"Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, [x] is not."
I don't know your politics, but I hear this pathetic hand wave a lot from conservatives.
Flying is a liberty.
But conservatives earnestly shrug and say, "Every right, every liberty, is subject to limitation." We might as well cut the Second Amendment out of the Constitution and burn the rest, for all the conservatives care about other liberties.
The problem is that the terrorist watch lists are broken
Is tying civil Rights to useless terrorist watch lists worse than tying civil Rights to useless terrorist watch lists? That sentence might seem moronic and redundant at first but it isn't: the watch lists have been infringing civil Rights for much more than a decade.
The response from the public and Congress? "Meh. Who cares about people who I don't know and their Rights? Besides...oOooOo...terrorists!"
So now it's proposed that gun background checks include a check of the terrorist watch lists and all of a sudden Civil Rights becomes a fore-mind concern: "OH-MY-F****G-G** HOW DARE YOU THINK ABOUT TYING MY F****G GUN RIGHTS TO THOSE F****G RIGHTS-STEALING TERRORIST WATCH LISTS?!!!"
I say tying the Second Amendment Right to the watch lists is a good thing: so the citizens, Congress, the wing-nuts, and the three-letter agencies will finally get off their fat-lead asses and fix the watch lists so they respect the civil Rights of EVERY citizen they impinge. If they can't consider the civil Rights of those citizens under any circumstance, then so be it.
I'll bet that trademark or something similar is used by 50,000 companies in Texas. I think each of the 50,000 companies should each sue all of the other 50,000 companies for trademark infringement.
2.5 billion lawsuits. Billions and billions served. Think maybe someone would develop a brain cell at some point?
So let me guess: the payout is in the form of coupons that can be redeemed for new PS3 consoles. With a time limit, a "cannot be combined with other offers" restriction, and "participating retailers only."
I've noticed before that FBI has a variable concern for privacy. If a person did something bad and exposing private details would make the FBI look good, who cares about privacy? OTOH, if exposure of a person's private life would make the FBI look bad, all of a sudden the FBI develops a furrowed brow concern for personal privacy.
This takes that to a whole new level: surveillance cameras in your toilet, shower, and bedroom reduce your privacy to zero...no concerns about that; bet they play those videos in court. But tell anyone at all where the camera was placed? That would be a TERRIBLE breach of personal privacy, what's wrong with you?
What do Ripoff Report, trolls like Prenda and that company that sank Silk Road have in common?
Reputation extortion.
It should be illegal to do either of these: - Be an agent of damage to a reputation, and then require payment for fixing it. - To propose to be an agent of damage to a reputation, and require payment to refrain.
Copyright had a valid purpose at one time. But most recent copyright policy is in the same vein: aimed solely at ensuring the profits of major corporations. The creators that were supposed to be beneficiaries of copyright, as originally conceived, don't get the benefit anymore; they get the dregs.
In support of profits for everyone but the author, the governments have created or encouraged all kinds of asinine policies: DMCA and DRM; copyright collectives; DNS confiscations; copyright trolls and their extortion; confiscation of the public domain; denial of fair use; and social dictatorship. Among many other sins.
None of which offer more than the most miserly pretense of protecting the creator rights. Instead they ensure the rights of the big media corporations to indenture the creators for as small a pittance as possible.
Re: Re: "At one point during the use of the flash-bang grenades, a badly thrown grenade bounced back and fell upon law enforcement, forcing them to scatter."
Reminds me of the Keystone Kops (documentary about the movies).
So let's see. Kids are being rude to Amazon's Echo. Guns create polite society.* Solution: give guns to Amazon's Echo. Profit.
*According to Jerry Henry: "And, it is amazing how friendly people are when standing next to an obviously armed person. An armed society is truly a polite society."
The homeowner just missed the stress on the word "some." The officer clearly said, "There's some damage," in the same sense as one might say, "That was some storm last night."
On the post: FBI: Clinton 'Should Have Known' Private Email Server 'No Way To Handle Classified Info', But No Charges Will Be Sought
Look out West Virginia
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Surreal news
On the post: Dish Agrees To Make Ad-Skipping DVR Less Useful In Settlement With Comcast, NBC Universal
Success
On the post: Under Cable Lobbying Assault, FCC Commissioners Waffling On Cable Box Competition Plan
Noooooooooooo.......!!!
On the post: With The Brexit In The Bag, 'Vote Leave' Starts Vanishing Away Its Promises And Faulty Math
Engaged
On the post: US Suddenly Discovers Why Supranational Tribunals Are A Problem, Just As It Starts Losing In Them
Arrogance
On the post: Tying Rights To Useless 'Terrorist Watchlists' Is A Terrible Idea
Re:
I don't know your politics, but I hear this pathetic hand wave a lot from conservatives.
