Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: I am sure (Score 1) 301

I've had a lot of sex with "teens", one while I was in high school(she "rocked" my "world", and by "world", I mean "cock"), and a few more after I graduated high school and went off to college. After graduating college, there were even a few more "teens" I had sex with. It was nice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Of course, you being an idiot, I don't expect that you understand that 18 and 19 year old individuals are also "teens", nor that in many states, the age of consent isn't 18, it is either 14, 15, and 16 years old(depending on each state's law, though there are more that have the age of consent at 16). I bet you also believe that, because so many people have called others under the age of 18 "children", that you also believe they are children; the real issue is, they aren't. Children start becoming adults around 14, 15, and 16 years old, hence the reason 16 year old individuals are given driver's licenses. Before the creation of the idea of "adolescence", men as young as 14 were allowed into military and militia service(the group of "states"/territories that became the United States used men 14 years old and up to staff military positions, and all other men, 14 to 45, were a part of the area's perspective militias). Now, the "goal posts" have been shifted, so whatever.

Now, before anyone goes calling me a "pedophile", "child molester", etc., understand that: Firstly, fuck you, I don't care. You are some faceless, nobody on "the Internet". Even if you were, I couldn't possibly care less what your opinion of me is, and I never have. Secondly and, really, lastly, I am married to a women six and one half years my senior(in other words, she is six and one half years older than me, for the less intelligent), and we have no children. I say that so others, who don't devolve to "childish" acts, such as "name calling", or other, related acts, know that I'm not some mouth-breathing pederast or pedophile(well, my statements don't actually "prove" anything, but I added them regardless).

Comment Re:RF? (Score 1) 935

What you said would be funny, if you weren't apparently so serious, about calling out someone's alleged "ignorance", when you are exuding it in such great quantities. I believe we have nice instance of irony here. Just because government(US, State, and/or local) has been violating our(US Citizens) US Constitutionally-protected rights for "long periods"(over years, decades, and in some cases, centuries; in fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest violators in history) doesn't magically make it legal or right. Of course, from your comments, I don't expect you to grasp this.

If a "right" can be restricted, controlled, or taken away, then it isn't a "right"; it's a "privilege". I should also state that "requiring" a "permit" to assemble in a group is also a violation of our(again, US Citizens, and those within the jurisdiction of the United States) First Amendment protections, among other violations you mention as, apparently, "proper use of government authority(and I say authority, because no government has "rights").

I also must point out that, given the heavy restrictions on firearms in the United States, among all of the states, that "the militia"(which is still all "able-bodied males, and even females, from 14 to 45, and older; because it was, for a long time, 14, not 18 years old. Also, "the militia" isn't the National Guard; it never has been, and it never will be) cannot execute its job effectively. Select-fire firearms("machine guns, "full-autos", etc) are effectively banned, or artificially priced too high due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act of 1986, and then there is the NFA'34/GCA'68, Title II(National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title II(specifically), which also create artificial and wholly unnecessary roadblocks to arms ownership and, at the same time, violations of the protections of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution.

Comment Re: RF? (Score 1) 935

Those people should have armed themselves, as it is the individual's responsibility to provide for one's own protection/security. It isn't, and has never been the job of law enforcement to protect others, or provide personal security to the citizenry. Hence the name: "law enforcement".

Does that many that everyone carrying a firearm will be able to protect themselves successfully in every encounter? No. If that were true, there would never be an instance of death among law enforcement, except when the death is self-inflicted intended by said law enforcement( i.e. suicide). One needs to prepare as best as possible, and hope for the best. Regardless, I will take my chances and carry a firearm(I carry more than one every day, everywhere I go), than not carry and hope that someone else around me has a firearm and will protect me.

Comment Re:Another reason to ban rifles (Score 1) 1134

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, like all other amendments under the "Bill of Rights" heading, never conferred any US citizens any rights; the "Bill of Rights" only protects certain preexisting rights. Therefore, changing or "invalidating" the Second Amendment won't take away our(US citizens, and, yes, citizens of our respective states) right to own and carry/possess firearms(or any "arms", for that matter). If changing a US Constitutional amendment could rob us of any of our rights, then it was never a "right"; it was a "privilege".

To be clear, "rights" don't come from government acts or will, and "rights", therefore, cannot be taken away by government. At least, that is the way it works in the United States.

Comment Re:Yeah, that's the problem (Score 1) 137

Yes, because the US Supreme Court is never wrong.

The truth is, the US Supreme Court justices that voted to uphold the ACA were wrong. If you want me to explain how they were wrong(and provide "citations"), I suggest you go and discover the answers for yourself; I don't provide free education.

Comment Re: Torrent (Score 1) 313

It is important to point out that the US Constitution(more to the point, the "Bill of Rights") didn't create or give any of us(US Citizens, or other non-citizens on US Soil) any rights; it simply protects certain rights, such as those the "framers" of the US Constitution and "Bill of Rights" knew might be abused at a later date. Rights exist inherently, and as such, amending the US Constitution won't invalidate any rights, just as law can't. If a simply amendment, or law can invalidate a right, then it is no right; it's a "privilege".

Comment Re:Because the question is stupid! (Score 1) 195

The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC( well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(, and Gozales v Castle Rock(

*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)

Comment One can't really ask permission to violate rights. (Score 1) 585

Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?

This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).

In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"

Thus endth thy lesson.

Comment Re:Not about the ruling class (Score 1) 140

The executive arm, in any state government or the US government, has the sole power of enforcement(hence the name). Legislatures(again, in the US) have the sole power to craft, pass, and repeal laws(courts have some power that is law repealing, but judges must have a case brought before the respective courts to initiate the use of such power; judges don't get to simply muse whatever law, whenever is convenient for them, and start repeal whatever law they wish) among other duties, and courts try alleged criminal acts discovered during the enforcement of the various, existing laws, and have the authority to decide if a law is constitutional/legal, decide the meaning of a law that might be challenged during the court of a trial(criminal or civil, depending on the issue in dispute), among other duties.

Comment Re:Laws (Score 1) 822

The term "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with "regulation"(i.e. laws or other controlling commands), "gun control"(again, in terms of legal reasoning). I suggest that you(I don't do other people's work, or handle other people's responsibilities) go look up how word were used(in regards to the English language, that is) at the time of the passing(and writing, as this and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights were passed not very long after its creation; approximately two years, if my memory serves me correctly) of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. That is one of many issues that come up when deciding the actual meaning of laws, constitutional issues, etc.

Attempting to "reinterpret" meaning from relatively [a] old legal writing(s), based on how language is used today, is, at best, a lie, and at worst, an attempted deception.

Comment Re:Trading one set of problems for another (Score 1) 842

Come live in the Atlanta area(or anywhere around the Southeastern United States), which is where I live(technically, it's the "Metro Atlanta Area", but I really live in the shithole that is Haralson County, but my wife and I built a brand new house, on over 10 acres of land, all for cash), and enjoy our summertime temperatures of slightly over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with a humidity level that is, at least, 90 percent and above. I would gladly take 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the Phoenix area, or in that general region of the United States over where I live. Though, I would like some cooler temperatures the rest of the year, so...

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 1) 277

Very mature post...asshole. At the very least, post a link to the comment, so that other don't have to find the information you claim exists. Of course, this is not even considering that you don't have any first-hand, factual information on the situation which, allegedly, drove you to post such an asinine comment in the first place. Oh, yes, please, continue commenting on how I "[am]"(or, according to you, "[was]") a part of "the problem".

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 1) 277

Look up 18 USC Section 242, and 18 USC Section 243. USC is the acronym for United States Code. Of course, there is also "Violation of Oath of Office"(O.C.G.A., though, I know many, and probably all states have similar statues, though probably under different headings/titles. The issue is that people have to be willing to do their part to hold law enforcement responsible, because no one is going to do it for "you", or anyone but themselves. I wish that wasn't generally true for citizens treated in such a way, but that isn't the world we live in, nor have ever lived in, and one we will never live in.

I would like to add that, I would like to see the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" judicial blathering(s) die and quick and painful death, save for those that are acting in an official capacity(law enforcement, government attorneys, and all other government-employed individuals). There are far too many damned law, just on the state or federal level(in the United States, and "international law" doesn't exist, unless there is a treaty, where the treaty is treated as a criminal offense, and said treaty doesn't violate the US Constitution, which treaties are subservient to, like all other laws), and so many of these said laws(the aforementioned laws actual legality a whole other conversation) are malum prohibitum laws(laws which are tailored to "social norms", which is opposite of malum in se laws/violations, in which are wrong on its face, such as murder, rape, theft, etc), which are almost never morally or ethically wrong on its face, and which are, at best, ambiguous in nature, as to why they even exist.

Comment Re:Ya, right (Score 4, Insightful) 277

As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:

First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".

I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).

Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.

Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the United States alone; I don't focus on the strange ways of foreign governments) possess numerous and wide rights, some that were explicitly enumerated, many that weren't. Never equate government, on any level(within the United States, or the various states) as having any rights; it doesn't. ...but, I digress...

I will add that I have been rather unhappy with the way it seem law enforcement has changed just over the past 5 to 7 years alone. Though, it's important to look past the constant media focus on specific cases on any subject, I am talking more about the relatively recent case law, other judicial decisions, newer tactics, etc. Much of that is lessening my view of the profession overall.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 214

Wrong. In fact, you couldn't be more wrong.

Here, try reading the following:

Warren v DC:
Gonzalez v City of Castle Rock:
DeShaney v Winnebego County Department of Social Services:

The above are only three examples, among many, that help show just how flawed you logic(or lack thereof) is. I am an ex-law enforcement officer(which I wish to point out that, just as I thought myself to accurately and effectively use all types of firearms, which my father began when I was very young, I also took it upon myself to learn the portions of US laws, Georgia law(O.C.G.A.), and local ordinances that applied to my career, how it could and would affect me, etc. 10 to 12 weeks, and up six months, at the most, leave little time for much real training), and I can also state with direct knowledge that "law enforcement" and "training" is almost as big of a joke, and a fallacy, as anyone thinking law enforcement exists to provide personal security, or any services, to any one citizen, or any group of citizens. That applies equally to all areas and functions of government, at the federal, local, and/or state level(s).

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer