[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Wil Cooley wcooley at nakedape.cc
Thu Mar 28 02:07:12 UTC 2002


Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:34:36PM PST
> >Ew, Fox News?  LOL  I hope no one watches Fox for anything
> >but laughs, maybe a little fictional drama.
> 
> Say what you will about FOX News, but consider this.  Unlike CNN, NBC,
> ABC and CBS, Fox lets both the liberals and the conservative have a
> chance to say what they want to say.  I have seen several news stories
> that would never have seen the light of day, if not for Fox News.
> One is the Condit-Levy affair.  Fox was reporting it weeks before
> the others.  I think the others wanted to just sweep it under the rug
> and after several weeks it became to big and they finally began to
> report it.

I suppose.  Most of what I see on Fox News is stories about
rescuing cats from trees or clueless reporters asking dumb
questions.  Maybe I'm just thinking of FOX 49.

> >But the example you gave in the previous message was a law passed
> >by the popularly-elected Congress, not the courts.  More often than
> >not, at least for cases that receive lots of attention, it seems the
> >courts are the ones who strike down a Congressionally instituted law,
> >based on its conflict with the constitution.
> 
> Yes, the congress passed a bill that they knew to be unconstitutional and
> the president signed it.  What I hope to see is the supreme court striking
> the law entirely and telling congress to go back to the drawing board and
> try again.  What I will probably see is the court striking parts and leaving
> other parts and making rules about how laws like these should be written in
> the future.  All of this is legislating and they have no right to do it.  I
> hope I will be pleasantly surprised.

I see.

> 
> >Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is
> >the purpose of second amendment?
> 
> An excellent question.  The people that wrote the constitution
> believed that government was something that needed to be limited as
> much as possible.  They had just fought a long war for freedom from
> one government.  They wanted the citizens to be able to arm themselves
> to over through any future government that may become oppressive and
> not act in the will of the people.

Okay, so consider the practically of this these days.  What good
would half the male population carrying small arms be against
the size of weapons the military has now?  Not much, I think.
The balance of military power has shifted considerably since WWI.

Wil
-- 
Wil Cooley                                 wcooley at nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting                        http://nakedape.cc
irc.linux.com                             #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20020327/2dd523b4/attachment.asc>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list