> Einstein wrote:

> Pinky and the Brain!

Copycat!

> ~*~Serenity~*~ wrote:

> Uncivil huh? Dont try and talk about respect when you cant even read the full argument. Instead you come on here bashing 06 as well while luckily missing the key portion about how 06 would have given up their core violations. GTFO and go back to politics since they obviously dont care if you miss key points of an argument

Yes, uncivil.

1: If I attacked anything, I attacked actions and concepts, not people.  If I misinterpreted the actions, I apologize.  But I never attacked you personally, or anyone else from your family.  You, however, have spent about 90% of your posts to me just personally attacking me.
2: Where was this post?  Considering this is a 5 page long discussion, it's an honest mistake if someone misses a single post in a large discussion.  We're all human, and make mistakes.
3: I wasn't "bashing" anyone.  Frankly, I couldn't give a crap about your game, '05's game, or anything of the sort.  I just randomly strolled here, and saw what I thought was an interesting irony.  I'm sorry that fate ever forced me to have to deal with this waste of 15 minutes of my life.  X(

You know, it's funny: '06 baits '05 into a challenge.  '05 refuses and offers a counter-challenge (remove  shares first or give '05 planets in their core).  '06 has thus far ignored that counter-challenge.

Yet '06 fails to respond to the counter-challenge.  If anyone thinks ill toward '05 for refusing the original challenge, they should thus equally hold ill feelings toward '06.  If what '06 really wants is a war, then '05 is offering that possibility.

I guess the tables have turned on the baiting thread. 

Pinky and the Brain.

Consider yourself asked

> Render wrote:

> and Zarf pls forget about those 'legal' contracts, come on, this is a text based game, we hve already TOO MUCH text to read and you want people to read even more, and to read the small writing below before signing a contract, NO NO NO, for god shake!

Was there... a point to this statement?

I couldn't give a crap about them, unless they're assisting or hampering oil cleanup operations, or somehow influencing the midterm elections. 

No.  I was just seeing how many times we could do a "The world doesn't care about ___________!  The world is watching _____________!" before someone messed it up.  Thanks for killing it so soon!

> Einstein wrote:

> expect zarf and my debate to continue

Good!  I've still got 2 more posts of gray goo-ing, rainforest-destroying, particle accelerating madness for you! 

I think I get what xeno is saying now.

Every protection guaranteed under the Constitution, whether it be freedom of the press, double jeopardy, or freedom of religion, has one thing in common: their purpose is to check against the government.  Freedom of speech was made so that we could protest and voice our opinion about government.  The right to a fair trial ensured that the government didn't jail protesters excessively.

Thus, it's reasonable to assume that all constitutional protections were created as a method to create checks against the government.

So then what about the right to bear arms?  As cited here, it has three functions:
Hunting
Protecting your home against intruders
Rebellion

So which of these would Jefferson want to protect?  Certainly, nobody's saying that Jefferson didn't like hunting.  However, you can like many things, yet think they're not worthy of being written in the Constitution: I like Civilization 3, but that doesn't mean I think a constitutional amendment should be written to protect my right to play the game.  Look around the Constitution and ask if there are other sports that were constitutionally protected just because they're fun.  Any?  Is there a soccer amendment?

The way to figure out the "primary justification" for the 2nd amendment, then, is to imagine a modified weapon.  Pretend that we live in a world where the gun has only one of the above uses.  Would Jefferson have written a constitutional amendment to protect our freedom to hunt?  Hunting's nice, but is it really on par with the other amendments?

How about the right to protect your home against intruders?  Now this is debatable.  I'll leave that between you guys, and I would love to see Flint's reaction.  However, it seems like "the right to protect your home against intruders" would, under the Constitution, fall as more of a state's rights issue, as written.  But that's just me.

But what about if the only purpose for the gun was open rebellion against the government?  Would that be constitutionally protected?  It seems to fit into the formula that all amendments are there to create checks against the government.  This seems, then, to be the most logical of the three.

Your label works now because there's only about 2 or 3 people with said label. 

Agreed with Imperial.  This very debate proves the idiocy of labels.

"I'm X!  Only what I think is true X!  Here's my subjective measuring stick to define it!  Oh, and even if I win this debate, it doesn't prove that my arguments are neither valid nor invalid.  It only means that I get to call myself X, and you have to find a different name for yourself."