If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Justice Scalia: "The right of a 16-year old to keep and bear rocket launchers shall not be infringed"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 401
    More: Scary, Justice Antonin Scalia, originalisms, Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, Technological escalation, supreme court justices, second amendment  
•       •       •

5954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jul 2012 at 9:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



401 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 12:45:15 AM

LibertyHiller: Bontesla: I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.

[WTFamireading.jpg]


You're reading a reference to This (warning video). What I'm referencing starts at 11:59 - everything up to that is great background.
 
2012-07-30 12:46:19 AM

Nem Wan: Smallest acknowledged nuclear weapon. Not quite hand-held, but you know there must be secret ones that are smaller.
[www.airforce-magazine.com image 300x240]


I don't know if they ever made one, but Project Orion had a 6 inch diameter nuke design. The nuke feed system was designed by Coca-Cola.
 
2012-07-30 12:51:26 AM

pedrop357: Pincy: I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.

Cute.

"Reasonable restrictions" as defined by groups that have repeatedly called for outright bans, claimed that there is no individual right to own guns, etc. are suspect from the get go. Being a little more objective, it becomes apparent that the restrictions supported/proposed for instruments of the 2nd amendment would be inexcusable and unacceptable if applied to the rights enumerated in 1st amendment or other rights.

How tolerable would it be require a background check, 3 day waiting period, one-a-year limit, special licenses, hard age limits, etc. on abortion? Call them reasonable restrictions on the right to abortion and require costly licenses, fingerprints, zoning, office space, etc. restrictions. Then require patients to register for abortions so we can track them and impose a 5 day "cooling off period" and ensure that they abide by the "one-per-year" limit on abortions. All sounds perfectly reasonable, eh?

How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?

The only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment are the same type that would be reasonable for the 1st. They're not actually restrictions as much as they are limits on the protections of those rights.
You can say what you want, but the 1st amendment won't protect your right to utter "fighting words", threaten people, say things intended to cause panic, etc. You can't be gagged or denied entrance to some place because of what you might do. Similarly, you can't be denied the ability to buy, possess, or carry a firearm because of what you might do. You can be prosecuted for brandishing, discharging in populated areas, etc.


You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.
 
2012-07-30 12:56:00 AM
FTA: Such originalism is a dangerous distortion of 21st-Century reality.

Don't like it? Amend it. That's the way our system works. Willy-nilly on-the-fly alterations to fit the mindset of the moment isn't how it works.

I don't have a problem with this.
 
2012-07-30 12:58:09 AM
firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")
 
2012-07-30 01:01:25 AM

pdkl95: firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")


I'm guessing the NRA would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-07-30 01:02:39 AM

Mrbogey: zerkalo: Our second-most stupidest Justice, America

Is it "more stupider" than you?


Perhaps
 
2012-07-30 01:06:20 AM

pdkl95: firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")


So, I take it you don't have an issue with the right to own fully-automatic assault rifles?
 
2012-07-30 01:07:24 AM

Pincy: I'm guessing the NRA would like to have a word with you.


Why? Just because I let my membership elapse in recent years, once they went off into the land of make-believe with the rest of the GOP?

/strong supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, which does cover most things the NRA has been concerned with over the years
//Just not stuff like RPG-7, M102, MIM-104 Patriot, or the Mark 16
 
2012-07-30 01:08:28 AM

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"


Nay! I need pliers for allen key mammaries right now!
 
2012-07-30 01:10:23 AM

Pincy: You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.


It's only apples to oranges if you don't respect precedent or embrace concepts like consistency.

It was wrong for GWB to create free speech zones. Another reason I dislike him.

The free speech zones analogy to guns would probably be more accurately done by restricting open carry to specific zones.
 
2012-07-30 01:11:30 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: What is absolute is that you have the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon your good standing as a citizen of this country,


Because that's who the Founders were.
 
2012-07-30 01:12:26 AM

SN1987a goes boom: doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!

Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.

[encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 171x253]

Kinda disproves you...

/oh wait? you said popular.
//nevermind then.


Empty Matchbook: Wow! If that counts, then me losing my virginity to Black Cat in jr. high TOTALLY COUNTS!! WOOHOO!!!


ontariolightning: Jack Bauer is a founding father too


LordJiro: It's still not something I want a Supreme Court Justice to use as justification.


Giltric: fusillade762: I said it before with these hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenarios: if you are 100% sure you can save a bunch of lives by torturing information out of someone, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect NOT to be prosecuted and punished for it. If you're that committed to something man up and accept the consequences. Making torture legal for these kinds of HIGHLY unlikely scenarios is asinine.

[sharetv.org image 227x300]

I find you guilty Mr. Bauer, 50$ fine and time served, next.........

/It would be awesome if the Jihadist gets awarded 1$ in the civil suit.


Scalia specifically cited Season Two? Shortly after it finished, I wrote a little fan filk summarizing its plot:
♪♫ It's time for Twen-ty-Four-i-acs, ♫♪
♫♪ And we're anx-ious to the max! ♪♫
♪♫ We sit back, but can't re-lax ♫♪,
♫♪ Watch-ing ter-ror-ist at-tacks: ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-four-i-acs! ♫♪

♫♪ Come join the War-ner Sis-ters ♪♫
♪♫ (and the War-ner fath-er, Bob): ♫♪
♫♪ Just for fun Ma-rie wants to ♪♫
♪♫ roast town like corn-on-cob. ♫♪
♫♪ Kim gets locked up in the cel-lar ♪♫
♪♫ of sur-vi-val-list nut-job: ♫♪
♫♪ Since she's a flooze, ♪♫
♪♫ he lets her loose ♫♪
♫♪ by turn-ing the door-knob! ♪♫

♪♫ We Twen-ty-Four-i-acs ♫♪
♫♪ know the wri-ters are no hacks. ♪♫
♪♫ So, be-fore coun-ter-at-tacks, ♫♪
♫♪ Da-vid Palm-er wants hard facts. ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-Four-i-acs! ♫♪

♫♪ For King-sley and the Mys-t'ry Dude ♪♫
♪♫ who want to own the oil, ♫♪
♫♪ Com-man-does flock to-geth-er ♪♫
♪♫ caus-ing Bau-er lots of toil. ♫♪
♫♪ And so he chas-es Hew-ett ♪♫
♪♫ whose es-cape plans to foil: ♫♪
♫♪ The hack-er fell, ♪♫
♪♫ Jack says, "Oh, hell!" ♫♪
♫♪ His heart is gon-na boil! ♪♫

♪♫ We Twen-ty-Four-i-acs ♫♪
♫♪ watch as if bound by con-tracts. ♪♫
♪♫ We're ang-sty to the max, ♫♪
♫♪ Munch-ing T-V din-ner snacks. ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-Four-y, ♫♪
♫♪ To-tal-ly eu-phor-y, ♪♫
♪♫ (Em-my A-ward-y?) ♫♪
♫♪ We're Twen-ty-four-iiiii-acs! ♪♫
♪♫ Those are the facts! ♫♪
 
2012-07-30 01:13:36 AM

StoneColdAtheist:
So, I take it you don't have an issue with the right to own fully-automatic assault rifles?


No issue at all, though they are a pretty stupid purchase for most people. Big, inaccurate gun that eats through your walletammo in seconds? why would you waste your money?

More to the point: it's a delusion to think that, for example, the full-auto M-16 is any more dangerous than the civilian, semi-auto AR-15. It's not like you're going to hit much more by spraying bullets wildly, and anybody who really wants the full-auto can convert it trivially.

It's bad security to believe in delusions, and allowing full-auto isn't just constitutional, it's also being realistic about what's out there in reality.
 
2012-07-30 01:14:26 AM

pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia



So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!
 
2012-07-30 01:17:34 AM
Here is everything you need to know about Scalia (from the same interview):

"What about the right to privacy that the court found in 1965?" Wallace pressed.

"There's no right to privacy in the Constitution -- no generalized right to privacy," Scalia insisted.

"Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was," Wallace pointed out.

"Yeah, it did," Scalia agreed. "And that was wrong."


So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.
 
2012-07-30 01:23:03 AM

Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!


Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)
 
2012-07-30 01:23:32 AM

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


Swamp man is a billion times better for spurring on thought than using jack Bauer as evidence.

Sorry, you lose on this one.
 
2012-07-30 01:23:45 AM
Cool. Wait, how much do rocket launchers cost?

/since when do SCOTUS justices do tv interviews?
 
2012-07-30 01:26:11 AM

Pincy: So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.


There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy, the 9th amendment says that the lack of mention in the COTUS doesn't disparage such a right, and the 10th reserves that to the states. That would allow the states to engage in some privacy invasions that the feds couldn't. BUT, a substantial amount of privacy stuff falls pretty well within the scope of the 4th amendment, which when applied to the states via the 14th, only really allows some edge cases of invasions by state governments.

Gun registration generally specifies that a person cannot own a firearm legally without registering it. That part about attaching conditions to ownership would seem to fall within the 2nd amendment's scope the same way a law requiring people to register their book collection would fall within the 1st. Neither registration requirement should make it far enough to be a constitutional privacy issue.
 
2012-07-30 01:26:48 AM

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.



I clicked funny but then I cried inside.
 
2012-07-30 01:28:11 AM

Bucky Katt: Cool. Wait, how much do rocket launchers cost?

/since when do SCOTUS justices do tv interviews?


Because he is selling a book. Yeah I know, we want SCOTUS judges trying to sell books and going on book interview tours? It's horrible.
 
2012-07-30 01:29:19 AM

pdkl95: Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!

Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)


Maybe that's how all sentient civilizations end. Information and technology become so readily available to everyone that eventually some random nut prints out a quantum inhibitor array and destroys the solar system.
 
2012-07-30 01:30:33 AM

pedrop357: There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy


You better get on the phone to Scalia fast because he apparently doesn't know what you know.
 
2012-07-30 01:30:48 AM

pdkl95: Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!

Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)


So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?
 
2012-07-30 01:47:42 AM

Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.



Not sure if serious. It's for the white trash with a little money in their pockets who are too fat to ever be in the military, or in shape but too big cowards.
 
2012-07-30 01:49:19 AM

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.



Except nobody is saying this. The people who are saying it is outdated still believe it applies, but just that it applies to well regulated militias of todays age, police forces, national guard, etc. You gun nuts think the 2nd amendment applies to your hobby.
 
2012-07-30 01:51:37 AM

pedrop357: How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?



What next? "ban cars, they kill people too!"

Your strawman arguments and boring and not related to regulating an instrument designed only to kill

There are many limits on abortions by the way.
 
2012-07-30 01:55:08 AM

pedrop357: Pincy: So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.

There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy, the 9th amendment says that the lack of mention in the COTUS doesn't disparage such a right, and the 10th reserves that to the states. That would allow the states to engage in some privacy invasions that the feds couldn't. BUT, a substantial amount of privacy stuff falls pretty well within the scope of the 4th amendment, which when applied to the states via the 14th, only really allows some edge cases of invasions by state governments.

Gun registration generally specifies that a person cannot own a firearm legally without registering it. That part about attaching conditions to ownership would seem to fall within the 2nd amendment's scope the same way a law requiring people to register their book collection would fall within the 1st. Neither registration requirement should make it far enough to be a constitutional privacy issue.



Did you graduate the Skinnyhead school of law?
 
2012-07-30 01:55:25 AM

Sabyen91: So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?


Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons that the Militia provides? And that firearms have really always meant "personal weapons that propel bullets (or similar) propelled through a tube with a gunpowder like charge". Wild new tech like "rockets" isn't even remotely the same thing.

The distinction between small, personal "arms" and the "ordnance" the army uses has been made for *hundreds* of years. This is not a new idea.
 
2012-07-30 01:58:14 AM

pdkl95: Sabyen91: So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?

Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons that the Militia provides? And that firearms have really always meant "personal weapons that propel bullets (or similar) propelled through a tube with a gunpowder like charge". Wild new tech like "rockets" isn't even remotely the same thing.

The distinction between small, personal "arms" and the "ordnance" the army uses has been made for *hundreds* of years. This is not a new idea.


I think you are using your terms the way you think it should be interpreted. The second amendment didn't specify "small arms". I think you just don't want to defend the ownership of tanks and artillery so you limit the scope of the second amendment in your mind.
 
2012-07-30 01:59:09 AM

pdkl95: Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons


So, there's a value limit? Pray tell.
 
2012-07-30 02:06:53 AM
intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.
 
2012-07-30 02:10:57 AM
Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.
 
2012-07-30 02:19:46 AM
Scalia is intelligent the way Ayn Rand was insightful and practical.
 
2012-07-30 02:21:13 AM

intelligent comment below: Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.


Not sure if serious. It's for the white trash with a little money in their pockets who are too fat to ever be in the military, or in shape but too big cowards.


An assault rifle, maybe, but if your talking about stereotypical white trash a few thousand for a fully automatic weapon would represent a large fraction of their income. Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash". And of course shooting them is absurdly expensive. No one living in $500 trailer has a gun collection worth more than a McMansion.
 
2012-07-30 02:25:02 AM

Tickle Mittens: Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash".


People that wealthy and that callow rarely exist in the same person. Outside Texas, that is..
 
2012-07-30 02:27:12 AM

MeinRS6: Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.


And yet you keep posting, Debbie Downer.
 
2012-07-30 02:28:19 AM
First off, that statement is deserving of an idiot tag. Either Scalia, is an attention whore of the first magnitude or, he really is that stupid.
 
2012-07-30 03:06:54 AM

Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.



Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions
 
2012-07-30 03:08:41 AM

Tickle Mittens: An assault rifle, maybe, but if your talking about stereotypical white trash a few thousand for a fully automatic weapon would represent a large fraction of their income. Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash". And of course shooting them is absurdly expensive. No one living in $500 trailer has a gun collection worth more than a McMansion.



White trash doesn't always have to live in a trailer. Some make good money living off the government tit in contractor jobs, or for oil/coal/gas companies.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:37 AM

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


Technically the "swamp man" (usually referred to as a "zombie" in the literature, I thought) is supposed to lack qualia, not a soul. Unless there's some theological spin-off I'm not aware of.

It's a pretty absurd thought experiment on surface, but not much more absurd than some of Dennett's opposing "intuition pumps". Mary and the Chinese Room are much less absurd consciousness thought experiments, but of course heavily criticised... it's hard to criticise the qualia-less zombie because it internally begs the question.
 
2012-07-30 04:22:20 AM

MeinRS6: Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.


Please explain, otherwise I'm going to think you're just whining as per usual.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:49 AM

vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"


How many rounds would you want available to stop a guy with suitcase nuke? Schumer says 10 is plenty.

/Anybody else think that Schumer looks like the original "Joker" in Batman and maybe that's why he wants more gun control?

// BTW, cessnas fly into big airports too. Rocket launcher unnecessary.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:25 AM
who called in meinrtatsumaS6?
 
2012-07-30 04:50:11 AM

Chimperror2: cessnas fly into big airports too. Rocket launcher unnecessary.



So how long before your kind claims any licenses, background checks, and other policies infringe on your Constitutional right to fly a Cessna?
 
2012-07-30 05:23:47 AM

Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.


Sounds like he was retroactively appointed by Rmoney.
 
2012-07-30 05:39:12 AM
The founding fathers didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of religious texts didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of todays laws, no matter how good they are today, do not intend for them to last and apply to the world centuries from now.

Always question when people have such a tough time with historical context. It's usually not their real reason for supporting/fighting something.
 
2012-07-30 05:45:55 AM

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.


Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions


See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.
 
2012-07-30 06:53:04 AM
So what?

I have a right to commit suicide; doesn't mean I'm going to exercise it.
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report