Slashdot Mirror


Rocket Hobbyists Prevail Over Feds In Court Case

Ellis D. Tripp writes "DC District Court judge Reggie Walton has finally ruled in the 9-year old court case pitting the model rocketry community against the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ruling is a 'slam dunk' for the rocketry community, stating that the BATFE ignored scientific evidence and overstepped its bounds by classifying ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) as an 'explosive.' Effective immediately, the BATFE has no legal jurisdiction over hobby rocket motors, and a federal Low Explosives User's Permit will no longer be needed in order to purchase APCP motors. The full text of the Judge's decision is reproduced at the link."

546 comments

  1. No Sausage Needed by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

    This next season of Mythbusters is gonna be AWESOME!!

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  2. Congrats! by nightfire-unique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For most of my adult life it felt like we were constantly taking steps backward. It's nice to see freedom win over "safety," for a change. May this be the first of many rulings that empower people and encourage the academic spirit.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You are the sole reason the terrorists have already won! Who will weep on the day a "hobby" rocket topples a skyscraper in New York?

    2. Re:Congrats! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt someone will hijack the space shuttle to take out the Empire State building. If someone did build an extra-large rocket, the government will be harassing them anyway.

    3. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, you would be the reason for terrorist attacks... If no one can work on their hobbies (chemistry sets, rocketry, electronics, sound waves), then there will be very little progress made by the backyard / garage inventors who have provided many improvements during the past in many areas of scientific research.

      You DO NOT have to be a scientist to love science and want to work with different topics that the government would love to restrict today.

      Keep on trying to restrict what we can and can't do, and eventually the terrorist win... America won't have ANY freedoms left.

      Dumbass!!!!

    4. Re:Congrats! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but if only it hadn't taken so long. For something that seems like such an obvious ruling (and the judge said so as well), it sure took a long time. Justice that takes 9 years can hardly be called justice.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Congrats! by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Justice that takes 9 years can hardly be called justice.

      ... just ice?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Except the "We Know Best"-ocrats are in charge now. The court just ruled that Congress never gave the BATFE power to regulate that chemical.

      So expect a rider in one of the "economic stimulus" bills to be snuck in to given them that authority.

      Can't be allowing people the chance to hurt themselves, can we?

    7. Re:Congrats! by 32771 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I had a few glasses of wine, but let me remind you that we are a long way off from freedom over safety, unless we indulge in the academic spirit our ancestors had so much off:

      http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/Fluorine/Fluorine.html

      Check out this part at the end,

      "My own experience with fluorine has been solely with its compounds. In particular, natural calcium fluoride crystals (fluorite or fluorspar). Also hydrofluoric acid, during a highly ill-advised "experiment" conducted in the clean room of a semiconductor manufacturer unwise enough to employ me.... "

      Pretty contermporary I must say.

      So are you going to scold me when I wonder which rocketry amateur is ever going to use Flourine as a part of rocket fuel?

      Well maybe there is a middle ground somewhere we all can enjoy in relative safety, like how about ozone as an oxidizer?

      Still pretty explosive I would say.

      I for one am glad for all of us just having ammonium perchlorate for now. I suppose that is why you put safety in apostrophes. Maybe you should have put freedom in apostrophes instead?

      --
      Je me souviens.
    8. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government has already removed your link.

    9. Re:Congrats! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      One of many of those steps forward, among the hundreds of steps backward between each. Sorry, I'm a pessimist in this regard. The bad guys have more resources, and will keep pushing their agenda until it sticks.

    10. Re:Congrats! by JesseL · · Score: 1

      I was going to moderate your reply, but there is no option is the moderation box for "rambling and incoherent".

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    11. Re:Congrats! by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      It was just a link to "Astronaut Farmer" and common decency took the link away. No, I kid, I kid. It's far worse than that. It was a Andy Griffith space Sanford and Son show.

      http://web.archive.org/web/20080108041600/http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salvage1.html

    12. Re:Congrats! by gornzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, what happened to the old slashdot where you could moderate someone with a +1 for "Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones... "

    13. Re:Congrats! by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      Sounds like another late '70s space comedy show.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    14. Re:Congrats! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      I think your impression is mostly correct.

      What you might carry away from it might be a little bit of nostalgia for all those intrepid explorers of the past.

      It might also show you that there are some experiments where we should all be glad that safety comes before freedom.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    15. Re:Congrats! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Here's the Wikipedia link to Salvage One TV show. I didn't think the fan site would've gotten slashdotted.

    16. Re:Congrats! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Well at 30+ I suppose I'm getting old.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/17/age-mental-health

      Besides, I'm sure if those young whippersnappers hadn't hurried the old guy along like that he could have fit a decent story between the ferry to Shelbyville and big yellow onions.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    17. Re:Congrats! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Salvage One was an excellent TV show about American ingenuity. Why should the government have a monopoly on space?

    18. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And, this, Kids, is why you should never, ever, drink and post.

    19. Re:Congrats! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      When you put it like that, it sounds dumb. But we're not talking about toppling skyscrapers, we're talking about hobby rockets of a similar design to those that Hamas periodically fires into Israel. And which, I might add, are extremely useless as weapons: only a dozen or so people have been killed in the last 10 years by this kind of rocket.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    20. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After nine years, more like just water. Then again, it's probably evaporated by now. So just air?

      Hm. Justair. I think I used to know somebody with that name...

    21. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We do not have a justice system, just a legal system. Do not confuse our current legal system with anything having to do with justice.

    22. Re:Congrats! by MrNaz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "We know best"-ocrats?

      Dude, fuck you. The last 8 years have been nothing but a torrent of "We Know Best" ass fucks from Republicans determined to make the government enormously more powerful while claiming that they know best in regards to national security.

      Just to be clear on this matter: FUCK YOU.

      --
      I hate printers.
    23. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUST US.

    24. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On what basis are you assuming he's Republican? He's just making an observation. You're absolutely right that Bush and his gang did their best to stretch the limits of government power, but he's also correct in saying that Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of their ilk will be doing the same damn thing. And don't forget a Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term and did exactly squat to mitigate his abuses.

      Lust for power isn't limited to only Democrats or only Republicans.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    25. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From my perspective there's still no justice in this case. If you or I overstep the bounds of what's legal, we go to jail and/or get fined. When a government agency oversteps their bounds, they just get told, "don't do that again". There needs to be some serious negative reinforcement there to prevent creative interpretations or sheer disregard of the law by those in power.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    26. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      terrorists' care about terror not efficient. as long as the jews have to run and hide on the hour every hour, there job is done. put the hobbyists away, for there own good.

    27. Re:Congrats! by Chih · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      At least the current administration is (hopefully) going to lean towards scientific progress instead of away. Chemistry kits and model rockets shouldn't be looked at as threats to security.

      --
      For best results, avoid doing stupid things.
    28. Re:Congrats! by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On what basis are you assuming he's Republican?

      Because everybody who questions Obama must be painted as a neo-con who agreed with every single stupid policy of GWB. That way can dismiss them without having to think about whether or not they are making valid points.

      Love Obama or hate him he's using some of the exact same political tactics that most of his fans deplored when it was Bush using them. Claiming that he'll "halve the national deficit in four years" comes to mind. Yeah, he might be able to pull that off, but it really isn't that impressive when half of the current national deficit is still greater than the biggest deficits GWB managed to saddle us with. Nor is claiming that he's "removing politics from science" (the stem cell decision) -- hmm, when have Federal funds of any sort ever come without politics?

      And don't forget a Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term and did exactly squat to mitigate his abuses.

      It's worse than not mitigating them. They actively aided and abetted some of them. Obama had a hand in it too.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    29. Re:Congrats! by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually they weren't even told not to do it again. The rule could be recreated provided the BATFE can comply with administrative procedures for classifying APCP as an explosive. As others have noted, that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive.

