Slashdot Mirror

The Dickey Amendment restricts only the CDC (e.g. not the entirety of the government), only restricts them from advocacy or promotion of gun control (e.g. not the study thereof), and only places that restriction on the specific portion of their funding earmarked for injury prevention and control (e.g. not their entire budget). Perhaps you should actually read the damn thing sometime?

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. But, if you choose to do that, be prepared to explain how they've actually been able to legally conduct such research (this from 2013) and even as recently as 2015.

none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control

That is, it can use those funds, or any of its other funding to study gun violence and it can use any of its funding other than the injury prevention funding to promote gun control, which is something I actually disagree with because they are not an advocacy group and shouldn't be promoting anything.

The CDC is allowed to (and does) study gun violence and, in fact, the CDC released this study on gun violence (PDF warning) in 2015.

Hope this helps.

In Delaware, I had to give my fingerprints (and palm) to the government in order to get my CCDW permit. I had to pay them for this too.
SBI

A two-thirds supermajority shareholder vote can remove the public benefit provision.

Mmm strange. Some states even have laws for these. Delware requires a vehicle traveling at 20 mph to be able to stop with 55 feet (and for regular brakes, it should stop in 30 feet). Have they stopped enforcing these laws?

I disagree. You get arrested by a public law enforcement agency, have a public trial, and essentially no rights (depending on the crime).

While I'm not for the police state, I do believe that those convicted of a crime need to have their mugshots put up, especially for the following crimes:

DUI/DWI (doc, specifically Colorado's numbers but I imagine the true holds same in TN given the number of those in court for it repeatedly)
Pedophilia
Rape (pdf, specifically Deleware's statistics)
Murder (pdf, Washington state)
Scam/Con

People should know who you are and what your proclivities are. In the above cases you should expect no right to privacy after your first conviction (recidivism in these crimes is high, see links and also this document on recidivism).

I couldn't find numbers for scammers/con artists, though I'm sure they don't give up after their first arrest either. If anyone could find national averages it would be appreciated. All the above docs referred to national averages that I didn't turn up in my searches (search term: <crime> recidivism)

Funny, I couldn't remember the source of my 1/3 loss, so I threw a few words at google, and found the same reference that you did - 7.2%.

But the funny part is that THAT citation isn't exactly authoritative, either. Further searching found that in India, the rate is as low as 70% while the state of Deleware declares that "70 percent of the energy in the fuels used to generate electricity is lost" and in the UK it's supposedly about 2% lost in transmission.

Wikipedia isn't the definitive answer, folks, even if it is a good starting point!

2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.

Or they could setup a proxy LLC in Delaware through a registered agent.

People go to Delaware for something other than bankrupcy proceedings?!?

2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.

Or they could setup a proxy LLC in Delaware through a registered agent.

The bombing of Dresden may have been primarily an action of the RAF, but there are plenty of sources that say that the USAAF was an active participant and used far less surgical weapons than they normally would, largely in response to poor weather and an unwillingness to miss the target regardless of the collateral damage and casualties that resulted from it.

In addition to that attack and the others I mentioned, don't forget the USAAF firebombing of Tokyo (which killed 100,000) or the bombing of Kobe (which killed approx. 8,841).... Would you like me to continue pointing out cases where the U.S. went fairly blatantly after non-military targets? I suspect with a little research, the list could get damningly long.

What you are talking about was the US not using the same rules and tactics that British soldiers used. For instance use of Privateering, used by the US and most other countries not used by the British or the most common example the use of three ranks of soliders, since England quickly changed that I guess it not a "rule of war" as you defined and it wasn't it was a tactic.

By that definition, attacking civilian targets is also a tactic. Are you sure you want to argue that point? It would seem to substantially weaken your argument that military forces and terrorists are dramatically different....

To throw more water on this tactics equaling "rules of war" go read some British books on the reason they lost and they say it was because they would not change thier tactics to handle the situation, while Americans were acting separately and when the commanding officers were killed kept on firing when that happened on the British side they kept waiting for further orders.

I never said anything about that being the reason the U.S. won against the British. My point was that it was a radically different style of warfare than they were used to, and many would likely have used words like "terrorist" to describe it had the word existed. It was guerilla warfare, which is precisely the same sort of battle tactics that modern terrorist and insurgent groups tend to use. Fortunately for the U.S., the word "terrorist" was not coined for another couple of decades (source: Delaware Criminal Justice Council Terrorism Research).

Delaware is within 50 miles of four nuclear plant complexes.

http://dema.delaware.gov/information/nuc_haz.shtml

"...it would have been impossible to miss if that was anywhere near them."

They didn't miss.

Your argument seems to presume they didn't start lying to cover their asses. You also need to look at picture s s s s of a police helicopters. Note the clear windows in the floor.

From their comments, a lot of people think that expungement is vindication. It's not.

After a certain time passes many crimes can be expunged if you apply to do so. Requirements and eligibility vary from state to state, but essentially you're saying, "I've been a good boy, so let me out of the corner." It's not the court saying you weren't guilty. It's the court saying they won't hold it against you any more.

What expungement is:
The removal of a discipline from a person's disciplinary record so that it is as though the discipline was never imposed. Link.

An order of the Court to seal the record of certain convictions if statutory criteria are met. The defendant must initiate the process by filing a petition through the Probation department. Link.

Official and formal erasure of a record or partial contents of a record. Link.

What a pardon is:

Action by an official of an executive branch of government relieving a criminal from a conviction. Link.

So yes, it's different from a pardon, but it's not just sealing the record, it's official forgiveness.

http://courts.delaware.gov/Courts/Supreme%20Court/ ?justices.htm
While he doesn't look that tough, he is a fairly intimidating man. Really, you don't want to be there in his courtroom and try to piss him off. Some folks have 'it', that odd quality that makes you intimidating.

In my state, public hanging is still legal. (The only one that it's still legal in, by the way)