Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 26

by smitty_one_each (#49805095) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
Accusing someone of bigotry, just because they don't concur with an idea, is not the same as showing a specific instance of intolerance toward the subscribers of an idea.
I hope you can understand that you're leaving yourself wide open for fascism here.
The real issues involve power and money, of course. No one quite seems to grasp that, if there was not so much societal sculpture afoot via the tax code, we could all just do our thing much more in peace.
But try to share some real analysis, and get called a troll, or worse. What are you going to do?

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 26

by smitty_one_each (#49804255) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
I'll take your lack of specific examples of bigotry, even against the dictionary definition: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" as an admission that you're blowing smoke. Disagreeing with "their ideas" is not "intolerance toward those".
You seem to play d_r's game of raping the language in support of Holy Progress. Or am I overlooking something?

Comment: Re:Not clear (Score 1) 6

by smitty_one_each (#49804253) Attached to: George W Bush wanted to officiate at gay wedding.
Jeb who? If the little brother somehow threads it, it won't be due to the religious right. See 2012 election, where said constituency kinda left Romney hanging in the breeze.
If you want to posit an anti-Mormon bias, that's OK. But what substantial religious qualifications does Jeb have?
tl;dr: I think this argument is weak tea, myself.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 1) 316

by ScentCone (#49804199) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791

I know exactly what it means. And the authors are clear that having a well regulated militia is necessary. Are you foggy about that, somehow?

They're also very clear, having stipulated that, just like with their British overlords had one, they're going to have a continually armed and well regulated military ... that they're not (UNLIKE their previous British overlords) going to let the necessary existence of that entity be an excuse to deprive the rest of the people from keeping and bearing arms.

telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional

What? They authors themselves, in a huge parade of letters, recorded debates, and supporting documents, explain exactly what they were thinking when it comes to the constitution and every one of its amendments. Those amendments didn't just cryptically appear and get signed, they were talked to death in congress and documented personal discussions, mused about in journals and letters, and openly debated. It was very clear they considered the personal right to own firearms to be paramount, and distinctly separate from the collective need to keep a well-regulated militia ready to go. Despite their allergy to a standing army of some flavor (having seen what they'd seen), they knew it was necessary to have that capacity always in place.

The existence of it being necessary, they knew that the temptation was going to be there for someone in military or civilian executive/legislative power to skew towards making that militia/military the only holders of armed power. Remember that the constitution is all about minimizing government power, and the amendments are there to remind everyone that even though they should know well enough from the structure of that charter that personal liberties are a hands-off affair, there are some areas (like political expression, assembly, arms, the sanctity of one's home, etc) that it was worth explicitly laying out as beyond the reach of government control. The linguistic construction of the second amendment may fall oddly on modern earns, but it really is simpler than most people seem to think: "The existence of an armed organization is necessary, but don't assume that the government's power to form and run such an organization gives the government the power to deny the people the right to themselves be armed."

Yes, "militia" had a very specific meaning at the time. Their urge to use that word was a reflection of how distasteful they found the notion of a large standing federal military (that being too close to their experience with British power). And it's precisely BECAUSE the assumed that the states and even more granular local powers would be taking on the responsibility to have armed groups under their control that they made the individual's right to be personally armed a fundamental, nationally protected right - to prevent a local government from becoming locally tyrannical (and likewise federally).

I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)

Do you foresee a situation where the right to free expression or the right to assemble perhaps should be considered just a little too dangerous, and we should consider taking that away?

If so, you can start the process of putting a new amendment in place, one that kills of the First. While you're at it, you can try the same with the protections proclaimed by the Second (or the Fourth, if you think that's also a "living" amendment that's worth scrapping), but you're not going to get the supermajority and ratification needed to make any of that happen.

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 26

by smitty_one_each (#49803161) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
Can you provide a sensible definition of 'bigotry', and an example of where you think Carson and Cruz have failed to live up to your proposed standard?
The 'b' word seems to be the all-purpose kiss-off, these days. You risk evacuating it of meaning, like Tarantino did the Bigger Digger Trigger in "Django Unchained", I'm led to understand.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 5, Insightful) 316

by ScentCone (#49802885) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison

Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?

You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like: "Because it's always going to be necessary to have a trained and equipped military organization ready to defend the country, the government - in the interests of not allowing the government to have a monopoly on the tools of defense - shall not prevent citizens who are not in the military from having arms."

The people who wrote that amendment still had a very bad taste in their mouths from living under a monarchy that DID reserve the power to capriciously allow only the military to keep and bear arms. Knowing that a military/militia is necessary, they used the second amendment to be VERY clear that they considered the fundamental right to keep and bear arms to be NOT exclusive to the military. Just like the considered the freedom to speak to be not under the control of the government.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 4, Informative) 316

Yes it can. [Gonzales v. Raich]

The issue was not in dispute in that case:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power

In my opinion, by the way, Wickard v. Filburn, the New Deal era decision that says making something for yourself (i.e. growing wheat to feed your own chickens, or growing marijuana to use yourself) affects interstate commerce (because you otherwise might have bought it instead, affecting the price) and can thus be regulated, is a travesty that is long overdue for the Supremes to revisit and reverse, as they sometimes do when a previous court broke something substantial.

But even if you agree that feeding your own wheat to your own chickens is a suitable subject for federal regulation under the commerce clause, don't you think it's a stretch to say that affecting the price of a banned substance by NOT buying it on the illegal market is a legitimate reason for the Federal Government to ban your growing and consuming your own plants? Either way you don't buy in interstate commerce, so how can the difference in your behavior affect it? (Or was it Congress' intent for you to buy illegal drugs?)

Sometimes more than half the Supreme Court justices follow some argument to a point beyond sanity.

Comment: Re:What a shocker (Score 4, Informative) 53

by mc6809e (#49802169) Attached to: Land Art Park Significantly Reduces Jet Engine Noise Near Airport

Who would have thought having trees, shrubs and other natural barriers between an airport and the people would reduce noise levels?

It's as if clear cutting was found not to work.

Who thinks that? People that have never studied noise abatement and think their cleverness is enough to allow them to intuit the science.

Trees and shrubs do very little. A thorough study from the state of Virginia showed

No matter how the sites were examined, there was no measurable difference in road noise. All differences at the more distant measurement locations were due simply to the distance effect rather than to any additional mitigating effects of trees, whether measured by planting density, age, height, or average tree diameter.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 3, Insightful) 316

The Commerce Clause?

Nope. (The powers it DOES confer were already alluded to in my posting.)

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"Regulating" = making regular, setting standards, etc. It does NOT include banning whole classes of trade entirely.

If they want to PROMOTE drug and gun sales, that's fine. B-)

Comment: Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban that? (Score 4, Insightful) 316

Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished. Propz to GNAA

Let's devil's advocate a bit...

The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)

So it could be argued that, by the Federal Government's own basic laws, these were NOT crimes and the "Dread Pirate" was a freedom fighter.

(I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others. The people who promulgated the Constitution were doing their best to get governments off people's backs.)

The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of whether submarines can swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra