News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Smears Against Edward Snowden Have Begun by pstuart on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @11:11PM (#5866311)
Agreed, insults ruin the conversation. As do pedantic dismissals that can trigger such insults.

You are implying that I was dishonest for not quoting the entire amendment. That's bullshit. My original point was that "liberal" media will quote right-wing spokespeople and not question their statements but just report them as "fact".

I think I understand the general notion of what was intended, but then again, our own Supreme Court can't agree so you'll have to cut me some slack on that.

By the way, I'm now actually kind of in favor of gun control just to mess with all the stupid gun nuts. Sorry, just petty that way.

Re:The Smears Against Edward Snowden Have Begun by talmand on Wednesday June 12, 2013 @11:00AM (#5868432)
And continuing with the insults helps, how exactly?

Seems your issue is with the "liberal" media and not the people they are quoting. But I disagree, it is dishonest for you to claim your right to not quote the entire statement of the amendment due to laziness but require the opposing viewpoint to quote in full to prevent being labeled dishonest. In fact, I'm not even sure what your statement about the media and quoting the entire amendment have to do with each other.

I'm not sure how the Supreme Court is involved in a statement of how it is written in the Constitution of what the amendment process is. Have there been cases before the Supreme Court involving changing the amendment process? I'm not aware of any so I'm curious.

If you are in favor of creating laws to mess with a group of people you don't like, then that's just a sad fact. Because you are legitimizing the very idea of writing laws to punish people you don't like. If that's the case, then one day some group that doesn't like you will do the same and you'll have no credibility to complain about it.

Re:The Smears Against Edward Snowden Have Begun by pstuart on Friday June 14, 2013 @03:19PM (#5881871)
You're calling me dishonest for quickly mentioning a critical omission of a subject (the "well-regulated militia" bit) without quoting the full amendment?

That is an insult in itself. <insert my muttered response to you here>

I wasn't even taking a stand on the issue of "gun rights", simply that it's more than what its proponents make it out to be.

The bit about messing with people is because any time I deal with pro-gun people they are almost invariably sanctimonious assholes who are unwilling to talk about the issue as a whole. People like that don't want dialog, so insults will have to do.

No, the less laws the better. Let's just make sure they're good ones.