 |
|
If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians want a court that will vote their way. IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the most part, shall not be infringed."
There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee that the people will be on equal footing with any adversary that might present itself. On order to be on that equal footing, every sort of arms wielded by the military (or police) should also be available for the people to keep and bear. Given the cost of the more destructive stuff, not many people (if any at all) would be walking around with RPGs, or gatling guns bolted to the roof of their pickups, etc.
I'm satisfied with what I have (and wasn't part of the recent panic buying spree we witnessed over the last month). I was mildly concerned that I wouldn't be able to get replacement parts, but now that the panic has subsided, I'm sure it won't be a problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to point out that in most parts of the world (read: anywhere frequented by the USSR), RPGs are actually quite affordable, ranging from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand depending on the area (or less if you steal them from a stockpile instead of buying from someone who did). Yes, it is certainly expensive ammunition, but not prohibitively so, and I know lots of people who have spent more on sillier things (the missus and her Coach purse collection come to mind).
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: If its members are selected by politicians, it's only because said politicians
want a court that will vote their way.
Could be but that is the way it is done. And since, at least last time I checked, Supreme Court justices are human that means they will always have opinions.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: IMHO, the only loyalty a supreme court judge should have is to the Constitution.
I am rather certain, IMHO, that you would be hard pressed to find an Supreme Court Justice stating that their ruling was based on anything but that. And certainly not in the last 50 years.
Of course that doesn't mean that they must rule in a way that you find favorable.
But you might note as well that it is up to the citizens of the US to take an active role in their own governance and this includes them challenging those laws that they find/think are unfair. The Supreme Court does not and cannot go actively looking for unconstitutional areas to explore. Someone must bring it to them first.
The US political process is a participant sport not a spectator one.
(And as examples of that, that is exactly the problem with Chicago and Washington DC laws in which it took activitists years to find anyone willing to challenge the laws.)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
for the most part, shall not be infringed."
Which would be meaningful if if that was the sole and only thing that the US was built upon. But it isn't.
And the founding fathers knew it. As such they and those since then recognize that rights are not absolute. Every right has limits.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: There are no riders, conditions, or exceptions.
You are wrong. The founding fathers recognized that a nation which consist of people (which is a plural) must seek compromises to allow for the nation to exist and continue to exist.
There are no absolutes. Not now and not ever.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Depends on who you ask
In the US the people to ask is the Supreme Court.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: and the SCOTUS is a political body (as opposed to its intended duty as a
judicial body).
Which is an opinion and has nothing to do with legality nor the nature of the US government.
Not to mention of course that the Supreme court has probably never issued a ruling that someone didn't like.
As an example of that if that wasn't the case then "Loving vs Virginia" would have never made it to the Supreme Court because West Virginia would have seen the error of their ways and not presued it. And the judges wouldn't have ruled against Loving in the first place.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Limiting types of firearms IS unconstitutional.
Nonsense.
The US does now, and always has since the very founding, recognized the need to place limits on rights. Rights are not now and never have been an absolute.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: They join Wyoming in a definitive effort to invalidate unconstitutional laws:
Arkansas thought they had the "right" to continue with segregated schools in 1957. They found out in short order that they were wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIoPjfLnEFY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[^]
Could it really have been planned in advance - by the government. I usually label this kinda thing as a crackpot conspiracy theory, but some interesting points are made - right up to the end of this 30-minute video, and especially at the end of it.
This is solidly in the category of "things that make you go 'Hmmmm'."
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Can you summarize the content?
The problem with conspiracies, especially one where so many people would be involved, is how to keep it a secret? For instance, the people that would have had to create the web sites a day or so before it happened, allegedly, would they not have wondered what on earth was going on? What about the children? If they weren't really shot, where are they?
It is a terrible shame that such a tragedy becomes the subject of such melodrama.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
You really gotta watch it. There are too many things in it, and I know I'll miss something or remember incorrectly. At the end of the video, they cite several Sandy Hook donation pages that were created several days BEFORE the incident. Of course, the pages have by now been removed, but they have video of in-browser displays of these pages.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try when I get home. I always take these things with a big pinch of salt; after all, what is the motivation that could possibly require killing children in cold blood?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I think many of the conspiracy believers don't think there was a killing of children.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Could it really have been planned in advance - by the government
Evil Obama! I can hear his cynical laughter...
Also, 9/11 was staged by Dumbya. They have lots of videos to prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Le Gauchiste wrote: Evil Obama!
I don't think Obama is evil... just a thinly veiled socialist. 
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Thinly?