      I guess my point is when citizens break BATFE rules, they go to prison, get fined or get probation(or all 3). When the BATFE violates it's own rules, they're simply told "No." and given another shot to do it the way they were supposed to.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    30. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool!

    31. Re:Congrats! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      As others have noted, that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive

      APCP is, oh, about as dangerous as marijuana.

      Gee, that helps, huh.

    32. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. We're already suffering enough from kids not developing an interest in science without the government doing more to inhibit it.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    33. Re:Congrats! by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose Marijuana does pose a serious risk of starting fires. It is also a leading cause of obesity among stoners.

      Very dangerous indeed.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    34. Re:Congrats! by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems to me that the media are the real terrorists, then. Whenever I hear hoopla on the news about "Hamas shooting rockets at Israel," I'm thinking something more like the V2, not a dinky model rocket!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    35. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only took 50 days. He had to wait out the previous administration first.

    36. Re:Congrats! by terrymr · · Score: 1

      The ATF were given a chance to argue the science, their answer went something like "we're right and you're wrong, so there" - the judge didn't go for it.

      The task set for them was very simple, establish standard burn rates for materials that a) just burn b) deflagrate c) explode and compare APCP to those rates. When their own tests determined that APCP burned slower than paper they decided just declare that paper wasn't an explosive and APCP was. They also exaggerated the burn rate of APCP massively by using obviously incorrect measurements.

      Experts for the hobbyists produced a wealth of data that contradicted ATF's claims and ATF just basically said that it didn't matter because they were right.

      I don't see them issuing new regulations as the science is against them.

    37. Re:Congrats! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making a mistake: With or without a degree, with or without a grant, anyone practicing science is a scientist.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    38. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be just in time, but it is just.

    39. Re:Congrats! by mpe · · Score: 1

      From my perspective there's still no justice in this case. If you or I overstep the bounds of what's legal, we go to jail and/or get fined.

      Often sanctions are applied to an individual at the time their are accused. e.g. bail conditions or even being held in custody before/during a trial. Similar issues also apply to "corporate people" breaking the law.

      When a government agency oversteps their bounds,

      Or an individual such as a police officer

      they just get told, "don't do that again". There needs to be some serious negative reinforcement there to prevent creative interpretations or sheer disregard of the law by those in power.

      If anything more serious negative consequences since these are by definition "high" crimes.

    40. Re:Congrats! by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

      Please learn to use apostrophes, capital letters and the difference between "there" and "their" (and probably "they're" as well).

      --
      Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    41. Re:Congrats! by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is so important. There's no penalties for passing unconstitutional laws, violating oaths of office, or overstepping legal authority. It kinds defeats the purpose of having limitations on power, if there is no penalty for violating those limitations.

    42. Re:Congrats! by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Let me just quote from the HF MSDS:
      "Rubber gloves, face mask or safety glasses, apron, good ventilation. Do not work without calcium gluconate gel available to treat burns. Do not assume that gloves provide an impenetrable barrier to the acid. DO NOT WORK ALONE! Ensure that those working in the same laboratory are aware of how to treat hydrofluoric acid burns in an emergency."
      -- http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/HY/hydrofluoric_acid.html

      'amateur' and 'hydrofluoric acid' do not go well together.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    43. Re:Congrats! by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      Eh? Did you just call the shuttle a "hobby rocket"?

    44. Re:Congrats! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Wait until the day after someone blows up one of these, or it crashes into a school.
      If a child dies, this will go 180 degrees and be banned in a week.

      --
      -Styopa
    45. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be too good with math, moron. This suit was filed over actions taken by the CLINTON ADMINSTRATION!! And since the biggest boosters for new legislation to limit model rocketry have been Democrats (Schumer and Lautenberg, to name two), you seem to be a little short on actual facts, too.

      http://www.nar.org/2003/07/nar_refutes_inaccurate_claims.php

      To recap, you are a foul-mouthed little Nazi who can't read or add simple integers. Congrats! You a PERFECT Democrat.

