Slashdot Mirror

Yup. Given the NRA has a range at it's HQ, no doubt using it is a fantastic way to boost moral: https://nrahqrange.nra.org/

The NRA is one of the primary sources of gun safety education in the country.

http://www.nrainstructors.org/...

They also promote the "Eddie Eagle" program specifically for teaching young kids what to do if they find a gun (ie, don't touch it, report it to an adult, etc):

https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

The NRA are not the boogiemen that you think they are, nor are they or gun-owners as a whole bloodthirsty savages. I mostly use my guns for sport (mostly competition target shooting, occasionally for hunting), and also keep a few for self-protection if the need arises. I don't have murder fantasies or want to shoot anyone - I simply have the gun in case I need it, much like I keep several fire extinguishers in the house hoping I never need to actually use them.

Most gun people also advocate locking up your guns IF you have children in the house. I've got a 7 and 5 year old in the house - most of my guns are in a large combination safe with a handgun in a fast access safe on my nightstand. Having the gun in that safe most certainly does make it a little slower to access, but that's part of having kids around (though I will say that my when I grew up my dad never locked up nor unloaded his guns and we were fine, though he didn't have any handguns).

If I DIDN'T have the kids at home, I'd likely just keep the one gun sitting on the nightstand with the rest locked up. Having the option to make the best choice for ourselves is what most gun owners want. Not a one-size-fits all "you have to keep your guns locked up" dictated by law.

And yet the NRA thinks that the " properly trained average person" with a firearm is the solution to the problem.

The NRA advocates proper training for anyone who owns or carries a firearm.

Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:

We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...

Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

Not that it matters but LaPierre is very much a tail wagging the gun industry dog. He has made it clear that the NRA will represent the interests of gun manufacturers that support the NRA, to maintain their sales at the expense of anyone else in the industry. The NRA needs the gun makers way more than the gun makers need the NRA.

Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:

We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...

Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

There's also this one. :)

Where can we contribute to prevent this idiocy being pursued?

http://www.nra.org/

There are laws to prosecute people who are responsible for minors encountering guns and getting hurt, and the parents of the little girl who was killed a few weeks ago should be prosecuted under them.

While it's clear that you mean the best for your children, your plan to ensure their safety would only lead them to harm the first time they encounter a gun without you around to stop them. Consider that somewhere between 33% - 45% of US households have a gun in them. Your children WILL be going into those houses in the normal course of growing up and having friends. Your choices are to ignore the possibility and blindly assume that none of your neighbors own guns, or accept that some do and educate your children on what to do: http://eddieeagle.nra.org/

As much as you love your children and want to protect them, keeping them in the dark about guns does not help you do it.

Would you say the parents of these children need mental help? http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

The NRA still does a lot of firearms education and training. The rabid anti-gun folks stand in the way of these efforts at every opportunity however. Firearms-related accidents are good for the anti-gun agenda

Check out the Eddie Eagle program:

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=1353

Now, try attending a city council or school board meeting and proposing that you have the NRA come in and give a firearms safety presentation to the school kids.

In many places, people will be screaming at the top of their lungs at the idea of having anything NRA-related coming anywhere near the schools.

The NRA didn't suddenly get "whacked out" and shift its focus. The 1960s is when the big push for new federal anti-gun legislation came along. The last thing the federal government wanted at the time was a bunch of well armed black people demanding equality.

Why should they get them again as part of a corporation?

No, the proper form of that question is: "why should they lose those rights as part of a corporation?" Or as a part of a union, or religious organization, or civic organization, or minority organization, or political party?

Unless you are advocating for a complete ban on all "collective" political speech - including collective organizations like unions, religious groups, civic groups, minority groups, and any other form of grouping you care to name, then your position is logically incoherent, and amounts to wishing away the rights of some people whose views you disagree with and wish to silence. It really is that simple. And even if your position were logically coherent and you wished to ban all collective speech, it would be a fundamental violation of the rights of individuals.

