No, because it is not simply the opinion of Scalia, it is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on the most comprehensive examination of the second amendment in history and therefore the law of the land when it comes to the *individual* right to bear arms.
Yet you can't be bothered to even read it.
Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it) then you should read the entirety of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
There is a similar procedure in California called a "998 Offer" (based on Code of Civil Procedure sec. 998) whereby one party can make a binding settlement offer to the other party. If the other party refuses the 998 offer but at trial fails to do better than the 998 offer, then even if they technically win the case the offering party will be awarded costs.
It's a very good procedure to induce parties to settle and avoid further litigation.
Thank you, danheskett.
But it is it not truly naivete to not understand that every phone and every computer of every congressperson is not *closely* monitored?
Exactly. And the people who believe Microsoft should "do the right thing" and "pay their fair share" assume that the government will do more good with the money than Microsoft will.
I am not convinced of the accuracy of that assumption.
Well, if they are torturing people and engaged in tortuous interference, they should certainly be prosecuted. However, if they are merely interfering with business relations and involved in tortious interference then a criminal case may not be warranted.
(What, thy spell checker hath not the finesse?)
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall