Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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 Have a little fun with this! (Score 1) 146

Reproduce the content now blacked out. So it's not what is in the FBI's copy? Oh well, let them prove otherwise. Imagine the fun--making up stuff about how the FBI is abusing other rights and planning to plant evidence. Go wild! Just make sure it fits in with what little text they do provide.

Can you rise to the challenge?

Comment Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership (Score 1) 1232

10 U.S.C. 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

China? ***MORE*** civilized? Been there. The Great Wall, the Forbidden City, and the terracotta warriors are all very impressive. Their modern culture was not all that impressive. I felt sorry for them, trapped in that tyranny.

All I could think of in Tiananmen square was tanks and squashed protestors. That'd be their answer to both Tea Parties and "Occupations."

Ever read Larry Niven's stories about "organ legging?" The Chinese execute people and sell their organs just because they spoke out, or had a prayer group in their home, or joined the wrong religion.

Poor buggers.

(Off topic: The site looked interesting)

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

So, any society that doesn't protect the rights you assert to be inalienable is, by your definition, uncivilized. Got it. I don't agree, but at least now that I understand your unique and non-standard definition of "civilized" I can understand your position.

Would we agree that any country that does not allow Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, the Right to Remain Silent, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, etc. (minus gun rights, on which we seem to have agreed that we disagree) is "less civilized" than a country that does?

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

It seemed to me that you were intimating that my support of the Second Amendment was evidence of being uncivilized.

I was, but only in a direct response to your comments. "In a civilized society... In an unarmed society..." Where the implication was that an armed society is civilized and an unarmed society is uncivilized. I find such statements to be provably false (how "polite" are war zones? How "polite" was the Old West?), and as such, I was trying to say "you are provably wrong in an absurdly obvious manner" without being uncivilized. Unfortunately, every comment I made was responded to without continuity of context (is that polite enough for "you only post non sequiturs, so I couldn't stick to the topic at hand").

Civilized is also relative. Shaking hands is civilized to Americans, and offensive in other cultures. So, "civilized" is whatever the speaker at the time wants it to be, and implies that anyone who disagrees isn't. Sort of hard to hit a moving target.

Unarmed societies are uncivilized IN THAT the inalienable right (Delaration of Indepence term) of self defense (see McDonald vs Chicago and the earlier Heller decison) is suppressed by the government, leaving The People (term as used in the US Constition) defenceless against miscreants. When the police are not present, the strong may do as they will to the weak, even to breaking into their domicile while they are home. For instance, I prefer a society where a lady can own a gun ( ) to one where she is not allowed to keep a gun in her home or is effectively blocked by onerous over-regulation ( ).

In my view, a society that allows a woman to protect herself in her own home is more civilized than one that insists she cannot.

That is the fundamental question and if you disagree, you disagree. That's's a free country!

Just don't try to impose your beliefs on me. The US Constitution and the US Supreme Court both say it's her right to be armed, especially in her home.

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights with which our Creator has endowed us (Declaration of Independence).

Self defense is one of those rights so protected (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald vs Chicago).

That is MUCH more civilized than when governments deny their citizens their basic human rights.

You would not tolerate restriction on other rights, like those enumerated in the First Amendment, yet you disparage the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment.

How very uncivilized.

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

In a civilized society the criminal puts himself at risk when doing his crime. In an unarmed society the criminal can freely harm you just for the hell of because he can and there's nothing you can do about it when he's kicking in your daughter's bedroom door.

I know which I prefer!

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

It's "funny" what you think falls into the category of "reasonably believes...would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury!"

Yeah, if he brandishing a knife or gun, then yeah, you can reasonably believe he might kill you. Absent that, not so much.

The real lesson is getting lost here: We have a right to self defense.

In the wilds of NYC, DC, Chicago, Detroit, et al, the bad guy is free to do as he will. In civilized areas, the right to defend yourself is recognized. Don't like it? Move to the wild, wild, inner city in a gun-controlled "paradise." Hey, why not put up "gun free zone" signs in the windows of your home? Better yet, wear a "sandwhich board" ad that says "gun free zone" instead of "Eat at Joe's."

That's a reductio ad absurdum almost as outrageous as your invocation of Bush.

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

Hell, you can shoot them for looking like they are going to let the air out of your tires.

You knew that was BS when you type it, right? Nice reductio ad absurdum (however that's spelled).

In UN-civilized places, you're not even allowed to shoot the thugs breaking through your daughter's bedroom door--you aren't even allowed to have a gun in your own home! I'll take civilized San Antonio over the wilds of Detroit, DC, NYC and Chicago ANY day!

Do read Mc Donald vs. Chicago, by the way, and look at the arguments the city made:

Comment Re:It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (Score 1) 575

As a self defense system, especially in the city, they are GREAT! Criminals in civilized areas don't know who is licensed to carry. Crime goes down. In un-civilized areas where the carry of weapons by honest people is prohibited (Chicago, NYC, Detroit...) big, tough criminals *KNOW* the smaller guy or gal is unarmed and crime runs rampant. That's why our cities are generally safer. And no, we don't have those shoot-outs at every car accident that guys like you used to envision!

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce