Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Here is a very simple suggestion... (Score 1) 1144

But let's break the Second amendment down for you idiots that can't read a simple sentence. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I suggest you re-read your own sentence there. Nowhere there does it say that everyone has a right to carry guns. Nowhere. What we have is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', which is entirely predictable. Remarkably, this hadn't even really been ruled on until 2008 whereas before the militia clause was actually read. Also note the use of 'well regulated', and that is very clear. That is not a free-for-all I'm afraid. "A fraud on the American public" is what Justice Warren Burger called it.

As it is the duty of the citizen to bring his own arms to the common defense of the community, a citizen must have a weapon to bring. If the citizen is disarmed the militia is disarmed. Thus the well regulated militia requires that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not for hunting, but for defense of self and of community.

That's the kind of mental gymnastics you get to justify this. A well regulated militia is exactly what it means - it does not mean *everyone* - and everything after is in that context. If you simply take the second part then the first part means nothing, which is clearly nonsense, but there you are.

So your attempt to lie about what the 2nd Amendment means is false. As a functional militia is necessary for the safety of the state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because to infringe on that right breaks the militia. The right is reserved to the people as it is with every other right up until the 9th amendment.

I'm afraid that is exactly the kind of brain damage America has over the 'right' to bear arms now and the assumptions now (since the 80s) made are comical, if they weren't so serious. The caveats in the (poorly worded) amendment are there for a reason because they probably knew what it would mean, and their fears certainly came true. The amendment has been so bastardised over the years that there is no going back. We'll simply see things get worse until everyone is in a Mexican standoff and everyone gets killed.

We do know what we are talking about when we bring up this right. A right protected by the Bill of Rights not granted by it. You however do not know what you are talking about.

No, you don't, and it's a 'right' you certainly didn't have until the nutjobs turned up in power from the 80s onwards. I hear you lot are big on the idea of 'originalism', yer?

Comment Re:Here is a very simple suggestion... (Score 1) 1144

No the second amandment talks about militia AND peoples right - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, the uncomfortable truth is that it does not say that at all. There is nothing whatsoever in the constitution that talks about everyone having the right to have guns. That is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', but lots of mental gymnastics will be performed to say that.

Comment Re:Here is a very simple suggestion... (Score 0) 1144

Yep. You'll get an awful lot of vitriol about Americans and their 'rights' (which they don't have because the constitution actually talks about an armed militia, which can be disbanded, from colonial times) but equally everyone else has a right that those around them don't carry guns. It's called common law.

But, no matter how many people or even children get killed, this will never change. We'll just have to wait until everyone there is shot and killed. Sandy Hook was the end for any kind of sensible gun control. Blow away some kids and the country says "Meh".

Comment Re:I assumed this was already a default (Score 1) 924

Because that's what happens when APIs change. 1. Create API. 2. Provide compatibility options for things that don't work with the API. 3. Set a new default. 4. New API is slowly adopted and compatibility layer eventually disappears. We're at 3....

Are we really? I'd love to know where the compatibility options are since this breaks default behaviour and isn't compatible, but then, we have a lot of raving nutcases around who don't understand these things at all these days. The problem here is that this change was pulled out of the blue because no one could be bothered to fix Gnome and no one actually has a plan at all. People are now performing mental gymnastics to justify it. It really is something to behold.

We have a lot of laughable numbskulls like the idiot above trying to claim there is some sort of grand plan and reasoned argument for this.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie