Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   xioc1138, May 19th, 2009 @ 11:14pm

   
   

   Sadly, there is no such thing as common sense.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   lol

   

   Spam, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:14am

   
   

   there never have been common sense this is the internet. it has never made sense.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Like my Granddad always said...

   

   Sailingmaster, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:40am

   
   

   If common sense were really common, there'd be a lot less idiots in the world.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   sounds like a damned if i do damned if i dont situation

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2009 @ 12:49am

   
   

   like already mentioned there seems to be a huge lack in the common sense department which makes said bill or right look like a good idea, unfortunately i fear the Big companies and various lobbies will not allow a proper Technology Bill Of Rights pass.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Paul Brinker, May 20th, 2009 @ 1:05am

   
   

   The problem is age range, people who make the rules dident grow up with the net. There is a lot of old money still in power making rules to benifit there old money.
   
   It will really take a generation or 2 of people using the internet as a tool to really understand how to us it and pass laws that make sence.
   
   Till then we are going to fight people who dont understand the new way the world works.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   michael, May 20th, 2009 @ 5:08am

   
   

   I think it was Robert Heinlein who wrote that you can't legislate common sense.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   You're wrong, Mikey

   

   Tgeigs, May 20th, 2009 @ 7:05am

   
   

   Sorry, partner, but common sense in the forum of public debate, which has a lot to do with the formation of public policy, is GONE. It's been replaced by misinformation campaigns and flatout lie sessions by lobbyists and fascists. An example or two:
   
   1. Second amendment rights -- You can say whatever you want about guns and ownership, the fact of the matter is that a line that anti-gun folks spew out as if fact is as wrong as could possibly be. The "2nd amendment never meant for us to own assault rifles with cop killer bullets" is a flatout lie. That amendment was put in so we could fight our govt. if it ever became tyranical. Cops/army have assault rifles, so to fight them, we would need to as well. The spirit of the amendment, whether you agree with it or not, has been completely obliterated, despite the fact that anyone w/an ounce of common sense and 10 minutes with the constitution would recognize the truth.
   
   I know they are separate issues, but the point remains, if you right it down in a "Bill of Rights", it's something you can point the masses to. Common sense is gone, long live the blatantly obvious written law.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: You're wrong, Mikey

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2009 @ 7:10am

   
   

   "That amendment was put in so we could fight our govt. if it ever became tyranical."
   
   I'd suggest doing a little bit of research yourself first; this has nothing to do with the original purpose of the second amendment at all; it was put in there for the purposes of the militia since there was no formalized armed service at the time, and the militia was all volunteers. Look it up in any book about the constitution.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 20th, 2009 @ 7:57am

   
   

   if there was common sense techdirt wouldnt be popular.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: You're wrong, Mikey

    

    Johnny Canada, May 20th, 2009 @ 8:09am

    
    

    Tgeigs, you are correct.
    
    That is what I have known about U.S. Second Amendment for years.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey

    

    Tgeigs, May 20th, 2009 @ 8:37am

    
    

    I would respectfully disagree, but I probably shouldn't have made it sound as black and white as I did. A couple of references, though:
    
    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm -- "The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution -- "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power" is from George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. It is generally agreed that the 2nd Amendment is simply the shortened version of Mason's writings.
    
    See, I did my homework, and it seems pretty plain that the framers/writers of the original work intended to give the people a way to fight back against "standing armies". How is their codification of longstanding common law not in keeping with my analysis?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey

    

    Michael, May 20th, 2009 @ 10:18am

    
    

    Eh.. doing your homework would mean citing proper material that validates your argument rather than relying on the uncertain word of Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is a good general source of knowledge that can help you narrow your focus on a particular topic, but don't rely on it as a means of determining fact from fiction.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey

    

    Tgeigs, May 20th, 2009 @ 10:31am

    
    

    A. That's one of the reasons I cited two sources, and that was what I came up with in 3 minutes.
    
    and
    
    B. The wiki article I cited includes quoted citations of the articles in question: The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and the original work it is agreed to have derived from.
    
    I would argue that is a fairly appropriate use of Wikipedia as a citation. Did you actually look at what I quoted or the Wiki article?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment