Where do you even start? The obvious First Amendment implications? The complete ineffectiveness at attaining its stated goals? The actual impossibility of the mandate (How do you sell a Raspberry Pi with the filter pre-installed? How do you deal with people like me who build their own computers from individual parts? Does some key component become 'the computer' like we pretend a receiver == gun?)?
Are we sure Chumley isn't some sort of Google Deep Mind AI project that's using a neural network to generate things that look like Bills?
Unless there's an apology I'm not seeing, all I remember was a note from the editor that said "We should've talked to the Fraternity before publishing." Nothing was said about the Dean.
I could definitely see how a casual reader could read their "apology" and assume that the only thing they should question was whether "Jackie" was raped, but still assume her account of the supposed coverup was credible.
Except SEGA is pretty notorious for handing out really nasty, frivolous copyright strikes on several YouTube gaming channels who were covering SEGA games, and only removing the strikes from the larger channels after they were called out on it. Last I checked, nothing was done for other users. TotalBiscuit refuses to cover any SEGA games since then.
2. While everyone deserves due process and civil asset forfeiture is blatantly evil, this guy who had his money taken was obviously not some innocent like the better examples we've seen. I don't think we should be rallying around that particular flag.
Most of the left-leaning people I know are not anti-gun per se, they just don't want loonies and criminals to have them.
That doesn't seem to describe anyone proposing gun control legislation currently.
However, even MENTION the possibility of a discussion WRT enacting reasonable legislation in that general direction and on go the tinfoil hats and out flows the froth.
Much the same as people become outraged when you try to have a discussion about legislation to limit free speech, and for the same reason: a knowledge of the history of all such laws and how they are always applied.
Seriously, that's the (circular) discussion. The point of having laws is to hold people to account when they are broken, and to impose penalties for breaking them.
Maybe then we should try actually enforcing the existing laws instead of proposing new ones that don't actually solve any problems.
You can't resolve your social problems by shooting them, you'll have to learn to get along with each other, including that little git over there with the wonky eye who has been looking at you in a funny way. Why is that too much to ask?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
Actually, I think it's pretty clear you're the one with a screw loose.
I have forfeited my rights as a citizen? Really now? By saying every adult not currently serving in the active military is a member of the militia, and that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms? Do I offend The Party by not invoking the proper prayers and supplications, Comrade?
To be honest, I started wondering if your response article was satire, considering how you gave him pretty much every choice quote he was looking for from a 'media' personality vis a vis constitutional protections.
If I was Mike Pitts, I'd print your article out and post it on the outside of my office door. Right under a giant Troll Face picture.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
We don't even have to invoke pseudo-deity figures. The definition of the militia is a matter of federal law. The meaning of the second amendment is a matter of supreme court opinion. Both are exactly the opposite of what the AC I was replying to said.