kohlrak: Yeah, they're offended and outraged on behalf of someone else. They're not genuinely concerned about the issue, or they'd spend much, much more effort. It's like the people who come to me saying they want to learn programming, but then can't be bothered to learn things like hex-decimal or binary. Oh no, the concept of assignment is too difficult and burdensome. Frankly, i'm sick of wasting my time on these "students."
Orkhepaj: what do they need those for?
Assignment is fundamental. If you don't understand assignment, you can't deal with return values. As for binary and hex-decimal, you need those for masking.as well as the SHL, SHR, and & optimizations for multiplication, division, and remainder respectively.
paladin181: And if the government isn't altruistic? They are representative of the people and elected by the people. They, however do not always act in the interest of the people. Without cheques and balances, nothing stops the federal government from overstepping its authorities (tyranny in the words of the second amendment). The militias were to be a balance against the federal government. Since the modern militias a little more than arms of the federal government, it is imperative that the people be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical overstep by the government. No, not every exercise of authority or overreach is tyranny, but eventually they will lead to such if the government is not held in check by the people.
I think we should get a little closer to topic though and talk about limp noodle lawmakers smashing their heads into the brick wall that is censorship of video games in the face of the first amendment.
Gudadantza: The most important things created in the american revolution or in the french revolution later exported to all liberal democracies were the sepaparation of three powers and that is and was what effectivelly controls the unbalance risk of tyranny from the executive power etc. Not an uncontroled right to bear arms for all. The legislations and the society and the country itself is much more complex today that in 1800.
The fact is that the second ammendment does not want to be contextualized at all. And it is the ammmendment most affected by its historical reality and context.
-------------
And about the OP itself it reminds me old 1990 when religious sectors and ultraconservative wing sectors tried to ban videogames as well, or movies. etc.
As a whole they where the same who were extreme defenders of the second ammendsment "as is", whitout any control.
“We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleased with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.”
Abraham Lincoln
Change "product of his labour" with "his liberty to watch and play any videogame" and the famous quote will fit well.
II think the part you're missing is that the opoint of the second amendment is to have people who have guns for the purpose of using them against the government, not foreign invaders. If you don't understand that, i odn't know how you claim to have any notion contextualizing. You claim context is necessary, but you fail to actually find the low-hanging fruit of the context: we weren't to trust government. The average person was meant to be the final check on the system.