Flying is a liberty.
But conservatives earnestly shrug and say, "Every right, every liberty, is subject to limitation." We might as well cut the Second Amendment out of the Constitution and burn the rest, for all the conservatives care about other liberties.
On the post: Tying Rights To Useless 'Terrorist Watchlists' Is A Terrible Idea
The problem is that the terrorist watch lists are broken
The response from the public and Congress? "Meh. Who cares about people who I don't know and their Rights? Besides...oOooOo...terrorists!"
So now it's proposed that gun background checks include a check of the terrorist watch lists and all of a sudden Civil Rights becomes a fore-mind concern: "OH-MY-F****G-G** HOW DARE YOU THINK ABOUT TYING MY F****G GUN RIGHTS TO THOSE F****G RIGHTS-STEALING TERRORIST WATCH LISTS?!!!"
I say tying the Second Amendment Right to the watch lists is a good thing: so the citizens, Congress, the wing-nuts, and the three-letter agencies will finally get off their fat-lead asses and fix the watch lists so they respect the civil Rights of EVERY citizen they impinge. If they can't consider the civil Rights of those citizens under any circumstance, then so be it.
On the post: Texas Trademark Spat Full Of Crap?
Billions and billions served
2.5 billion lawsuits. Billions and billions served. Think maybe someone would develop a brain cell at some point?
On the post: Sony Settlement Gives PS3 Owners $9 After Company Made Console Less Useful Via Firmware Update
Payout
On the post: Court Refuses To Uphold Evidence Seized During A Completely Bogus Traffic Stop
Facts vs Law
Officer made up the law: Oops, but E for effort and a pass. Officers don't have to be lawyers to prove reasonable.
Officer made up the facts: Buzz, buzz, fail. Making up facts is never reasonable.
On the post: Beijing Regulators Block Sales Of iPhones, Claiming The Design Is Too Close To Chinese Company's Phone
Re:
I don't like the IP nonsense. But for Apple: no sympathy at all.
On the post: Concussion Protocol: Can You Tell The Difference Between Soda And One Half Of A Football Team?
Clear and present danger
On the post: FBI Sues To Block Disclosure Of Surveillance Cameras Locations Because It Would Violate The Privacy Of Those Surveilled
Variable concern for privacy
This takes that to a whole new level: surveillance cameras in your toilet, shower, and bedroom reduce your privacy to zero...no concerns about that; bet they play those videos in court. But tell anyone at all where the camera was placed? That would be a TERRIBLE breach of personal privacy, what's wrong with you?
On the post: EFF, Public Citizen Enter Legal Battle That Started With Defamation But Is Somehow Now All About Copyright
Reputation extortion
Reputation extortion.
It should be illegal to do either of these:
- Be an agent of damage to a reputation, and then require payment for fixing it.
- To propose to be an agent of damage to a reputation, and require payment to refrain.
On the post: Not The Onion: Morocco Bans Sharing Newspapers To Protect Publisher Business Models
Re:
Copyright had a valid purpose at one time. But most recent copyright policy is in the same vein: aimed solely at ensuring the profits of major corporations. The creators that were supposed to be beneficiaries of copyright, as originally conceived, don't get the benefit anymore; they get the dregs.
In support of profits for everyone but the author, the governments have created or encouraged all kinds of asinine policies: DMCA and DRM; copyright collectives; DNS confiscations; copyright trolls and their extortion; confiscation of the public domain; denial of fair use; and social dictatorship. Among many other sins.
None of which offer more than the most miserly pretense of protecting the creator rights. Instead they ensure the rights of the big media corporations to indenture the creators for as small a pittance as possible.
On the post: Oklahoma Cops Debut Tool That Allows Them To Drain Pre-Paid Cards During Traffic Stops
Re: Re: Theft not forfeiture
On the post: Homeowner Sues Police After Pursuit Of Shoplifter Leaves Him With No Home To Own
Re: Re: "At one point during the use of the flash-bang grenades, a badly thrown grenade bounced back and fell upon law enforcement, forcing them to scatter."
On the post: Latest Absurd Moral Panic: Parents Complain Amazon Echo Is Creating Rude Children
A solution avails
*According to Jerry Henry: "And, it is amazing how friendly people are when standing next to an obviously armed person. An armed society is truly a polite society."
On the post: Homeowner Sues Police After Pursuit Of Shoplifter Leaves Him With No Home To Own
Pay attention class
Next >>