Actually, this is just a normal monthly fluctuation, and an unimpressive one at that: http://www.slate.com/content/d...
Giving Trump credit for this is ridiculous- it's like taking a dump and bragging that you lost weight.
1) The Founding Fathers, almost all of whom were British subjects, saw firsthand what happens when only the government has firearms. They can use those weapons to quell public outcry over anything, claiming the people were "rioting" or were "a threat to peace and order" because the people can't effectively fight back. If you read The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay all say the same basic thing: citizens who have weapons are more fully able to defend themselves from the government.
That may sound odd to Europeans
It also sounds odd to the current U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed in D.C. vs Heller the right to bear arms for self-defense. A later court finding (People v. Aguilar) summarized the majority opinion:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense" (id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.
So at this point they've basically decided it's a self-defense thing. The idea that the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed insurrection to overthrow a tyrannical government (a.k.a. the so-called "Second Amendment solution") has no current legal basis. The dissenting opinion went with the "well-regulated militia" idea:
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
Here are the first six drafts of the Second Amendment and the final version:
If they had C-SPAN back then, we would have more insight into what motivated these careful rephrasings, comma deletions, etc. At least some are known to have been introduced by Senate scribes inadvertently modifying punctuation, and introducing subtle changes in meaning. (Thank God somebody removed that "religiously scrupulous" crap.) But the Second Amendment is just badly written. we're forced to read through the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to figure out what these guys were thinking when they wrote it.
Two things you need to keep in mind when you read all this stuff. First of all, these were being defined as restrictions on the federal government, and only the federal government. The courts affirmed this model during the first half of the 19th century. Northern and Southern states had very different appetites for democracy in general, for obvious reasons, so the Constitution followed an "If you like your authoritarianism, you can keep it" model. The federal government was not allowed to restrict speech in any way, but if your state wanted to violate those same individual liberties, go right ahead. In most Southern states, speaking ill of slavery was a hanging offense.
Second, we have to seriously reexamine this attitude we have toward the Constitution. The older it gets, the more revered it becomes, and at this point, most Americans think of it as an appendix to the Bible. People are seriously arguing that the Bill of Rights are ordained by God. Back when it was written, things were more casual. Everyone agreed their founding document sucked, then simply crumpled it up and wrote another one. No one was in a mood to do this a third time, so the Constitution has a nice section describing how to modify it. (And nowhere does it say "and if things don't work out, start shootin'.") There seems no reason to think that they intended the document to be unalterable by future generations centuries afterward- that would be absurd. But modifying the Constitution at this point is politically impossible and will remain so. We have worshipped the document so much that we no longer control it- which is exactly what its authors tried to prevent.
Programming languages do not matter. Any program can be written in any language. Programming languages are as interchangeable as hammers.
That's taking the concept of a Turing completeness a little too far. Malbolge is Turing complete and can theoretically do anything that Java can do. This is "Hello World" in Malbolge:
That string of code was not written by hand- it was generated by a beam search algorithm.
The GP is clearly sarcastic. I don't get the trigger-happy mods and the virtue-signaling replies.
I was the GP. I thought complaining about not being able to dump mercury into rivers would clearly signal that I was being sarcastic. (BTW last week Trump really did block an Obama rule keeping mercury out of rivers.)
I'm impressed the post got modded to hell as if I were being serious. (What could have happened to put everyone is in such a grouchy mood lately?)
Voter ID, just like every other civilized country in the World,
No ID is required in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland).
In Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, ID is required only in cases when one's identity is in doubt for some reason. Canada accepts multiple non-photo IDs.
Countries that include Photo ID include Spain, France, Malta, Belgium, Mexico, but those are much easier to obtain than in the U.S.
Incidentally, most other civilized countries also lack reinforced concrete walls all along their borders.
National Elections need to be a Federal holiday with few exceptions.
The people who favor voter ID don't like this idea at all. Their goal is to make voting a hindrance.
Only a koolaid drinking disingenuous douche-shill thought that the government was magically trustworthy with Obama but all of the sudden is magically not to be trusted anymore because there's a new president.
The new president is already going around saying he lost the popular vote because 3-5 million "illegals" voted in the election. You elected a liar; "magic" has nothing to do with it.
Unless that tweet turns into a punitive regulatory action, then you've just lost a chunk of your savings.
This is a good point. We've gotten used to the Prince Jeoffrey phase of this drama, but winter is coming. The King Jeoffrey phase will be much different.
In less than 24 hours he goes from being President-Elect Trump to President* Trump, and those tweets might come with executive orders attached. (Twitter is gonna support that, they don't know it yet, but they'll do it soon, believe me.)
You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.