There is no veil.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
even so, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
The two parties have been rocking back and forth so long it was beginning to have less and less movement. Nothing like a little "out of the norm" to get things moving again.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
I admit I haven't watched all of it, but anyway: "It kills your children" is one of those emotional triggers you can use to make people abandon all sense and logic. So yes, if you wanted to get rid of the 2nd amendment (or reduce it somehow), having a bunch of children shot could be a good solid part of your strategy. Without too much effort you would create an environment where your opposition would be seen by many as "the people who want my child to get murdered".
It's an excellent strategy, if you can keep the leaks under control. Make sure to paint those telling the truth (or anything sufficiently close to it) as crackpots. Discredit them in any way possible. Poison the well. Use black and grey propaganda.
Of course I'm not saying any of this happened - just that it would be a good strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, just like them changing "assault weapon" to "weapon of war" in the last couple of weeks. What they don't seem to understand is that "weapons of war" are EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment guarantees that we can own.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
people who perform acts like this will always be around. You can kill the same number of children with a billy club. Or you could choke them out and eat them. Guns are not necessary for violence and evil, they just happen to be there now.
I wonder how many cereal killers used guns to kill the victims? (I also wonder how many used cereal)
Animals kill other animals. We come stock with weapons, and there are many creative , as well as bland, ways to do violence other animals. This scenerio had a gun, but that is just this scenerio.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: cereal killers
You need a gun to get your oatmeal? 
I think you meant 'serial'.
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know why your other message was removed? I didn't see anything in it that was spammish or even remotely offensive.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
It says "Message removed" not "Message automatically removed"... the poster removed it himself - for whatever reason.
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: You can kill the same number of children with a billy club. Or you could choke them out and eat them
Sure you can, but you would have to make sure nobody is there to stop you, tie all children before so they don't run away, and make sure you have plenty of time to do it.
Mass killing with a club is much more difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What they don't seem to understand
Oh yes the do understand that! And that's why they want to severely restrict or even eliminate the 2nd Amendment.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Things like this make me go Hmm.[^]
If it had been staged by the government they'd have done it somewhere well known for lax gun control laws. Such as Texas, or some of the flat states. Then it would have been a rather clear cut case of there not even being laws to stop the person from getting the gun. As it stands it's a mind numbing case of the laws very nearly working only to have a lack of security at the owner's end be the failure point. Then again, I don't think anyone ever expects their own kid to shoot them.
As it stands, NY is now passing additional control laws which still don't address the failure point of the hook shooting, aside from a possible misdemeanor charge if they're some how caught with unsecured firearms. But then we also had some psycho unload on emergency responders after starting his house on fire because he was feeling like dying/killing something. I say psycho here without reservation as he'd previously beaten a 90 year old woman to death with a hammer. The new law does include various mental health provisions likely driven by both the Hook and local psycho incidents.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, a strict gun control state would be a better choice because it would illustrate that the gun control laws in place right now aren't sufficient.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with which part? That a strict gun control state would be the perfect place, or that gun control laws aren't strict enough?
(I think I already know what you're gonna say.)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
... in black helicopters based at FEMA death camps
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
I looked over the video and other sources late last night.
Usually in this sort of situation, there's a lot of suspicion but no solid proof. This case appears to be different: people have actually uncovered indisputable proof of fraud.
People published information about the shooting on the web before the shooting occurred, sometimes even days before the shooting occurred. Right now, the Bing search engine still has a cached copy of a newspaper article timestamped the day before the shooting containing a reference to an interview with the school principal's account of the shooting.
That school principal died in the shooting, so unless journalists have the magic powers to do seances with ghosts from the future, we have a serious problem.
Edit: bing cache link, still working:
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=27022733625131571&w=yZ8j1YFE_Mw[^]
modified 16 Jan '13 - 19:52.
|
|
|
|
|
jesarg wrote: ight now, the Bing search engine still has a cached copy of a newspaper article timestamped the day before the shooting containing a reference to an interview with the school principal's account of the shooting.
Did you save them?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I saved a copy of the cached page on my home machine last night.
Now, of course, I'm at work and can't go browsing for links. I can pick this up again once I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
jesarg wrote: People published information about the shooting on the web before the shooting occurred, sometimes even days before the shooting occurred. Right now, the Bing search engine still has a cached copy of a newspaper article timestamped the day before the shooting containing a reference to an interview with the school principal's account of the shooting.
That school principal died in the shooting, so unless journalists have the magic powers to do seances with ghosts from the future, we have a serious problem.
And that's what really got my attention. How could that possibly happen?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm, haven't watched it or anything but timestamps can be changed....and all this "evidence" is after the fact?
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
Before the shooting was reported, nobody was looking for evidence of any sort, so of course it all happened afterwards.
Google, Bing, and Facebook all recorded content being created related to the shooting before the shooting happened. It's unlikely that the entire internet tech industry is trying to frame people; the most obvious explanation is that people really did post the content too early, and the bots mindlessly recorded it just like they mindlessly record everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
jesarg wrote: the most obvious explanation is that people really did post the content too
early,
Wrong.
The most likely explanation is that the data is wrong. The second most like explanation is that there is a problem with the collection methodology.
Which is basically the same problems that can occur with any scientific hypothesis which attempts to prove something. Especially when the only source is the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
The video itself is a fake.
Everybody knows that mad aliens did this.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Could it really have been planned in advance - by the government. I usually
label this kinda thing as a crackpot conspiracy theory, but some interesting
points are made - right up to the end of this 30-minute video, and especially at
the end of it.
There are many conspiracy theories that make interesting points. That however doesn't alter the fact that they are illogically and incorrectly reasoned in small but significant ways.
And those are the better ones. The ones that are worse are those that are slightly insane and/or are poorly reasoned, use sources that are obviously flawed/biased, use 'logic' which isn't or dismiss 'logic' outright. And at the lower end are those that are clearly insane babbling.
|
|
|
|
|
... for all those who flamed me for calling Armstrong a freakin cheater a few months back :
Hit this[^]
Not only is he an arrogant prick, but he also is THE greatest cheater ever.
His attempt to come back in grace of public opinion is just pathetic. Furthermore, he is now giving away names to blame other in order to save a small part of his doped butt.
He is a living joke. Please media of the world, ignore him.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Armstrong
Somehow I thought you are talking about the Astronaut... Wasn't there an Astronaut called Armstrong?
Dammit. Beginning of the week and I am already going nuts  .
Edit: I knew there was this guy called Armstrong[^].
cheeeeeerriooooss
Marco Alessandro Bertschi
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Alessandro Bertschi wrote: Wasn't there an Astronaut called Armstrong?
Ask the Dalek. 
I was talkign about the cheater, not the astronaut.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: I was talkign about the cheater, not the astronaut.
I recognized it as soon as I clicked the link.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: I was talkign about the cheater, not the astronaut.
Either way, both incidents were cheating, one did it in an individual capacity and the other was part of a grand plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Shameel wrote: and the other was part of a grand plan.
Nonsense
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the hell are you getting so worked up about. It's not as if you would have won the Tour de France if he did not cheat.
This is the reality of professional sports, most athletes, that need to perform at the level that Armstrong needed to perform at, cheat in one way or another, to get an advantage on their competitors. It just happens to be that he got caught and the others have not been caught yet.
Then again, maybe his cheating involved your wife and/or girlfriend, then it is fully understandable that you got you panties in a knot.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths.
Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I do not belong to the community "Why do you care, they are all cheating anyway". What gets me upset are , in no particular order:
- The fact that some good athletes, especially French ones, who would have truly deserved winning the Tour de France but could not due to this organized cheating.
- The fact that Armstrong so arrogantly bragged about his pseudo-victories, despising the French journalist, and the rest of the racers. Indurain was probably as charged as him, but at least he shut the f*** up.
- The fact that he was a model and a hope for a lot of people with cancer and simply betrayed their trust by acting like a jerk.
- The fact that people have wasted time and energy to save him from cancer, and all he did after that was endangering his life again despite the chance that had been given him.
You'd be happy to learn that my world is wider than only my wife or even my family. I care about what happens in the world, and this particular case, no matter how insignificant it should be for you, drives me mad.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Do not get me wrong I also care what goes on around the world, I do however tend to pay more attention to issues that affect humanity in one way or another.
When I first heard about the Lance Armstrong saga, I thought to myself what an idiot he just guttered his whole cycling career and his reputation, and that is where my opinion ended. The Live Strong Foundation will not be affected by his actions and will continue to raise funds to assist people with cancer.
I just don't care to raise my blood pressure over issues that have absolutely no impact on the general wellbeing of myself and/or other people.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths.
Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree totally. I would also add...#
- His aggressiveness in going after other riders who tried to blow the whistle on him and how he actively ensured their careers were ruined as a result of daring to oust5 him.#
- The fact he used his power in the Sport to intimidate his teammates into doping and also to cover up his doping.
- The fact he not also got winnings but damage payments from Newspapers such as the Sunday Times for printing stories that suggested he doped.
There are many more reasons that this man is despicable as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: He is a living joke. Please media of the world, ignore him.
Good start.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
