Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Mega (Score 2, Informative) 107 107

If you get rid of the mobile requirement, http://mega.co.nz/ might be the solution for you.

Specifically designed by Kim Dotcom's folks so that they CANNOT access your data (so they don't tell if you've got financial paperwork or pirated movies). Has a method for sync'ing a local unencrypted filesystem into their cloud architecture.

Comment: Re: I like this guy but... (Score 1) 438 438

But the selective 'originalists' on the Court's right wing like to play dumb when it suits them.

The way the selective 'progressives' applaud every assertion of civil liberties, except when it's in the Amendment they find repugnant?

The most recent one that totally ignores the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment

Have you read the Heller decision? It doesn't ignore the militia clause. Quite the contrary, it goes into a long analysis of it, including historical context. It is an explanatory or prefatory clause, not a limiting clause. The 2nd Amendment exists, in part, to ensure that the cause of the first shots fired in the Revolution -- the Crown believing it had the right to go confiscate powder and shot from the colonists -- would never happen again. Powder and shot which was necessary for the colonists to be able to stand together against the lawful standing army of the colonies, the one commanded by British officers.

But I still await your citation of the 2nd Amendment ever being interpreted, in any SCOTUS decision since the formation of the Union, to support your reductionist view of the right. Let's assume you're right and I'm wrong, and this is all just a modern expansionist view. Show me where SCOTUS had previously established the view you think is appropriate. You're claiming it's an expansion, which means you must be able to show where SCOTUS had held in favor of a more limited view prior.

Comment: Re: I like this guy but... (Score 1) 438 438

This is a provably false assertion. I know a large number of free citizens who do not own weapons.

I know women who've had abortions. That fact doesn't mean that the republicans aren't trying to take that right away. That fact doesn't mean that they've had some limited successes in some places making it more difficult to do so.

Sorry, logic fail on your part. Just because you know some folks with guns doesn't mean people aren't trying (and succeeding in some cases) to take people's guns away.

OS/2 must die!

Working...