razorpit

About

Banned
Username
razorpit
Joined
Visits
136
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,709
Badges
1
Posts
1,796
  • Hewlett Packard Enterprise leaving Silicon Valley, moving to Texas

    Only problem is the company will pull all the people that made the same bad governmental decisions in CA to TX. Eventually Texas will eventually end up ruined like Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, etc.
    sdw2001virgilisleading42ivanhcornchipdesignrsteven n.red oakzeus423mobirdentropys
  • Hewlett Packard Enterprise leaving Silicon Valley, moving to Texas

    Will they be making Instruments in Texas?  :D
    mobirdbikerdudewatto_cobra
  • Apple security chief Thomas Moyer indicted in concealed firearm permit bribery case

    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence.  Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas.  I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.  Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.  

    It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.

       Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.  

    Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed?  I doubt it.  

    The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.

    For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:

       Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.

    or

       Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask. 

    To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right."  Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen.  If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people."  If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.

    Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.

    It helps to remember that as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were lawyers working to chip away at both.
    christophb
  • Apple security chief Thomas Moyer indicted in concealed firearm permit bribery case

    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    For us Americans it is very difficult to understand how quickly you Europeans forgot it wasn’t possible for Hitler to do what he did until he unarmed you all.
    christophbbeowulfschmidt
  • Apple security chief Thomas Moyer indicted in concealed firearm permit bribery case

    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    The 2nd amendment does not require you to provide a need for a CCW.
    mobirdlongpath