ydoaPs

It looks like your version of IDLE is python 3 and your version of input is python 2.

Why not? It's as valid grammatically as that nonsense pushed in DC v Heller.

See iNow's post I quoted. You know, the one with several examples. He already gave a few. What, you want me to copy/paste? This is getting ridiculous.

My bad, but the time I said, as iNow pointed out, is still correct. Until 2008, the "plain reading" was the opposite of the one the gun nuts give it.

Have you met a human?

That's quite enlightening, actually.

One weekend a month; two weeks a year.

Because I read your list and then read what the Constitution says it's talking about when it talks about the militia. It turns out that they match to at T. You don't think knowing the context of an amendment to a text is in anyway enlightening to the reading of the amendment?

Anyone who has read the Constitution knows what the militia is: the National Guard. District of Columbia v Heller Until then, SCOTUS agreed that it meant what it said. Once the NRA got involved things went to [euphemism]feces[/euphemism]. Not if you're speaking English.

Your definition of the National Guard: The militia that the Constitution is talking about: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" With the exception of your ridiculous criterion that it needs to talk about the UCMJ specifically (it didn't exist yet), this hits every point on your definition. Whether or not it was called the National Guard at the time, it performed the exact same function. The militia about which the Constitution speaks is not some ragtag group of farmers that band together on their own. It's a "well regulated" (see Amendment 2) group that is organized, armed, disciplined, and appointed by the government taking orders from the government specifically assigned to the states unless otherwise needed by the federal level. Your nonsense about the revolutionary war need not apply. The Constitution didn't exist yet, and what the Constitution is talking about when it talks about THE militia is quite obviously not what you're talking about when you use the word. That's not the militia the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution's militia is a military force maintained and governed by the states with the caveat that the federal level if needed. That's what it says it's talking about. Please stop equivocating so we can get back to the discussion.

I ask this in the most serious way possible: what drugs are you taking?

It's funny how every SCOTUS case prior to the formation of the NRA disagrees with you. It's only in 2008 when the court reverses opinion on whether or not it's about militia service. Considering the fact that the only crime outlined in the Constitution is treason, it's doubtful that the second amendment was written as a ringing endorsement of treason.

Really? Care to explain why it used the definite article "THE" and then goes on to describe "the militia" as *gasp* the National Guard?

The one the Constitution is talking about actually is. Article 1 section 8. Look it up.

Yes. The idea that science can measure temperature is just plain daft. I don't know how anyone can believe otherwise when it's so obvious. ^What John said.

The rich and powerful have all of the power and influence--we're already slaves.

On a materialistic picture, the answer is obviously "yes". This is Dennett's standard response to the p-zombie objection. If you think that p-zombies are possible, then you ought to think there is not only no third person access to consciousness, but also no first person access. A p-zombie is first person indistinguishable from a conscious "twin". Even the dualists don't deny that actions are the result of neuronal processes. An atom by atom copy, the phenomenal zombie twin, will act identically to the conscious twin. If you ask it if it is conscious, it will respond as honestly in the affirmative as the conscious twin. It will describe its love of its children with just as much appearance of passion and joy as the conscious twin. And neither the p-zombie nor its conscious twin would be lying. The p-zombie doesn't know it's a p-zombie.

Why look at the level of the mercury in the thermometer when you can just measure temperature? Oh, yes, because you can't.

Article 1, section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" The militia is the National Guard.

So, you're trying to tell me that the document whose only defined crime is treason endorses armed treason? Not likely. Perhaps we should look at how the Constitution defines 'militia'.

This is a very bold claim and seems demonstrably untrue.

That's pretty bad metaphysics if it uses Aristotle's logic. The topoi which admit QM do not admit a Boolean structure, but rather a more general Heyting structure in which the law of excluded middle does not always hold. It's entirely off-topic from the source thread, so I started a new one. I'm dying to know: how do you get QM from Aristotelian logic when QM can't coexist with a Boolean structure?

Except, you know, that it explicitly talks about regulation.

You could have at least tried. Insteas, you doubled down on ignorance of even the most basic concepts of science and philosophy of science. Shame, really. Then again, it's what I expected.

If you think that your half remembered poorly taught biology course means you understand evolution, there's nothing more to say. You're going to be immune to reason. Then again, prove me wrong. Write as plainly as you can what scientists mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. Not what your preacher said, what the scientists say. What actually is the theory of evolution?