The Constitution specifically affirms that the people have the right to engage in these activities - individually, or collectively. For someone who claims to be "very careful of rights," you seem to be missing that very clear point. Rather than seeking to silence your opponents (curious undemocratic, that!), you should be seeking to propose better opposing ideas, better arguments, and better solutions - and you're free to do so by grouping together with like-minded friends and neighbors and engaging in collective political speech.

And that's WHY I point out the damage that corporations lobbying politicians does to democracy.

Ah yes, lobbying is evil! Well, as long as we disagree with the goals of the lobbyist organization, amirite?

The NRA? Oh they're evil, they lobby the government!
The EFF? They're saints! They fight for our freedoms!

Campaign for Liberty? LOL LIBERTARDIANS! They're stupid and lobby the government with their backwards ideas!
MoveOn.org? They're brave soldiers fighting the good fight for democracy!

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

I already don't trust the FDA for my own health. Do you?

And that includes those pharmaceutical companies. That was my view before I even watched the video myself. But if you can't get past the pro-gun propaganda to read the list of side effects of the drug, then that's fine. I, on the other hand, have actually read them, and that doesn't exactly sound like it would be safe to give to a person, let alone one who is mentally ill. Honestly, you might as well just give them a fucking chainsaw and quit acting as if you're trying to "help" them at that point; it would have had the same effect.

And notice that I said: "... this would probably be an excellent study as well..."

Are you against finding the true nature of these man-made chemicals, which have only been around for several years of limited, scientifically-controlled testing, compared to natural chemicals from plants such as cannabis, coca, poppy, salvia divinorum, etc.? At least these plants and their chemicals have been around, domesticated, tested through actual human use, and put up to a lot of scientific testing over the millennia. They evolved with humanity; half the shit the FDA "approves" can claim none of that. The shit that passes as "medication" these days needs more to be put up to more scrutiny to ensure safety, instead of blaming everything that in in common with everyone.

The National Rifle Association is a big culprit here, slamming video games, movies, the media, music videos and practically everything else that the vast majority see as normal, while saying, "since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?" I don't care personally about guns, but what I do care about are the freedoms our Bill of Rights has given us, whether that's the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech/freedom of expression that the NRA is trying to trample on by using everything *but* guns as scapegoats.

They say "more guns," both in American homes and in schools around the nation (in the form of armed police officers in every school), are the answer. Sure... says the people who would benefit the most from an armed officer in every school and more weapons sold. Adam Lanza's mother taught him how to use a gun, responsibly. He was fucked in the head, finally snapped, and used his mom's guns on her and at a school. While, again, I am against our basic freedoms being taken away (including the right to bear arms), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the guns weren't there, his plan would've been hindered. But it's ridiculous to take that right away from billions of Americans just because of one seriously fucked up mental case.

I say, study these medications.

NRA: http://home.nra.org/#

Many firearm manufacturers don't bother to make CA compliant products, or only make some subset of their product line compliant. They give up 10% of their potential market and forego 100% of the CA regulatory burden.

Requiring micro-stamps will create a mess for gun owners and gunsmiths, who will then be obligated to deal with the stamps (via some additional federal registration process, doubtless) when parts are replaced (barrels, revolver cylinders, etc.) during repairs, modifications or otherwise. This will naturally make gun ownership more difficult, expensive and create new legal jackpots for everyone involved. Thus, the real intent of these laws is achieved; discouraging law-abiding shooters.

Oppose this nonsense here. Today, gun control is a political third rail among the free states of the US because of gun rights organizations and their millions of dues paying voters. Support them or keep quiet when you're locked up because some apparatchik lost your micro-stamp paperwork.

Name: Philboyd Studge

Organization: NRA ( National Rifle Association)

URL: N.R.A.

UserId: Uzziowner

Password: SportsmanNumber1

Notes: Buy more ammo for protection from Communists, Russkies, and DemocRATS.

