or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

 Same as above then - I take it that you regard all SC rulings as equally infallibly correct and not open to any discussion. Not sure what you were thinking then, when you had the temerity to criticize their thinking here...  And again, you are just hiding behind an SC ruling. Are you unable to think or argue for yourself at all on this issue? Repetition, however dogged, of the mantra that the argument is idiotic doesn't further your position at all. 
This is an article about a blog about another blog baselessly speculating about what the US Government might choose to do in the future. It has no purpose other than to attract page hits by playing on the widespread paranoia that developed after Snowden's disclosures.  
First, I disagree with your blanket assertion that the Bill of Rights is just about individual rights. Not so. It addresses both personal freedoms and guarantees of State, versus Federal, powers. The item under discussion fits well within both categories. That the SC agreed that it does affirm an individual right to bear arms does not make any discussion of that idiotic, any more than a discussion of gay marriage is idiotic on the basis that the same court just ruled on...
I agree that statement is not correct, but I think what he meant is that it is not primarily about an individual right to bear arms, but rather about enabling the existence and maintenance of a well-regulated militia. That does seem to me to be the clear intent of the second amendment wording, and is consistent with the context of its drafting and adoption. That argument does not seem in the least bit idiotic, was obviously the actual crux of his point, and (to me, at...
Well unfortunately he made an articulate and apparently well-reasoned case, to which you responded with nothing but anger and insult. Do you expect anyone to conclude other than that you have no rebuttal argument? Or do you simply not care?
What do apples have to do with this splendid exhibition of paranoia?
I know - you probably missed the subsequent discussion (above) of that subject.
I guess perhaps I should have included an irony tag - I was not supporting SDW's position at all. I was criticizing the complete lack of substance in his response to your post.
I guess I don't see anything in his post that is factually incorrect. Do you dispute his facts or his reasoning, or both?
At the risk of going completely off topic, the process of gravitational implosion produces a huge amount of emitted radiation, dwarfing any criticality-driven explosion. 
New Posts  All Forums: