Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"Ignoring the traditional definition of the ter (Score 1) 1364

by K. S. Kyosuke (#46769415) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

As the Second Amendment does not make distinction between different types of armaments, no, I do not mean firearms, I mean weapons.

So I guess that, as per second amendment, private ownership of land mines, sarin bombs, nukes etc. are all perfectly fine? Even if it would violate international treaties? I didn't know that. I guess there actually is a line somewhere there no matter how underspecified the second amendment is.

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.

Agreed. But I wasn't arguing that the criteria should be the same for both. It's just that the term "disabled" is too broad for both purposes - as it covers both people who should and shouldn't be given weapons (missing a foot vs. being mentally handicapped, for example), both "disabled people should be denied weapons" and "disabled people shouldn't be denied weapons" are irrational opinions unless further elaborated what "disabled" means. Of course "he doesn't think that disabled people should have access to weapons", since the opposite would be dangerous. And he probably doesn't think that disabled people shouldn't have access to weapons either. It's basic logic.

If you can't make a point without resorting to ad hominems, you don't have a point worth listening to

I haven't made any ad hominem. I'm just asking for sane reasoning. That's not an ad hominem, that's a call to put aside emotions and to use logic.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1364

by K. S. Kyosuke (#46768965) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

The world population of AD 1800 was about 10 million fewer people than the population of Mexico alone is today.

Uh, the world population in 1800 was almost one billion. Mexico has one billion people already?! No wonder all those Mexicans are willing to try to get into the US at any cost!

As far as I know, the US had a few billion people back then - mostly because it was still contained to the East Coast. So, those 50 marines sent to North Africa around 1800 would make something like 3000 marines today. Yet there were 100k soldiers in Iraq, there are 30k soldiers in Afghanistan... If you count in all the high-tech equipment, I still think that the regular forces back than were cheaper per capita, even if you account for lower economic productivity (especially given that this extra economic productivity that we got later is what gets deducted from people's income).

Comment: Re:"Ignoring the traditional definition of the ter (Score 1) 1364

by K. S. Kyosuke (#46768725) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

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.

First, you probably meant firearms, not weapons. Second, the "active duty" thingy seems like nonsense to me - there's all kinds of reserve duties around the world, even in the US, isn't it? Why would he be against it? Third, if unfit people can't join the militia then why would that apply to them? (I'm not asking whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to be armed for any reason whatsoever - including self-defence, for example - just whether there's a non-wacko line of reasoning that leads from needing to keep militia to arming people who can't serve in it.)

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...