Comment Re:Racism gotten to the point (Score 1) 474
I'm glad I just finished drinking.
I'm glad I just finished drinking.
I agree. It's a pretty bold statement to make saying wealthy blacks are more likely than the poorest of the other races to commit crimes. Few on Slashdot actually follow through with extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims though, so I doubt that person will even make an attempt.
Yup. The problems going forward will be less about racism and more about nationalism or culturalism.
Contact is what eliminates barriers. It's what's different about "them" which makes "them" evil. As that has increasingly less to do with color, people will hate for other reasons, such as culture and language.
They also don't reflect the insane rate of plea bargains, a large percentage of which have been proven (usually long after the fact) to be false pleas in order to avoid the incredibly harsh sentences following jury trials. It is standard procedure for prosecutors to stack charges in order to coerce pleas for crimes which, in many cases, never even provably occurred.
It was more complex than "if first_child == girl then kill first_child", but the custom did exist.
Unfortunately, T-Mobile doesn't do that as of the last time I needed to change plans. Both phones were unsubsidized, and they informed me they no longer had non-contract plans comparable to their contract plans for the reduced rate. That's been about a year though, so maybe they regained their sanity.
No they won't, because the plan change requires a 2-year contract. There's no "sign up for support then drop plan" option on most carriers. The only carrier this might be an issue with is T-Mobile.
Every single pro-firearms person I've ever met is in favor of training.
The problem comes with mandating it as a matter of law. The mandates are the spot most easily co-opted by those who support universal bans. While they know they could never get the support for a ban, a mandate means there's room to write the training statute in a manner so that a small number of people can derail the process or make it needlessly expensive.
It's sort of like the permitting process in a number of states. While theoretically anyone not barred by law should be able to receive a permit, only those with political connections are realistically able to do so.
By co-opting the process at points where rational people ordinarily agree, irrational minorities can act in a manner that results in people refusing to support measures as law that they wouldn't ever consider ignoring in practice.
No, asking for a single cop is far less than what the President has available. Absent the ability to arm effectively against criminal arms though, a single 24/7 armed guard is the lowest level of non-self-provided defense one could count on for effective protection.
If society decides self-defense is no longer a right, it becomes incumbent on the society to provide adequate security measures on which all those deprived of their defensive rights may rely instead.
Departments I'm familiar with have an AR-style rifle and a shotgun in almost every squad car, whether urban or rural. The sidearm magazine size is usually 15 rounds, limited only by the inconvenience of having a larger one (though officers carrying something larger than a
As for the strawman, yeah, he was definitely claiming arguments not in evidence. It's good that you're clear as to what you're arguing, as many are not (which leads to massive amounts of miscommunication within a debate already filled with it at the best of times).
The police have no duty to protect you.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. (1981)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
It's not a selective quotation. It is a dependent clause in much the same way that the power to enact copyrights is given to the Federal Government: Because it is necessary to goal X, power Y is granted.
Courts have ruled regularly that operative clauses are not actually limited by a dependent clause in grants of power. These rulings are more common than rulings on rights because they've been contested in the courts more often, but the logic applies the same way. Just because a copyright law is enacted with a goal other than promoting the progress of science and the useful arts does not mean it is outside the scope of power granted the government by the Copyright Clause. The "Promotion" clause does not limit the powers granted by the operative portion of the Copyright Clause (despite how much we might wish it did). There are prefaces and introductory clauses to most of the grants of power in the Constitution, and none of them have ever been held to actually limit the scope of those grants. Only the limits in the operative clauses have ever been held to limit the action of those clauses.
Because goal X is considered of the utmost importance, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The operative clause is identical in wording across several amendments. It follows then, that the power imbued in that clause is identical.
Since the phrase "the right of the people" is common to several amendments, and not a dependent clause, its meaning is just as clear in each. If the means of the time were the metric used, any technology used in furtherance of the 1st Amendment is open to being banned.
Additionally, the 4th Amendment could contemplate only physical searches and seizures, so technological means of monitoring, searching, and seizing would be perfectly permissible if your metric were used.
Those of the most authoritarian stripe would be incredibly pleased if your metric for determining what each Amendment covers were the one in current use. That is actually the goal of many, because it allows for the maximum amount of protections to be stripped from the Bill of Rights.
It's a failing common to those on both the Right and the Left. Most of the enduring problems in US law stem from short-cutting Constitutional protections, and both sides are to blame.
It's common to find that someone bringing up the behavior as a debate bludgeon would defend (or at least ignore) the exact same behavior in furtherance of a cause that person supports. By calling out only one side, the outrage rings hollow.
Actually, the
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
