@16 Maybe I'm not reading this right, but are you saying that virtually all D&D fans either publish their own stuff or need more and more diverse material than is published by WotC? Maybe the sample of people I know is not representational, but most players I know don't use a lot of stuff that isn't either official WotC stuff or homebrew non-published stuff.

That said, I certainly want the licensing to allow as much latitude as possible. I'm all for independent content, but what I've read so far doesn't give me a great deal of concern.

Vorpalsword, according to wikipedia, they started putting them in US passports in 2006, though if you happen to be from Malaysia, 1998 is the date you're looking for.

Roninkakuhito, If you're doing pre-orders, I'm standing by with my credit card ready.

Seriously though, I'm happy with my generic fantasy settings, but that title was just too good. And as far as disclosure, I must admit I've never heard of Mercedes Lackey.

I say a bunch of people getting together and hitting their passports with hammers would make some pretty good performance art.

@3 (and others)

I'm curious, if you feel like spending your time explaining stuff to someone too lazy to look it up, what parts of the rules are copyrightable? Feat names? Spell names? Deity names? The specific wording of feat/spell descriptions?

I wonder how stealing my Wii helped security...oh well, I'm just glad to have contributed.

So....when is TCATUMTLMP coming out?

@301 You may be right in terms of "reasonable" limits on the how and when of purchasing arms not being unconstitutional. I suppose I would hope for a strict definition of "reasonable" from the court, and would vote for no limits, but I wouldn't scream too loudly if things didn't go my way, especially if the limits were left to the discretion of the states.

As far as the (slight) tangent that we're on, I have a big problem with blanket, permanent punishments for entire classes of people who have been convicted of a crime. It would be far less unreasonable for the sentencing of a person guilty of multiple gun crimes to include a prohibition on their purchase of a gun, than it is to simply make it difficult or impossible for all people convicted of a felony, or even all people convicted of a gun felony to purchase a gun.

But, I don't think that is a 2nd amendment issue, and if it's any kind of a constitutional issue, I can't be bothered to try to figure it out right now.

@286 I would say, and this is also just a personal opinion and not worth much given the vast quantities of beans out there, that the second amendment should be considered to protect any weapon designed to be used by a single individual against a single target, a target being either another individual or a motorized vehicle.

@290 The 2nd amendment surely doesn't say anything about obtaining arms. So, all we have to do is make it illegal to obtain them in any way, including inheriting them, and we haven't violated the amendment at all, right? To me, this argument is as specious as the Chris Rock bit about the amendment not protecting the ammunition, just the weapons themselves.

Also, you mention that various waiting periods, etc, are not intended to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Aside from the fact that, to my knowledge, 'law-abiding' isn't a prerequisite for receiving constitutional protections, I'm generally unhappy when the government chooses to punish people beyond their actual court given punishment.

@294 I like that we have rule of law, that there is something that constrains the armed and uniformed and the state prosecutors from disposing of someone as they, personally, see fit.

That said, I'm not sure how much it matters to me how the laws get there. If there is massive public and legislative support for a law that I find repressive and unjust, say, drug laws, it gives me no comfort that at least they're not unconstitutional.

At the same time, I'm glad to have Roe vs Wade despite the fact that I've never spoken to a legally-inclined person who felt that it was a solid legal decision.

I suppose the power of the supreme court to create or destroy rights without having to worry about what the populace thinks it's just too seductive for me, and that's probably exactly why they should stick to strictly interpreting the law. But I don't have to like it.

@249 I think we're all arguing about what the law ought to be, not what it is, so, I'd say that the opinion of SCOTUS counts little more than that of any nine other people.

@256 I'm curious, if there was a case before the court that was going to decide the legality of something very important to you, perhaps the legality of torture, perhaps abortion rights, maybe a free speech issue, whatever is most important to you, and one of the justices came to you privately and said that he or she felt that the law was on the other side of the issue from you, but that personally, he or she agreed with you, and was torn, would you advise them to follow the law or their conscience?

