAUBE SKULLCAP SOMBRERO SHTREIMEL STAHLHELM STETSON TIARA TOQUE TOUPEE TRICORN TRILBY TURBAN VISOR WIG YARMULKE ZUCCHETTOComment
-
I know.Originally posted by DanS
KH: You see what contortions people will go through to make their politics fit into the dictates of the 2nd amendment?
It's sad.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
But the govt could ban it, if it chose, without any constitutional limitations.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's risky to the uninvolved public and there's probably lots of nasty knock-on environmental effects. Lots of other arms chemistry would fall under this category, IMO.
So is nuclear power generation. But private entities are allowed to engage in it.
Whats your point exactly?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Ialready asked a question earlier: could the government ban the production, sale and ownership of gunpowder?12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ialready asked a question earlier: could the government ban the production, sale and ownership of gunpowder?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested regulating and limiting sales of ammunition, as a preferred policy mechanism for limiting illicit gun usage.
But he wasnt speaking of banning, since of course he wasnt calling for banning all guns. As in fact, the DC law does not ban all guns, only handguns.
I do not think the 2nd amendment is applicable to modern gun control legislation, for reasons ive made clear, so of course the govt could ban sale of ammo. Per this decision could it? Id suspect not, since that would make the individual right void. Im not sure what that has to do with regulating nuclear energy though. The govt clearly has the right to ban nuclear weapons even under this decision (as I think I made clear above) and it does retain the right to regulate, or, if it wishes, ban nuclear energy.
If anyone has argued that theres a constitutional right to nuclear energy based on the 2nd amendment, please show me a cite."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
This is retarded. Banning gunpowder voids the right to own a particular type of arm, namely gunpowder-operated firearms. Banning plutonium 238 (or precursor materials) voids the right to own another type of arm, namely plutonium fission weapons.Originally posted by lord of the mark
I do not think the 2nd amendment is applicable to modern gun control legislation, for reasons ive made clear, so of course the govt could ban sale of ammo. Per this decision could it? Id suspect not, since that would make the individual right void. Im not sure what that has to do with regulating nuclear energy though. The govt clearly has the right to ban nuclear weapons even under this decision (as I think I made clear above) and it does retain the right to regulate, or, if it wishes, ban nuclear energy.
If anyone has argued that theres a constitutional right to nuclear energy based on the 2nd amendment, please show me a cite.
As far as I can see, the second amendment makes no distinctions based on the type of "arms".12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Even if they could, I'm not sure it's a good idea.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ialready asked a question earlier: could the government ban the production, sale and ownership of gunpowder?
The result would probably be people experimenting with other propellants
, cooking their own gunpowder and open a black market for gun powder
It would of course produce a lot of Darwin award Nominees - but I guess that a lot of innocents would be hit in the process.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
Comment