I hope this helps stops the pinko commie DemocRATS.

Yours In War
Kilgore Trout

To support you local NRA! ;-)

there's always going to be a need for another org. to be there to defend that pesky 2nd amendment they wish would just go away.

There. Fixed that for you.

There's no "Crazy Fucker" Association that can do the same thing and prevent him from getting in front of a camera.

Sure there is.

We are pleased to have your support. Please remember to vote straight ticket Republican in your next, and all future, elections.

Yeah, it's not as though the 2nd Amendment has an entire lobby dedicated to fighting for it, or anything.

since the EFF was ineffective, support the NRA.

New Keyword. Stop it, you guys. You're just confusing search engines even more. The next guy that Googles Slashdot is going to get a Guns and Ammo centerfold of a buxom blonde with an M-16.

Oh, please. I'm either lying or ignorant? I've been to the UK (London and surrounding areas in particular) quite a few times, and there's cameras all over the damn place. Not to mention signs warning you that you're under surveillance. Hell, you even fingerprint schoolkids. Mind you, America is headed that way at the moment, but as long as some of us support certain groups that protect our essential liberties, "this too shall pass".

As for your off-the-cuff, asinine comment about guns, we don't let everyone have a gun. For example, most convicted, serious criminals don't carry guns unless they are keen on going back to the pen. Felons, that is. And pretty much anything short of causing someone (unwarranted) physical harm, serious monetary loss, or repeatedly doing something very stupid is not a felony. But let me tell you something - I would rather have the freedom to defend myself, along with the very real possibility that I might have to do so, than the illusion of safety that you Brits have. Guns are a great social equilizer (the overthrowing-the-government bit is just a particularly sweet perk for me). I don't mind holding my own and risking my own life when it's just me (matter of fact, I love a good bar brawl), but when it comes to the safety of my wife, pets, and family, I'd rather have the assurance that a loaded .45 brings to the table. Or, lemme guess, you don't have any violent crime in the UK, do you?

As for convincing one another, I don't have to convince you of anything, nor do I really even give a shit whether you carry a gun or not. I don't give a flying fuck whether anyone other than myself, my family, and my friends carries a gun, as long as they don't infringe on my right to carry one. I noticed you said you consider an unarmed populace a benefit. Good, I hope you enjoy the shit out of living in the UK. As long as you keep it over there, and don't expect me to give a rat's ass what kind of resolutions the bitch-ass U.N. passes, I think we can get along just fine.

Having said that, I didn't see the rest of the thread because I was reading through at a relatively high threshold. I just couldn't bite my tongue when I see blatantly false crap posted. And I gotta love your bit about having been through all the arguments over firearms. What a cheapshit way to try to get the last word - "nope!heard it all before! not listening! got my fingers in my ears...nyah-nyah!".

• "You read that rightthe Christian Coalition has joined everyone from Google to MoveOn to the Gun Owners of America in the fight for Internet freedom."

Why does the EFF not defend your Second Amendment rights? Because that's not part of what they do, AND it's already taken care of! There already is a large and very powerful organization known as the NRA. If you're having problems with your Second Amendment rights, call them, they'll be happy to help you with those. If you're having problems with other civil rights, call the ACLU. They'll help you with those problems. If you're hungry, call your local pizza place. They'll help you out in that case. What's wrong with not being everything to everyone, when it's already taken care of by a -more- specialized organization very competent to deal with that issue?

By the way, what is this about the ACLU being the "mouthpiece for the ultraleft"? The ACLU defends all comers whose civil rights have been violated. Granted, minorities' rights tend to be violated more frequently, whether that be gays, blacks, or those with non-mainstream political philosophies. This means that the ACLU will most often be defending those on the fringes-that's not out of their choice, it's because those are the people who will the most frequently need the defending. But the ACLU will defend (and has defended) the right of people to hold Bible studies in public parks at the same time they fight religious language in the Pledge of Allegiance. No contradiction here-the government must stay neutral on religious matters, neither cheerleading nor getting in the way for any particular religion or religion in general. Same for any other matters-one imagines if the government forced Rush Limbaugh off the air tomorrow, the ACLU would scream the first and the loudest, same as if it were Howard Stern. (What Limbaugh's feelings would be on that are another matter entirely.) Howard Stern's simply more likely to see it happen to him.

All of them?

National Rifle Association

The Second Amendment looks after the First

I think there should be a division between this "guns-as-sport" you people keep mentioning (shooting ranges, etc.), and discussions about guns overall.

I'm all for a sport/entertainment like shooting clay pigeons or targets, and can see enormous value (social, psychological, etc) in it, but it should be regulated in such a way that the system is not abused by criminals and people with other intents, as it seems to be the case in the US.

I'm against guns as a safety measure, and what I heard about the NRA http://www.nra.org/, they not only condone the use of guns as a safety measure, they encourage it, and things like carrying a concealed gun which definitely has nothing to do with shooting clay pigeons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Associ ation and the official

It's interesting to see that this is a hot issue, and pops up frequently along discussions that have to do with politics and right-wing Christians, such as this.

Damn that Jewey bastard for trying to combat (hah!) gun violence that causes the death of over 30,000 people a year! Fortunately, gun totin' whackos have a pretty good bead on our elected officials, otherwise some sane legislation that both protects people's right to own weapons (you know, as part of a well-regulated militia) and keeps guns out of the hands of dealers that sell semi-automatic weapons out of the back of their truck to anyone may have been passed at some point.

I suggest you find out what other Horrible Acts he has perpretrated! Truly, he is the worst of the worst.

"We've only just begun and we're pleased to say that we're getting 90 percent reliability when scanning users," said Sebastian.

90% is piss poor. 90% isn't good enough for those who depend on their guns. If one round out of every 10 in a magazine jammed, one would label that gun a piece of junk and go out and buy something of better quality.

Additionally, NJ's law would seem to violate the 2nd amendment. Before the anti-gun loonies state that NJ is in the right, and that you can buy another gun if you like it:

1.) No you can't. Read their screwed up law.
2.) If you think the second amendment doesn't guarantee individual gun rights, think again.

"We're not taking away your free speech. You're free to say anything you want, as long as it's not something we don't want you to say."

Lautenberg said New Jersey's legislative effort to introduce smart gun technology should be a national model for the country"."

It's not the government's right to screw with our constitutional rights.

Once upon a time, the NRA received dues from me, it took only one major election cycle to notice that they are merely shills for the Republican and Democrat parties. Libertarians are, how can I put this politely..., a freaking thorn in their side. What's the one thing that would bankrupt the NRA? Actual enforcement of the Bill of Rights! Then the NRA would have to go back to being a marksmanship club. Boo Hoo!

So I went looking for a more focused rights-oriented, rather than money oriented, organization and found Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership who didn't care a bit about my Jewishness. Their _Grandpa Jack_ book series is excellent.

And, of course, money to Debian for the best Linux distribution on earth.

Bob-

They need a list of people to round up as soon as habeus corpus gets suspended during the next national security emergency.

"news.com.au are reporting an Australian court has been told that two men dressed armed with weapons shot and killed a man during a Sydney home invasion in 2002. Let the blaming begin......"

And why would they, when one of the largest political organizations does it on their own? The NRA has vastly more money than the ACLU does...wtf would you waste money duplicating efforts rather than taking up cases that no one else will?

I've always assumed that's for the same reason that I don't surf even though I'm from Hawai'i... there's no shortage of people working on that one.

You seem to forget that America is home to many people of a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities, but all of our slopes are decidedly slippery. Just ask these guys , for one.

Howdy. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a lifetime member of the NRA. Nice to meet you. Come here often?