    46. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've ordered potassium percolate and fine aluminum powder online in the past in various quantities. I received two different letters from the US Justice Department stamped with the then current Attorney General's signature reminding me that building explosives was a violation of federal law. Yes, big brother is watching.

    47. Re:Congrats! by IICV · · Score: 1

      Not that I really think they're necessarily doing a good job now, but the Democrats definitely did not have control of the Senate in 2006. If you look at the composition of the Senate, you'll see that the Democrats controlled 49 seats and the Republicans also controlled 49 seats; the last two were the independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Joe Lieberman, despite being registered as an "Independent Democrat", sides quite frequently with the Republicans; indeed, he gave a speech supporting John McCain for president in 2008.

      So that's 49 Republican votes, 49 Democrat, 1 independent who tends to vote Democrat and 1 independent who tends to vote Republican. The Republicans are generally better at getting all their people to vote the same way, which means they basically win ties like this. The Democrats definitely didn't have control of the Senate, and if you don't control the Senate, you don't control Congress.

    48. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that would be very difficult since APCP isn't really explosive.

      There's not a single doctor, biologist, or chemist who would say Marijuana is a "narcotic," but check out what the government says.

      If Illinois can define "planet" to include whatever they want, what makes you think the government can't define "explosive" to mean whatever they want? Silly Putty is an explosive, if saying so will keep BATFE employees' jobs safe.

    49. Re:Congrats! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Won't someone PLEASE think about the children!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    50. Re:Congrats! by stoobers · · Score: 1

      The rockets don't have to be as big as the V2 bec. the rockets don't have to fly as far (across the english channel.)

      Also, the Germans were famous for their "big guns". They wasted a lot of resources on their cannons/rockets, when they should have been developing low-cost and easily-assembled battle rifles (Like the AK-47).

      Hamas is making a really fantastic tactical move by devoting resources to these rockets. The rockets are up to 6 feet long and made of sheet metal. Even if the rockets don't explode, they can total a car or traumatize an entire generation.

      I don't endorse such evil, but the tactics are brilliant.

    51. Re:Congrats! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      To be fair -- there *are* penalties for those things: you lose your job, you may get convicted of perjury, or even impeached.
      The problem is that the American justice system is designed to first make a guilty/not guilty decision, then assign sentencing based on the quality or type of guilt, which is generally a good thing. People who are guilty of killing someone, but did it by mistake, shouldn't be sentenced the way that someone who killed with purpose and planning.
      But governments and government agencies aren't making these sorts of decisions out of malice. They're making them out of a wish to keep people safe (and, at a finer-grained level, because individuals will always make decisions that'll keep their jobs, and making a decision to grant people the freedom to keep working with model rockets, while good for the community as a whole, could be very bad for the individual who made that decision if someone ever does something bad with a model rocket, so the person will naturally choose the most conservative course.)

      As such, the government agencies are judged lightly, as everyone understands that they were making those decisions based on good intentions, however lousy the result.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    52. Re:Congrats! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just me, but I'm more likely to be pissed off rather than traumatized if the stupid rockets are only powerful enough to total a car (which really doesn't take much if you go at it from the top, as a device on a ballistic trajectory would tend to do). Now, if they did manage to explode reliably, that might be traumatizing.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    53. Re:Congrats! by dwye · · Score: 1

      I guess my point is when citizens break BATFE rules, they go to prison, get fined or get probation(or all 3).

      Or the FBI steps in, and arranges to exaggerate the natural level of paranoia of the besieged to the point that mass suicide seems the best alternative.

    54. Re:Congrats! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be taking my ramblings way too serious. Let me tell you that I consider lateralscience.co.uk to be arm chair chemistry for entertainment purposes only. The freedom over safety statement the original poster came up with wasn't meant to mean total lack of safety and disregard of human life/health. I just couldn't help it though, and had to make fun of it.