@263 While I'm not familiar with the Militia Act of 1792, I'd say that its (or JLBrauns explanation of its) explanation of the type of arms that a citizen was expected or allowed to keep seems reasonable. I don't think that forbidding the more dangerous and difficult to use heavy military hardware violates the letter or the spirit of the 2nd amendment. I think the amendment was intended to protect the possession of personal military armaments, not necessarily all military armaments of every type.

As to re-fighting the civil war, I'd originally written a rather long bit about the different things that might occur given different situations, but I'm no military strategist or historian, so it was probably all a bunch of nonsense. Suffice it to say, I think there are a great many variables at play in a civil war, and only one of them is who is best armed. Depending on those other variables, I think a poorly armed revolutionary force could succeed in an overthrow of the government, manage to free a small piece of the country, win government reforms, or be completely defeated.

I would argue that the militia is mentioned more like this. Since we'll need a militia, the individual people are going to need the right to keep weapons, in order to form that militia. But I understand your interpretation, Xopher.

Ok, I'm clearly in a minority here, but I thought it was brilliant. I've always loved that routine.

I think it's demonstrably true that a militia can stand up against a modern military. They likely can't ever land a knockout blow against a state-backed army, but they can keep giving it a bloody nose until the state finds it too costly to continue. The US left Vietnam, the Soviets left Afganistan, there's a strong push for the US to leave Iraq, etc.

And even if I were to grant that a militia fighting a state-backed modern army was doomed to failure, I'd still say it was better to have fought that to have quietly done as that army demanded. (The only example I can think of off the top of my head would come dangerously close to invoking Godwin, so I'll leave this uncited.)

As far as hunting rifles specifically are concerned, I would say that a rifle (whether it's a "hunting" "sniper" or "assault" rifle is largely a matter of interpretation) is still probably the single most valuable weapon in the arsenal of a militia or guerrilla group.

Well, first, merely because there's now a standing army, and has been for more than 200 years, the 2nd amendment, and the idea behind it, is not invalid. If anything, it seems more valid, so I don't see why we'd need to disband the army in order to allow citizens their constitutional rights.

Secondly, just because the people have allowed their rights to be trampled on in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do so. So, I don't find the argument that we've long given up on a right to be a compelling reason not to demand it now.

Saulgoodman @228 Nope, you've got me there, I don't advocate the proliferation of nuclear weapons among the general population. If you push me, I'd probably also give ground on private possession of artillery and maybe even tanks and fighter jets.

If (and it seems pretty clear that it was) the original idea was to enable the people to form into militia then we ought to be able to equip ourselves in a manner befitting a modern day militia. As a quick and easy rule, I object to the government stripping the people's right to own anything that the same government sold or donated to the Afghan Mujahideen in the '80s.

Right now, I'm not planning to fight anyone. While I imagine there are many, many things that each of us dislike about our government, I don't think violent opposition is necessary, or reasonable at this point. However, I think it is the people's right to be able to prepare to protect themselves against a government that goes too far down the path of tyranny.

There are a lot of different interpretations of the 2nd amendment, but the people who wrote the constitution expected the people to be able to take up arms and fight against a federal government that was oppressive and unjust. This is a quote from Noah Webster, a federalist, that is, a proponent of government power.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Also, "A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."

It seems clear that the founders expected that the people could and should be in armed opposition to a tyrannical government. Drastically limiting the types of weapons it is permissible for a citizen to own helps keep this from being possible in any real sense.

Is 'not open minded' the same as 'hopelessly stereotypical and insulting?'

Lizardman, QFT

Antinous, I think LZ was referring to the fact that "Scott Summers" was used to refer to Cyclops in the original post, though it hardly seems like grounds for hating someone.

Anyone else wondering how much flak movie theatres are going to take for showing something that disturbing? It'll also look pretty odd sandwiched between the five minute national guard ads that I'm usually subjected to at movie theatres.

@202 and 213 I'm afraid it does make sense to me, I think the intent of the second amendment was to enable the citizenry to fight somewhat effectively against governments. And while, no, the world won't end, it's a movement towards a more powerful state, and a weaker individual. Which, given the kinds of things governments like to do, is a cause of some concern for me.