Reductio ad absurdum, and aside pointing that out, I refuse to address such a nonsensical argument.

I'll give you that, since I didn't point out the Selective Service thing until after your last post.

The way that term is used today, it's far too broad for any purpose, but apparently it's not "PC" to call a duck a duck anymore.

"a call to put aside emotions" includes calling reasoning you disagree with "wacko?" Please, you're not stupid enough to believe that, and I'm not stupid enough to fall for it.

Consent is emotional and illogical.

Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

Sure they were - they were witnessing a crime in progress, and did nothing to stop or report it. Granted, this is in a fairly abstract sense, but we're discussing a case where the victim was forced to destroy evidence, then was prosecuted and convicted based on this now non-existent evidence. "Fairly abstract" seems to be the name of the game in PA's legal system.

They're both accurate methods of verifying the legality of the recording, although I think your case would be the more reasonable of the two.

As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons. Stevens probably means firearms, which goes to show how weak his own understanding of the Constitution is.

Beats me, he's the one that wants to make the right contingent on "serving in the Militia." Perhaps his definition of "serving" is different than mine.

In the original article I was reading about this, someone pointed out that Selective Service could, technically, meet Stevens' "militia" definition. However, Selective Service only applies to able-bodied males over the age of 18, which leaves out women and the disabled.

Not being able to serve active duty in the official military is not the same thing as being "unfit" to protect your homeland from tyranny and invasion; for example, while losing a leg above the kneecap might disqualify you from Selective Service, it by no means diminishes your ability to hold a position and fire a weapon.

If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to. Please keep that in mind in future responses, I'd like to avoid the mindless hate-slobber that's so typical of these civil rights debates.

Not sure what you mean by that, unless you, too, wonder if he's planning on using an AR-15 for nefarious purposes.

Sure, here you go:

Foreshadowing - a literary device by which an author explains certain plot developments that may come later in the story.

Weird that you would agree with me in such a seemingly disagreeable manner...

A person that rationalizes the abuse of another by blaming the victim pretty much is the definition of a sociopath, by your own reasoning - lack of emotional inhibition.

Me so sorry, Masa! Oh lordy lord, how dare ah step out of mah place 'n quweshtun authoritah! Puh-leeze don't whup me, Masa! I'll never roam ag'in!

You know what I find arrogant? Armchair character assassins, who don't know me from Adam, assuming that I have less understanding of American history than the next guy.

Traditionally, the term has been defined as "an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel." - Wikipedia

So, either he's trying to redefine the term to mean "only those serving active duty in governmental military units," or he doesn't think disabled people should have access to weapons.

I wish.

As nice as it might be to generate revenue for myself by posting submissions, reading the comments as we wax philosophic on the issue is all the satisfaction I need.

Because there's no such thing as a nerd who likes guns, right?

Because nothing matters less than fascists trying to limit our civil liberties, right?

Whatever you've got to tell yourself. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and "drive click revenue.' Start your own news website if you don't like the stories we, the Slashdot community, choose to display.

Failure to report a crime is a crime in itself.

Also:

"We can't put Jimmy Quarterback in detention, he wouldn't be able to play in next week's Big Game®! Which is way, way, more important than academics, since we rely on the Booster money his athletics bring in!"

I think the new way of saying that is, "well, you're just so pick-on-able."

A phrase which sets off every "that guy's a sociopath" alarm in my brain.

Assault, conspiracy to commit assault, and accessory to assault very much are crimes.

Just so you know, "assault" is legally defined as the threat of harm, not the actual commission of it; that would be "battery."