Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50600
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/09/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/24    

2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:50600 Activity:nil
7/16    Wow, quite a few errors in the dissent re: the DC gun law
        http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/dth_0715p.shtml
        \_ Wow, quite a few gun nuts need to get a life.
           \_ <img src="read_ayn_rand.jpg">
2017/09/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/24    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2014/1/7-2/5 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:54762 Activity:nil
1/7     Are you from a family of Mormons, Cuban exiles, Nigerian Americans,
        Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, American Jews, Iranian Americans
        or Lebanese Americans?
        http://www.csua.org/u/123d (shine.yahoo.com)
        \_ Somehow she misssed WASP Episcopalians.
	...
2013/6/6-7/31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Computer/SW/Security] UID:54690 Activity:nil
6/6     Wow, NSA rocks. Who would have thought they had access to major
        data exchangers? I have much more respect for government workers,
        crypto experts, mathematicans now than ever.
        \_ flea to Hong Kong --> best dim-sum in the world
           \_ "flee"
        \_ The dumb ones work for DMV, the smart ones for the NSA. If you
	...
2013/2/18-3/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:54608 Activity:nil
2/18    F U NRA:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/auazy6g (Sandy Hook Truthers)
        \_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/bqreg8d
           This shit makes me weep for America.
        \_ I didn't see any mention of the NRA on that page.  Did you mean "FU
           Crazy Conspiracy Theorists?"  Or do you have this really great
	...
2012/7/21-9/24 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:54440 Activity:nil
7/21    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilot_defections
        This week's food for thought, brought to you by People's
        Republic of Berkeley: Did you know that many US pilots defected to
        communist Cuba?  South Korea pilots defected to communist
        North Korea? Iran<->Iraq pilots defected to each other?
        W Germany pilots defected to E Germany? Taiwan/ROC pilots
	...
2012/6/22-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54420 Activity:nil
6/22    "Study: The U.S. could be powered by 80% green energy in 2050"
        http://www.csua.org/u/wtz  (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ How many Republicans does it take to make green energy?
           -150,000,000! Ding ding ding!
           \_ Because having control of the White House and both houses of
              Congress wasn't enough (ie, the do nothing and blame the
	...
Cache (3585 bytes)
www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/dth_0715p.shtml
DC v Heller: The Court's Liberal Wing Shoots Itself In The Foot By David T Hardy July 15, 2008 District of Columbia v Heller was historic, the first Supreme Court decision to clearly hold that the Second Amendment right to arms was an individual one not linked to militia service. But it was historic for another reason: the sheer number of mistakes made in the dissenters' opinions. Given that all four dissenters co-signed the Stevens and Breyer dissenting opinions, this means that the mistakes must have escaped, not only four members of the highest court in the land, but their sixteen research clerks! Case in point: Justice Stevens' dissent claims that he holds true to the Court's earlier, 1939, decision in United States v Miller, which he says involved "upholding a conviction." Even a quick read of Miller shows that the Court reversed, rather than upheld, and there was no conviction involved. The first paragraph of Miller recites that the lower court "quashed the indictment" against him -- dismissed the case before trial. Miller's last paragraph orders "the challenged judgment must be reversed." Stevens then turns to his central theme: "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia." was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States." But it had been so thoroughly demolished by amicus briefs that DC abandoned it in its last briefing. The amicus briefs for Heller's side had proven: 1 Yes, there were Framers concerned about the militia being left unarmed, but they weren't pushing for what became the Second Amendment. They wanted a different and additional guarantee that "each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same." He omitted the separate clause about States arming the militia. Yes, there were Framers concerned about having States able to arm their militias. But they weren't calling for the Second Amendment, but for a different provision. Did the dissenting Justices either not read the Heller-side briefs or were willing to take this position in spite of its having been proven utterly ahistoric? Justice Breyer's dissent focuses, not upon the meaning of the Amendment, but upon whether DC's handgun ban is "reasonable regulation." Breyer argues that the main purpose of the Amendment is to ensure military preparedness, and the DC law does not much impair this: "the only weapons that cannot be registered are sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short barreled rifles, and pistols not registered before 1976." Breyer did not closely read the law he defends: DC defines any semiautomatic rifle that can take a magazine holding more than 12 rounds (which is almost all of them) as a forbidden "machine gun." Its residents are thus forbidden to own and practice with the semiautomatic version of any American military rifle made in the last half-century. Both dissents are not merely mistaken, but (if I may be blunt) shoddy. Prior decisions and statutes seem to have been skimmed rather than researched. Historical theories that were clearly disproven are invoked as fact. The logical conclusion is that the dissenters cared not so much about constitutional law as about policy, and what they find good policy simply had to be constitutional.