Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime • Hacker News Board

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#81

Post by samman » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #71

samman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the…

>Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia"

Arms are indeed a precondition for a militia, but it seems to me the 2A only exists because the need for a militia was perceived at the time. I'm not so sure that's the case today. In any event, you make a very good point about the danger of 'creative' interpretations.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#82

Post by jonathankoren » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #67

Dylan16807 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.

I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars.

Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1].

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06...

edit: spelling

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#83

Post by bitwize » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:12 PM UTC

15155 wrote: post #77

ScottBurson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights…

There is absolutely no point in debating the past or the original text of the Second Amendment. Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution. If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have…

Sandy Hook, Colorado (3 times in recent memory), Lafayette, San Bernardino, et cetera, et fucking cetera.

Every time one of these shootings happens RKBA repeal gets dragged closer to the Overton window. The only question is how much more human blood must be shed.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#84

Post by bitwize » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

samman wrote: post #81

bitwize wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the…

>Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia" Arms are indeed a precondition for a militia, but it seems to me the 2A only exists because the need for a militia was perceived at the time. I'm not so sure that's the case today. In any event, you make a very good point about the danger of 'creative' interpretations.

Indeed, I'm making an is-ought distinction here. Ought there be a protection of RKBA? Maybe not. The anti-gun lobby has a fairly strong case. But there is, in the form of the second amendment, and if we try to circumvent the Constitution through Humpty-Dumptying rather than addressing its deficiencies through the amendment process, the Constitution means nothing.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#85

Post by samman » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:28 PM UTC

lackbeard wrote: post #68

samman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2a. "...well-regulated..."

At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.

Seems pretty clear when you put it that way.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#86

Post by walshemj » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:39 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #64

walshemj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed properly regulating police (ie only allowing state police and federal ) and enforcing strict vetting would go a long way to solving some of the problems with the police in the USA.

The vast majority of cops are honest and do the right thing. Cops are human, it's unrealistic to think that Federal cops or State cops can be better than local by virtue of regulation. You cannot regulate away the flaws in human nature. The best you can do is detect them and deal with them when they cause problems. I've seen no evidence that the Feds or State police agencies are any better at this than city or county…

Having to pass proper vetting as in the UK would weed out some bad apples at the start and moving to \ single police body for a state would both improve the police and remove a lot of wasted tax payers money.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#87

Post by walshemj » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:55 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #76

ScottBurson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights…

Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue t…

Common law from which US law descends has the right to self defence which is why until after a panic over the general strike the UK had fairly liberal laws around gun ownership.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#88

Post by cgriswald » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 10:59 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #82

themartorana wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.

I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling

No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#89

Post by MaysonL » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

themartorana wrote: post #67

Dylan16807 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.

Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.

And keeping slaves from rebelling, the main purpose of the second amendment.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#90

Post by ScottBurson » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #76

ScottBurson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights…

Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue t…

I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Furthermore, "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia." [0] You could argue, I suppose, that the true meaning of the amendment was forgotten and has been recovered, but then I think you should attempt to explain why that happened.

> Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree.

Okay -- we agree on something :-)

> But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment

This doesn't follow. We all know about restrictions on speech that are seen as legitimate -- yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.; the examples are familiar -- yet the arguments for these restrictions are not taken as arguments for repealing the First Amendment altogether.

I certainly think that my right to live peaceably, as you say, without fear of being shot, is worthy of some protection and needs to be balanced against gun ownership rights.

I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. 240 years ago, the arms technology race had only barely started; now it is in full swing. We know how arms races end: the side with the most money wins. Even if the Second Amendment came to be read to permit citizens to own tanks, drones, etc., people can't afford them.

Personally I think the right to communicate with my fellow citizens unmonitored is more important, and in the end more likely to be decisive.

[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...