The ACLU doesn't atually "shun" the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU takes a neutral stance on the 2nd Amendment and has argued 2nd Amendment cases many times. The ACLU spends the majority of its time protecting my "other" rights. I'm alright with that. I look towards the National Rifle Association and the Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance to protect my 2nd Amendment interests. In fact I was doing exactly this on this very day. Today the Kansas House of Representatives had a proponent's hearing on HB 2798. Kansas is one of 6 states (5 once Missouri's Supreme Court upholds their new CCW law) that does not issue licenses for the concealed carrying of weapons. 6 of 50. You can track the progress of the bill on the Kansas Legislature's website. I spent last night and this morning expressing my support for this proposed bill to my district's house representative and state senator. In short I'm only confused on days that end in "y" but not about the ACLU and the protection of my rights. :-)

And just in case you really want to prtect yourself if the shit hits the fan, join the NRA

Actually I think Michael Moore would be completely in favor of what is going on. After, the 'evil' ICANN who are not the members of any government are being shoved aside by third world dictators under the flag of the UN.
From everything I've seen of his work he would heartily approve (as long as the US is explicitly excluded from any influence in this council of course) After all, once the Internet is under the control of the UN we can finally get rid of all those nasty racist white-man websites that were previously protected under the racist imperialistic document
put together by evil white men.

on the nra front page there's a link to "order your ruger/nra pistol" - it's down along the left side.

Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation.

Or they just disagree with you; perhaps due to possessing a different idea of what is reasonable. It's possible that you are not the definitive authority on what qualifies as reasonable.

The gun lobbyists have repeatedly opposed legislation like mandatory background checks, even with short waiting periods, and any type of background checks and waiting periods whatsoever for sales at gun shows

Without defining "the gun lobbyists", this is hard to dispute. But the NRA does support background checks, unless they're broken. Claiming they don't support background checks because they find faults (real ones, that the GAO agrees with) is like saying most slashdot users don't support electronic voting. Just because many oppose the silly, insecure, broken methods most commonly used (Diebold), doesn't mean they also oppose a well-implemented, secure version.

I think a reasonable debate about this issue is healthy and should be encouraged.

Uh-oh, there's that word again. Is it OK if we have a discussion using our own ideas of what is reasonable, since I'm pretty sure we disagree on what that word means?

That's why I also oppose Symantec's apparent attempt to censor one side of this debate. But let's not turn this into an endorsement of NRA positions or blaming everything on the left.

You're posting on Slashdot, remember? There is no danger of this happening.

As with most other issues affecting life in a democratic republic, things are much more complicated than can be expressed with witty one line slogans or blanket condemnations.

Oh, you mean like "Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation." Yeah, I agree. Except that blanket condemnation really isn't all that witty.

And call them by what they really are:

COMBAT SIMULATORS

Baseball is a game,
Quake, Unreal, and Ghost Recon are all combat simulators.
Grand Theft Auto = White Trash Simulator?
Or a Low Life Simulator?

Parents still need to be parents,
last time I checked - Grand Theft Auto didn't include real firearms in the retail box !!!

Gun Control is Hitting Your Target

What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA and ABATE-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here and here) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.

What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA and ABATE-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here and here) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.

What the community needs is to organize along the lines of the take no prisoners and scorched earth policies of the NRA and ABATE-IL. The NRA, with a few million committed members has managed to hold onto the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. ABATE of Illinois, with only a handful of members has maintained a no-helmet law for the state. Whether you agree with these grass-roots organizations or not, they are extremely effective. Both have legislative alerts (here and here) and the NRA has a "contact your lawmaker" page. Does anyone know of similar organization(s) that fight for sanity for file sharing ($150,000 per song is not sane)? Am not sure if the Electronic Freedom Foundation is focused enough. I would like to join and support an effective organization. Alternatively, I would be happy to join with others to found such an organization. Instead of whimpering and complaining, it is time that we joined (or formed) a strong counterbalance to the RIAA. It is, in fact, time to do something both with our time and money. Until we do, the RIAA or the MPAA will simply do what they want.

Handguns are made for killing people. All opinions aside, that's a basic fact. Handguns are a tool designed for killing, and specifically for killing people. Arguing that they have some other practical use is just silly.

Before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance on this subject, you might wish to visit this site and enlighten yourself. At the very least, you might consider at least not automatically taking what these maroons say as gospel. This is also highly-recommended reading.

It's just a suggestion...take it or leave it, but I'd rather not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. It's too much like shooting fish in a barrel...it quickly gets boring.

NRA folks are constitutionally (pun intended) UNABLE to quote the whole of the Second Amendment(see their own masthead , here ) because it it directly refers to regulation.

The whole of the Second Amendment reads thus:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

>"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.

and apparently "A well regulated militia" sure has come to mean "a bunch of drunken rednecks shooting deer crossing signs with automatic assault rifles loaded with bullets designed to pierce body armor" over the years.

oh, please.

Yea right. Call me a troll, but this guy knew what he was doing was illegal. Don't give me that "it was just a search engine!" argument. I'm sure before the legal stuff began to fly there was lots of sniggering and winking along with, "Oh gosh we didn't know people were using it to find files they didn't have rights to! (wink wink nudge nudge)."

Oh, and the irony that now P2P file sharing proponents are now are using the same defense used by the NRA and gun salesmen. Imagine some guy with a gun shop selling semi-automatics getting sued for selling guns to criminals. "Hey!" he says, "I just sell them. I can't make people not use them for crimes. Is it a crime to sell them?"

Am I supporting the RIAA? Nope. Just saying this guy was dancing around in front of the bull in red pants. Did the RIAA overreact? Probably. Do smart people dance in front of bulls while wearing red pants? No.

>Look, I'm a lot more likely to accept claims made by people with PhDs and 60 years of experience in this stuff than random slashdotters as far as how much food we have for people, BUUUT, that being said, I was only posting quotes from the show.

Granted. Regardless of what alphabet soup you have trailing your name, its hard to fully quantify how much food is made worldwide, its not like everyone who makes food reports to a central authority or anything. I've heard estimates both ways.

Yeah, Greenepeace is probably a little overzealous. I'm trying to remember where it was that I heard someone talking about the wisdom that his father had passed on to him, that it's necessary to have extremists to some extent on both sides to help keep the majority of the population in check... with only arch-conservative or only ultra-liberal factins who speak out (which is really what the majority of the world doesn't do, and that is speak out) the people wouldn't have a difference of opinion to choose from. Anti-government and anti-capitalist forces are necessary, I think anyway, to continually challenge existing systems so they don't become decadent.

>Greepeace is a corporation themselves, and they suck, in too many ways to describe. I think the biggest one is, though, that they LIE, and not just a little, a LOT and OFTEN.

Greenpeace is not for profit organization, which isn't to say that they don't have an agenda (they do) or that they always tell the truth (they don't) but they don't really have a product to sell. They're an activist group like the ACLU on the libertarian side politically or the Christian Coalition on the authoritarian side. As for the lying, not to use the excuse that "everyone does it" but the truth is everyone in politics and economics does do it, intentionally or unintentionally, since they have an adgenda and varying degrees of ethics in achieving said adgenda. I don't think its right to hold them to a higher standard than, oh, another few entities.

I know they're just quotes, but I think it was Orwell who said something about blind reproduction of quotes, stastics, and figures lets others do the thinking for you. Food for thought ^_^.

All sorts of places have great kids pages: You could try the NRA or the CIA, for instance.

More seriously, you could try somethings like HowStuffWorks.com or project-oriented sites like PARTS or FIRST (yes, I have a robotics bias) that could get them involved in activities beyond just websurfing.

I'll betcha places like Smithsonian, National Geo, NPR, PBS or other traditional educational media organizations are good places to look as well. I swear BBC has a kid's oriented news page. It's just too bad 2600 doesn't have a kid's page...