Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 1566

by tjonnyc999 (#46769021) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
It's not a strawman. If you're going to hold the Constitutional Amendments to a strict interpretation of the technological limits of the time, be consistent and hold all of them to the same limit.

If you're not going to hold the amendments to the historical technological limits, then your previous argument is invalid.

What you're calling a "strawman", is a thorough refutation of your argument. But just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a strawman.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1566

by tjonnyc999 (#46768913) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
Regarding the question of what TYPES of weapons are/should be covered by the 2nd Amendment:

Based upon the strict literal interpretation of the meaning of "bear", the only weapons that are covered are those that can be "borne", i.e. carried by 1 person. This specifically excludes things like crew-served weapons, such as SAWs, mortars, artillery, etc., and complex machinery such as tanks, jet fighters, and combat ships, all of which require a crew and/or a support structure.

Things like biological / nuclear / chemical weapons are not covered, either, since they're not "arms" but rather "weapons of mass destruction". The key differences are: a.) the effects of NBC's cannot be restricted to any one person / target in particular (i.e. you CAN target a pistol round to harm only 1 individual, you canNOT target a nuke or a cloud of sarin in the same way), and b.) they're likely to cause permanent and extensive damage to structures, biosphere, and environment, i.e. the effects of the weapon will persist much longer than the tactical significance of the target.

So, no tanks, nukes, jets, artillery pieces, neurotoxin SCUDs. Regardless of whether you can afford it or not. Arms, yes. Weapons of mass destruction, no.

Comment: Re:Sandy Hook? (Score 1) 414

by tjonnyc999 (#45652843) Attached to: 3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate
Yeah, and because one more law would have stopped a delusional, homidical maniac.

Reality according to US Congress:
  • A psycho decides to murder children / shoot up a mall full of people
  • The psycho gathers firearms, ammunition, and/or explosive devices
  • The psycho heads out to the school / playground / mall (full of nicely unarmed victims, no potential resistance)
  • The psycho sees a sign that says "Gun-Free Zone"
  • The psycho says to himself, "Oh noes! No guns! What am I going to do? Well, I guess I'll just go home now." :(
  • The psycho goes home & goes back to watching TV
  • ?????
  • PROFIT!

Comment: Re:Already Banned (Score 1) 414

by tjonnyc999 (#45652753) Attached to: 3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate

the language of the law is so amazingly vague ... could use it to outlaw just about any...

NAILED it!

Vague laws & variable enforcement = pathway to tyranny.

You can be arrested for even being suspected of having illegal gun parts - high-capacity magazines, silencers & fittings, automatic sears (yes, Citizen, a cube of metal 1/2" on the side can equal 5 years in jail...), even rubber O-rings that can be qualified as being "potential parts of grenade launcher attachments". Vague definition = arrest, fine, jail time, and a ruined life... for a piece of metal or an O-ring.

Meanwhile, David Gregory can wave around a highly illegal high-capacity magazine on public TV, and the DA will "decline to prosecute". Because the law that will land YOU in jail doesn't apply to the Ruling Class. Variable enforcement = some people are above the law.

Comment: Re:good riddance (Score 1) 146

by tjonnyc999 (#45650355) Attached to: After FDA Objections, 23andMe Won't Offer Health Information

It wasn't necessarily that the information was misleading, but that it would lead patients to make decisions about their own care without necessarily consulting a doctor, which the FDA thinks is not a good idea -- and I totally see their point, frankly.

So, by the same logic, let's shut down:

  • wikipedia.org - plenty of medical information there
  • RXList.com
  • WebMD.com
  • WrongDiagnosis.com
  • Healthatoz.com
  • DrKoop.com
  • Merck Manual at www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/
  • ...and about 1000 more

Oh noes! Medical information out in the open! How dare those peasants make decisions for themselves! We must protect them from themselves! ...etc.

Yeah, let's deny information (however flawed it may be, it's better than nothing) to people with a capacity for independent thought, for the sake of coddling & protecting the morons.

Comment: Re:The FDA's mission to save idiots from themselve (Score 1) 146

by tjonnyc999 (#45650247) Attached to: After FDA Objections, 23andMe Won't Offer Health Information
OK, so they screw up once in a while. It's your responsibility to take ANY medical advice with a grain of salt, and to seek a 2nd opinion. Which is why there's that entire concept of a "2nd opinion", that's been around for centuries.

But noooo, we can't have that, let's shut down the information for EVERYONE because SOME people might misinterpret, or because there's a TINY error chance in the testing process.

Typical American attitude - "this might annoy/damage some morons, so let's shut it down for everyone".

Comment: Re:On Getting a second opinion... (Score 1) 146

by tjonnyc999 (#45650181) Attached to: After FDA Objections, 23andMe Won't Offer Health Information
Keywords: "learned", "listen", "consider", "reading myself". You're not a moron, so you think about things before making a decision. But, the FDA is not basing their decision on you - they're basing it on the possibility of some idiot doing something rash because they've heard they have a possibility of getting some disease. And, because we live in the age of "tyranny of the moron over the intellectual", their decision is "protect the moron, deny the intellectual".

Comment: Screwing the many to protect the few... (Score 1) 146

by tjonnyc999 (#45650145) Attached to: After FDA Objections, 23andMe Won't Offer Health Information
...seems to be the ongoing policy of US Government in general, and of the FDA in particular.

Just as they've held up the approval of 15-minute DIY HIV test kits (Orasure et al), now they're blocking access to this information. Same principle: "Because we're worried that a few morons can't understand the data, we're going to screw EVERYONE indiscriminately".

Same result: 100,000's of potentially preventable HIV infections occurred in the years the quicktests were delayed, now 100,000's of people will be denied the knowledge of potentially life-threatening illnesses and the possibility of preventative maintenance.

Way to go, FDA. Let more people get sick & die so Big Pharma profits. Motive couldn't be more transparent of it was made from Trivex.

On a larger scale, I wonder if the age of "tyranny of the moron over the intellectual" will ever come to an end.

Comment: Re:Sounds like BS to me (Score 0) 230

Google does this, barely. At my business, we have at least 2-3 phone calls a day from people confused as hell because they typed in "something remotely related to {the type of widgets we're selling}", Google saw the word "widgets" and threw in some ads that were at most barely relevant - but if there's nothing better, "barely relevant" works more than "nothing at all", and the people could not distinguish between the ads and the organic search results. This is not an assumption, it's a repeating theme in phone conversations - "But I searched for {this}, and Google gave me {that}, and now I'm here."

Now, on average we get 1 phone call (with serious questions or something not covered by the website info) per every 100-200 site visitors. Even taking the lower end of the scale, and dividing by 2 to be on the safe side, I can extrapolate that there are at least 50 people / day who fall prey to this deceptive display of ads. That's 50 people who wasted their time - and $ 120 - $ 150 in lost advertising expenses for us. Thanks, Google!

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson

Working...