the current intepretation is a product of late 20th century judicial activism in an era of increasing crime and bernie goetz/ dirty harry style anger. it has to do with handguns, individual action, and urban environments

but the second amendment is about long guns, community action, and rural hinterland

as crime declined and continues to decline (due to the waning of the crack epidemic and better policing like COMPSTAT, not handgun ownership) we are at a crossroads where a loud minority insists hothead douchebags walking around half cocked with guns in civil society is good. it's fucking stupid, it's a recipe for unnecessary death, and doesn't impact crime at all

our social and economic peers control hand guns far better, and are not cesspools of rape, murder, and robbery. in fact, they are a mostly equivalent on crime measures as us, but a lot lower than us on measure of murder. because we're the morons with all the extra pointless easy guns

so we shall return to the original intent of the founding fathers: long guns, community action, and rural hinterland (no one wants to take away your shot gun, farmer/ hunter, and you deserve it), and do away with this late 20th century judicial activism about handguns, individual action, and urban environments

you get trained, tested, THEN you get a gun. and we will cut down on the USA's absolutely insane sky high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers

do you see a problem here that needs correcting? the majority of americans do:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/...

i am referring to the wording of the second amendment

are you saying that in addition to required training (well-regulated), anyone who has a gun has to also register with a militia?

in accordance to the second amendment, that seems to be indeed a more accurate reading of our fundamental rights

i was talking about training

you're changing the subject

the second amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia

so if you want to adhere to your actual constitutional rights, then you need training (the 1700s meaning of well-regulated is well-trained) before you get a gun, rather than the current US status quo of handing out guns to any mouth breathing moron who wants one. and with easy guns for any untrained douchebag, we have our pathetic american status quo of high homicide rates

the american legal status quo on guns is not actually in line with the second amendment. we require people to take drivers ed and pass a course before they can drive a car. to be more in line with the second amendment, we need to require people to get gun and safety training, and then pass a test, before getting a gun. thus the *well-regulated* militia refered to in the second amendment

the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun, no questions asked. that's not actually the second amendment. why or how do people think they can ignore the *well-regulated* part of the second amendment?

they can't

and we will fix this erroneous late 20th century constitutional activism against the founder's clearly stated intent

Note: It was my arse he was kissing with constant praise of my skills and knowledge. You don't need to suck up to get me to help you.

Not only does email provide a paper trail of the discussion, it doesn't require that someone drop everything they're doing right now just to answer a couple of questions.

I HATE messaging systems, phone calls, and personal conversations for just that reason. I used to have one guy at my last job who constantly came to ask me questions instead of using Google or reading the documentation I'd already sent him. Laziest bugger I've ever had the misfortune of working with... and a smarmy arse-kisser to boot, which annoyed the schite out of me.

If they want a real test, try Orlando, Florida. I found it the most trying city to drive in of any I've ever lived in, thanks to the joyous combination of people visiting from Ohio that expect a mile clear ahead of them and people from New York who think 6 inches is enough of a gap for someone to cut them off.

How can you compare a business that has only two real products (Firefox and Thunderbird) to a company that had several iterations of hardware and dozens of software products, as well as service, support, and contracting arms?

Of course Mozilla is on the downslide -- Chrome came along to compete with them, and Internet Explorer was improved, while Safari came into existence. Mozilla still make my browser and email clients of choice, but not all people make the same choice.

And so it should be.

But while Mozilla may be waning in popularity and market share, they are hardly imploding like Sun did. They were never any where near as big nor as important to the industry to begin with!

thank you, exactly

stoner philosophy is what we are dealing with here, but because they commit violence, we have to take their "deep thoughts" seriously?

if someone has actual insightful thoughts, they are a strong mind, and they don't resort to violence. if they resort to violence, that's proof we are dealing with a weak mind and mediocre thoughts

Ah, yes, I ended up disabled by migraines and bi-polar because I "fucked up."

Nothing like the judgement of anonymous cowards who don't know their own ass from a hole in the ground.

you're such a hack

if you spout off about sarah connor you're not necessarily highly sensitive and attuned to some great insight into all of our reality that most people don't see. you're just dimwitted and grasping things on the edge of your own personal fuzzy grasp on reality. amazing insights are not partly digested critiques of james cameron movies

it's like taking LSD, and finding yourself transcribing the thoughts of God. when you finally sober up, you find the thoughts of God are: "brain BEZZLED fruit fliesfru ~~ it fli e."

what LSD does is it scrambles and diminishes your consciousness, so mundane things become awesome consciousness spanning phenomena. only because you've temporarily degraded your consciousness to a tiny dim bulb

so: are you really adding to humanity with some amazing breakthrough perception by dropping LSD?

or are you just degrading your perception and intelligence temporarily and only perceiving what seems like a great insight to a temporarily dimmed mind?

now, put aside the LSD, and what if we're dealing with someone's who is honestly just a deluded nut case? that their perceptual powers are weak, and always were weak?

an incredibly sparse exotic few of us are actual great philosophers. and those that are, are not taking axes to satellites. going to violence and force is proof of a weak and dim mind, not a strong and intelligent one

and a distressing large number of us have mediocre thoughts we only think are great philosophies. and then a fringe few have straight up bizarre thoughts, and are happy to commit violent and forceful acts in the name of those ditzy ideas. being a deranged douchebag who thinks of themselves as a great thinker doesn't mean you actually are or that anyone should take you seriously

and even if you are intelligent, say a great programmer or chess player, this does not mean you are necessarily socially intelligent or even socially well-adjusted. so you can have ideas which are laughable to people of average intelligence, but also average social intelligence, more intelligent than your social intelligence. for example, this wackjob:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

they're not more sensitive to anything, they're not great thinkers, they're not aware of some amazing powerful insight the rest of us are missing

they're just *crazy*

you're talking about perpetual war, different concept from winnable war

they used axes, not hacksaws

so axtivists

whether you call yourself a nerd or a geek, if it's important to you to feel superior to others for arbitrary reasons, you're more accurately described as an asshole