It's now apparently a crime to cut up fruit.

http://abc11.com/news/man-arrested-for-stabbing-watermelon/187828/

Oh, the irony...

Well, coincidence.

Well. I just discovered that the free wifi at the chain bagel shop I'm having breakfast at blocks this site for "sexuality" and "adult themes".

More irony:

6,000 acre wildfire started by marijuana grower named Freddie Alexander Smoke III.

The science is settled: Comcast has the worst customer service in the universe.

I also found the Advice Goddess web site blocked by the wifi at Denny's at truck stops along I 80, and by the Wifi provider at the toll road plazas in Ohio.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/16/philly-mom-faces-three-years-in-jail-bec
I don't quite see why the 2nd Amendment isn't applicable in cases like this.

re: Lobster

Does not work that way. Local laws apply. Would have thought her concealed weapons class would have given her a heads up.

Guess she thought her most dangerous situation would be being robbed. NOPE.

VIPRE software blocked Advice Goddess a while back. I emailed them to tell them it was an ok site and they emailed me back within a couple of hours and said it was fixed, with apologies for my inconvenience.

> Does not work that way. Local laws apply

I realize they do currently, that isn't what I meant. What I meant is, why do we have it that local laws apply, when the point of the Constitution is that it's supposed to be the highest law of the land - i.e. a local law that violates the Constitution is an invalid law.

Perhaps this particular issue just hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court before, or something, so the local authorities ignore the Constitution.

I mean, in e.g. the DC vs Heller ruling, the SC surely made their position clear on whether 'local laws' can violate the 2nd Amendment.

Hm, sorry, just doing my own research here, as this ties in with the Brian Aitkens case:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120330329

It seems the defense did try invoke DC vs Heller but:

"The judge denied Brian's motion in an oral decision following oral argument on November 30, 2009 ... He also held that Heller was not applicable because, unlike the District of Columbia, New Jersey did not ban all guns"

That sounds like pretty specious reasoning to me - i.e. the judge has effectively tried to argue that it's only a violation of the 2nd Amendment if it's a 'complete ban' - however, the 2nd Amendment states clearly 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' - so a partial ban is still an infringement.

This seems obvious. It sounds to me like the judge just preferred to ignore the Supreme Court ruling, probably due to some bias.

And the SC probably would likely not hear the case because they already decided on it, in some twisted logic. Maybe the problem is our legal system lacks any sort of well-defined regulatory body that ensures local laws comply with Supreme Court rulings ... there are only limited ways to challenge laws at all. The SC is there to make rulings on specific cases, but local authorities appear to have the ability to just 'do what they want' unless specifically challenged all the way up to the highest courts.

Or was it a coincidence?

"6,000 acre wildfire started by marijuana grower named Freddie Alexander Smoke III."

Can't have happened. There is no downside to weed, haven't you heard?

TheDark side of the moon done another way.

Hey, Crid!

Found a bet back here. Who won?

6-year-old boy in Wisconsin charged with felony sexual assault.

> Who won?

Probably this guy.

Note the dates in the comments of that one. This could be a new way to gamble... Put the projected date of an event in a tweet, send the money to a broker, and watch the calendar. When you're the winner, you get the whole kitty.

Mostly, what's impressive about the old thread is how obviously "T's Grammy" needed to exaggerate my argument in order to resist it.

That happens a lot on the Internet.