Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769503) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership?

Let's see..."militia"...hmm. So, any weapon appropriate to the militia should be legal. Which means light infantry weapons, since the militia is primarily a source of light infantry.

So, rifles, pistols, shotguns - legal.

Assault rifles (the selective fire ones, not the ones called "assault weapons" (which are covered by "rifles" above) and machineguns - legal.

hand-held rocket launchers (bazookas, that sort of thing) - legal.

Tanks? nope, that's not light infantry.

Artillery? nope, not light infantry.

Military aircraft? nope, not light infantry.

See the pattern?

Comment: Re:The Canadian Exodus.... (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769413) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Why are certain modern weapons banned?

Because FDR (that patron saint of the left), when he was told by his own Attorney General that he couldn't ban automatic weapons, decided to tax them out of existence.

And since he'd already turned the Supremes into sock-puppets by threatening to just add more Justices until he had a majority who would do what he told them, that worked.

Note that there is (and was at the time), legal precedent that taxing things associated with Civil Rights was a no-no (specifically, Printer's Ink - an earlier President had tried to shut up newspapers by putting very heavy taxes on Printer's Ink, and had been told he couldn't by the Supremes of the time).

Comment: Re:ACLU (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769241) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

No, they're being added. The Militia Act specifies that all of us adult male citizens are members of the militia. What bozo is proposing is that we add a clause making the RKBA only apply when you're on active duty.

So, you have the right to have a weapon when you're in the Army, or active-duty Reserve. Hmm, so, who has ever assumed that the Army or active-duty Reserve was NOT allowed to have guns?

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769161) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

(Wikipedia says that in the First Barbary War, a whopping 54 Marines detachment partook in the fights, alongside the hundreds of crew of like twenty five ships or so, and all the hired mercenaries. The Battle of Derne - 10 Marines, 500 hired mercenaries...)

That had less to do with lack of money than the fact that the squadron of ships sent to the Med to deal with the Barbary Pirates only had a handful of Marines onboard.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769117) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

You point to a bigger issue, strict Constitutionalists in the U.S. believe the Constitution brooks no amending, somehow it was born of immaculate conception and henceforth shall remain ever as is until fossilized.

Umm, no.

Strict Constitutionalists believe that there is, in fact, a procedure for amending the Constitution (Article V, in fact), and that it SHOULD BE USED if you want to change the Constitution.

Rather than the way that the rest of you idiots behave, which is that inconvenient parts should be ignored....

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46769063) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

You ARE entitled to do the same. The process is even layed out in the Constitution.

First, you need to get Congress to propose an Amendment, or alternately, to call a Constitutional Convention. Note that the latter requires the vote of 2/3 of the States to do.

Then, you need to ratify the proposed Amendment. That requires the vote of 3/4 of the States.

Good luck with that on any attempt to modify the Bill of Rights....

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46768997) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

You really have no idea. Go find a Mosin Nagant, an ancient Russian military rifle capable of hitting a target at over 200 yards with a high-power round for about $100.

As a matter of fact, I own one of those. And they're accurate a damn sight farther than two hundred yards.

As is my SMLE (a British Service Rifle, which cost me about $100). Note that the most annoying thing about the SMLE is that they used rimmed rounds, unlike everyone else in creation, who switched to rimless...

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46768897) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

At the time there were limited arms (you took about 2 minutes to reload) vs able to empty a couple clips in that same amount of time, now.

Umm, no.

A flintlock could be fire three-four times a minute by a skilled shooter. One of Napoleon's guys could manage 12+ shots per minute....

It should also be noted that at the time, there was no internet, television, or radio. Should the First Amendment be interpreted to not apply to the internet, radio, or TV?

Comment: Re:Easy Militia States (Score 1) 558

by CrimsonAvenger (#46768809) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I don't mod up ignorance. What is considered a militia is well defined, and that doesn't cut it.

Yes, the militia is well defined. By the Militia Act, in fact.

Might want to read it sometime.

According to the Militia Act, *I* am a member of the militia.

And so are you, if you're a US Citizen who happens to be an adult male.

And so is every other adult male US Citizen except for active duty members of the Armed Forces and Congresscritters and the like.

Comment: Re:In plain English, what's a FreedomBox? (Score 1) 23

by nine-times (#46768169) Attached to: All Packages Needed For FreedomBox Now In Debian

I think the problem is that, in all those links, there isn't an obvious link to a clear explanation of what Freedombox actually does. There's a vague "vision statement" about ideological goals. There's a set of directions that tells you how to plug it in (hint: you plug it in). There are video presentations which I can't watch conveniently, but I assume will explain something-or-other. There isn't really a clear plain-english write-up of what's supposed to be accomplished by using one of these, nor the details on how it works.

Is it some kind of pass-through Tor client? A VPN-like encryption scheme? Does it actually host web/email/chat? I get that it has something to do with privacy and communications, but... what?

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...