Prior Restraint Explained
"Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?"
Thats an easy one, of course not. But you miss the point, its how that right is interpetated. At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Then some people died in a false alarm and the man who shouted the word was brought to trial. Using the 1st amendment as a defense was rejected by the courts, their interpetation was different from his, he went to jail.
No, YOU miss the point. FYI, I'm a lawyer (try not to hold that against me, esp. since I do estate and business planning, not the ambulance-chasing thing or the criminal defense thing). Because of that, I know that you STILL have the right to shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or not. However, your right to do so will be balanced against the rights of others there. If there was, in fact, no fire, and people are hurt as a natural result of your actions, you will have to pay a penalty. However, you will not lose your right to Freedom of Speech, nor will your mouth be sewn shut because you could shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor will your tongue be cut out for the same reason. Nor will you have to get a license to speak, or be imprisoned for speaking without a permit. You see, most people (even judges) understand what Freedom of Speech means. As such, laws that impose "prior restraint" on the exercise of a basic right have been ruled to be unconstitutional.
That, however, is far from the case with firearms. Because someone or some several dozen people might commit crimes with guns, various ignorant and anti-liberty legislators and executive branch officials on all levels of government have decided - for our own good, as if we are a bunch of children - that your basic right to be armed in defense of yourself, your family and your liberty is subject to licenses, taxes, security checks, fingerprinting, etc., etc. Various judges on all levels have backed up that outrageously unconstitutional premise, so much so that people like you think that it is the law. In short, our precious right to keep and bear arms has become a mere privilege, to be revoked at the whim of our supposed masters. People like you seem to think that it is just fine for us to have less rights in practice than did our parents or grandparents (never mind those 200+ year old ignorant white codgers), just so long as some slick-talking, power-hungry pol comes up with a catchy reason like "its for the children." Tell you what: most of us here disagree with that premise and, therefore, you. While you are perfectly free to disagree with any or all of us - thoughts are not yet controlled by the government - you might want to re-examine your views on this issue.
"Sam Adams"
Claire Wolfe - An afternoon spent in freedom - Ah. Life is good. When the government stays out of your business. [claire]
The Capital Times - Editorial: Ashcroft is a false patriot - commentary on Ashcroft's latest stop-and-talk-to-the-choir in Wisconsin. The protesters were within viewing distance of the Riechsminister in Milwaukee, until "officials quickly shut the blinds to prevent anything akin to a debate." [claire]
Fixing the Patriot Act sounds, on the surface, like a good idea. But a better step would be to simply cancel it - and to cancel Ashcroft. Get rid of a bad law and a bad attorney general and allow a more rational and responsible Justice Department to work with Congress to draft meaningful anti-terrorism legislation, rather than Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution.
Vin Suprynowicz at the Las Vegas Review-Journal - Just 'take the bus' - a few choice words for a Taking Scissors Away spokesnazi.
For the record, it's possible these complaints you're hearing about "violating civil rights" stem from the complainants having read Amendment IV to the U.S. Constitution, which specifies, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's in the Constitution you swore to protect and defend, as I'm sure you know. It's the highest law of the land. No law violating it can be presumed valid.
Kevin Tuma at Liberty for All - If You Don't Have the Guts to Vote Libertarian Next Time--Please Vote Democrat: Given No Other Choices, A Nanny is Better than a Nazi - if you're not going to vote for the good guys in 2004, at least pick the lesser of two evils, and the democrats are less evil than the republicans, if Bushnev and company are on the ticket again. The Libertarian party is the only real choice you've got. If you must vote, vote for them. [kaba]
I have a plea for those who voted for Bush in 2000: Please don't stab the Founding Fathers in the back a second time.
Please don't run out and vote Republican--the way you did before--because Maja Rushie told you the Democratic presidential candidate was going to destroy the country. Allow me be frank: We can't afford another four years of 'country-saving' from the modern-day Republican Party. We are down to our last four amendments to the Bill of Rights. We can't afford to flush away any more of them.
...
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather be governed by a well-meaning idiot who thinks he's smart than by a tyrant who pretends to be an idiot. I'd rather be governed by an egotistical fruitcake who accidentally tramples the Constitution than by a lying schemer who pretends he has never read it, and works actively to destroy it under cover of darkness.
Mike Ferguson at Armed Females of America - Conceal & Carry Gun Laws: Preserving or Eroding Freedom? - why concealed carry laws are bad news for the right to keep and bear arms. [kaba]
Conceal and carry laws do not complement the Second Amendment, they erode it. Regulations and tracking of individuals do not enhance freedom, they decimate it.
Freedom is indivisible. Either we have Second Amendment rights or we do not. There is no in between. We, the people, have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to keep and bear arms. The government has no authority to infringe on that right, no matter how trivial or appealing the restrictions may seem.
Ryan Singel at Wired - Congress Puts Brakes on CAPPS II - the Taking Scissors Away goons' new black- and white-listing scheme is off until at least February, 2004. [cafe]
Jatha is a macro pre-processor for Java. [cafe]
Lisp programmers have a very powerful macro system. When a Lisp programmer writes a macro it's not like a C programmer's macro; it's not just a simple textual substitution. No, when a Lisp programmer writes a macro, she has the full power of Lisp at her disposal.
Lisp macros are Lisp programs that write Lisp programs.
Jatha macros are Java programs that write Java programs.
Jatha is a preprocessor that runs arbitrary Java code in order to generate the source code that the compiler sees.
