Um, no it doesn't. Cura doesn't mean wax. And how you define arms isn't how I define arms clearly. I interpret it differently to mean any sort of weapon (kind of like how it has been used historically) and defining it as any less in legal terms is in itself a restriction. And I don't have a problem with that.

Sorry, typo, "cera" means wax.

Didn't you read the post talking about all those? A tank is not a weapon. A siege tower is not a weapon.

Semantics are serving you horribly. I said siege weapons, not specifically siege towers.

Generalizations are serving you horribly. A siege tower is absolutely a form siege weapon.

Please note that I did say that some, though not all, siege weapons are weapons.

Definitions are serving you horribly, I used the word "specifically" to show that I meant more than just siege towers.

"Please note that I did say that some, though not all, siege weapons are weapons."

Reading is serving you horribly.

Or posting because the first one was the only one I saw when I hit "Post reply." Consideration is serving you horribly.

BS Prado

"Siege weapons are a large group of things, that may or may not be a weapon. A catapult or trebuchet is a weapon, a siege tower is no more a weapon than a cherry-picker truck." - 3:17PM

Nearly an hour before you posted.

But at 3:11 you specified siege towers when I wasn't specifying siege towers. And to the whole sine cera thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincerity#Etymology

Oh and 3:11 my time, not your time.

I was using a counterexample to prove that not all "siege weapons" are weapons, which I had already stated.

It appears I have believed an ancient folk tale. Thanks for the education ;)

Also, it seems we have been rather nasty in all this, sorry about that. No hard feelings.

And good thing you specified, because I didn't post at 3:11 my time...

Oh, sorry from this end as well. It seems we've also gotten a tad off topic.

Yes, it does, I don't think trebuchets or ballistae will be covered under the 2nd Amendment...

Or wax, for that matter.

Repealing the second amendment right now would be a wonderful thing, but unfortunately it's politically impossible. However, further restrictions would be good, even if they didn't save so many lives as a full repeal would. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to want restrictions, and to push it under the carpet as not being "serious" is just spurious bullshit.

Wonderful that it would create a second, much more brutal, civil war?

And that's exactly the reason why it's impossible right now - there's too much culturally and politically stacked against it.

The second amendment is flawed, but necessary. Self-defense is pretty fundamental.

My biggest problem with it is that the NRA and gun manufacturers have hijacked it to sell weapons with fear and loathing for the government. It's the only amendment to deal with a "thing" so it's no surprise someone has figured out a way to make money off of it.

Well, the only one in the cherished Bill of Rights. Slavery and prohibition were different, and now they're gone.

What about press?

That makes shit tons of money.

Japan has indeed one of the lowest homicide rates (5th lowest in the world, beaten by Icland, Singapour, Monaco and Liechtenstein). As Japan is a huge country this still implies more than 400 murders. There is plenty of (statistical) evidence that gun ownership increases homicide (quite naturally).

As many have suggested here, the discussion isn't about Japan but about the US. I am too lazy to check up the little details, but as far as I remember only Mexico bests the US in terms of violent crimes among the OECD countries. Gun ownership (or rather the way gun ownership is regulated) appears to be part of the problem, albeit not the only one.

Returning to Japan: There is plenty of crime in Japan too (as defined by the Japanese law). Crime is handled differently. Often the police will try to facilitate dedommages agreements between victim and offender and then take the case off the records. In general though the crime level is way below US standards according to OECD stats, which are rather reliable.

"Press and free speech" necessarily involves a transaction--the transfer of information--between two people. The value in press is this exchange--freedom of speech means nothing if the message is ignored or not received. Price is optional and often negligible.

"Arms" is something a single person can have on their own, separate from any other person. The value in arms is enhancing your *potential* to inflict damage on another person. The presence of arms raises an existential question for any person who encounters them. They can be ignored only at one's own peril.

That physicality of arms is really the big difference to me. Death is a bigger selling point than general interest news.

I forgot to mention:

Do you speak Japanese? is 日本語を話しますか。and

Do you speak Spanish? is スペーン語を話しますか。the way it was written before means "Does Japanese speak?" (or Spanish)

It should be correct if i added あなたは to the beginning. It would also be correct if the を particle was replaced with が

Not を i guess. Just は in the origininal message should be replaced with が.

no. を　is the "object"-marker (or whatever it is called). は is a topic marker (translate it as "concerning"). が is similar but a little different. あなた just means "you" as in the French "vous." Hence the fully fledged phrase would be

あなたは日本語を分かりますか。ー　Do you understand Japanese?
あなたは日本語を話しますか。ー　Do you speak Japanese?