It wasn't hard to predict.

So people who disagree with you are, by definition, not engaging in legitimate free speech because they didn't engage in a good faith effort to agree with you?

Wow.

From another forum:
"You either support the right of people to say things that offend you or you don't believe in freedom of speech." -Cekim.

That's all there is to it, really.

I believe he was saying that you were wrong for claiming the definition of arms had changed. In that regard, he is correct. The definition of Arms has not changed, however the willingness of the American government to abide by the document from which their authority flows has decreased. Perhaps because the people have shown no signs of concern for their rights and freedoms, so long as the government keeps using the word "terrorism".

I can find you a lot of free speech activists who don't have a problem with the obscenity conviction of Max Hardcore.

Some people lack critical thinking skills, some people lack conviction, and some people believe that rights should be limited. Doesn't make any of 'em right.

To be fair to the NRA, they aren't really a gun-rights group, and haven't been in my lifetime. They're primary mission seems to be to keep compromising on gun rights whenever put to the test. Now the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) on the other hand, have a little more... clarity.

To be fair, what most of those people say is: "If it isn't part of the governments constitutionally enumerated powers, the government has no power to regulate it." What that actually means is that the government does not have the power to regulate cars (you can own whatever you want) but has the power to regulate roads (you can't drive it on the roads unless).

Of course, since the government manage to arrange it so that it has most of the guns (and all of the big ones), it has started to regulate things based on the ancient tradition of "just try and stop us".

I keep expecting us to declare War on war sooner or later. After all, we've already decided to be at war with terror, drugs, poverty, and hunger.

There is another difference: our government claims one as the source of it's authority. Which one depends on who's in office, but it doesn't matter much, because nobody in office ever pays either more than lip service.

How the militia should be regulated has no bearing on the right of the people, right? It doesn't say anything about the right of the militia.

As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons. As where they have the right to keep and bear them, well, if the people have the right to keep and bear arms, (except in certain places), that (except in certain places) part would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, right? The language is pretty clear on infringement, is it not?

Forgot to respond to this part: Yes, that would be horrifying.

Well, I doubt that. There are a great many freedoms that I now enjoy but politicians are always trying to do away with.

Because discretion works both ways.

Every time they let someone off lightly, every little thing they ever ignored, could be recorded. They could let the teenager with the dimebag off with a warning before, but if they're on camera all the time now, discretion goes out the window.

It's worth it, though. Besides, I figure it would only take a year or two of full on enforcement of all the stupid malum prohibitum crap before some effort was made to ensure that the only things that are against the law are things that effing should be.

Yes, yes it does.

What part of

and for that matter

did you not understand?

Also, this is not about iTunes. It's about iBookStore.

From another forum, but very true:

It's always about that.