      All that being said, fluorine has at least been considered as an oxidizer.

      http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/props/floosene.htm

      I'm really curious whether people actually test fired it.
       

      --
      Je me souviens.
    55. Re:Congrats! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      You are making a mistake: With or without a degree, with or without a grant, anyone practicing science is a scientist.

      Ha ha, no.

      So am I a mechanic if I work on my car engine?

      Am I a machinist if I drill a hole in a piece of metal?

      Am I an astronomer if I use a telescope?

      No. I am an amateur at all of those activities unless I am certified in the field by getting a degree, passing a test, or having the requisite experience to yield acceptance by experts in the field.

    56. Re:Congrats! by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term

      I think you meant to say "Democrat slight majority", since they only had 49% of the Senate and 53% of the House.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

      The 53% majority wasn't enough to stop the documented record number of filibusters by the Republican minority, effectively stopping the Democrats from doing anything they wanted.
      http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm

    57. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress doesn't do a full floor debate for everything. Each body has groups of subject matter experts (or, at least, what passes for SMEs)
      These groups are very powerful within their areas and control of these groups rests with the party that has a majority (however slight)
      in the given body. If a particular party doesn't like a bill, they don't have to have the votes on the floor, they only have to have
      the votes in committee.

      Now that you've been made aware of reality, would you like to change your excuse?

    58. Re:Congrats! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The 53% majority wasn't enough to stop the documented record number of filibusters by the Republican minority

      The majority in the House wouldn't have had anything to do with a filibuster in the Senate. It still doesn't change the fact that Congress didn't even put up the appearance of trying to rein Bush in.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    59. Re:Congrats! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      There is. Model rockets attract kids to science. The government fckd that up and now there are fewer future scientists. Fewer scientists means a weaker country. A weaker country means less global power for the country. Less global power for the country means less global power for the people in the government.

      If that doesn't work for you here is another. In the U.S you are a member of the government. So technically that ouch your feeling is negative reinforcement. Because you didn't take an active enough roll in government and policy your to blame.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    60. Re:Congrats! by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      The majority in the House wouldn't have had anything to do with a filibuster in the Senate.

      Good catch, except that, as I pointed out, there wasn't even a majority in the Senate and there was still that RECORD number of filibusters, including:

      • Fair Minimum Wage Act
      • Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq motion to proceed
      • Sense of Congress on Iraq motion to proceed (twice)
      • Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
      • Intelligence Authorization Act
      • Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation
      • Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (twice)
      • Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (thrice)
      • Senate Expression of "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
      • CLEAN Energy Act of 2007
      • Employee Free Choice Act of 2007
      • National Defense Authorization FY08 (thrice)
      • District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007
      • Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007
      • Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008
      • Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007
      • Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (twice)
      • Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008

      Many of these were, in fact, trying to reverse course.

      Amazing how you get nothing done when you're playing an evenly-matched game of tug-of-war.

    61. Re:Congrats! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I thought the Dems only had one extra vote in the house and no extra's in the Senate until the 08 pres elections.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    62. Re:Congrats! by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0

      Only if a jury says so.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    63. Re:Congrats! by makomk · · Score: 1

      Hamas is making a really fantastic tactical move by devoting resources to these rockets. The rockets are up to 6 feet long and made of sheet metal. Even if the rockets don't explode, they can total a car or traumatize an entire generation.

      Yeah, and causing fear's about the limit of their usefulness. I think Israel achieves much the same aims with the far more prosaic, but effective, methods of constant overflights of the Palestinian territories by military aircraft, combined with occasional bombings and "targeted assassinations" (which almost invariably kill civilian passers-by) from them. The rockets are probably cheaper, though...

      For general terrorism, home-made bombs are probably easier, more practical, and far more effective. You don't get them in the Israel-Palestinian conflict anymore, since there's no way to deliver them now the borders are locked down. (Contrary to popular Israeli belief, Israel's Arab citizens aren't a fifth column loyal only to the Palestinian terrorist movement.)

    64. Re:Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the basis that BATF are gym teachers with guns, authoritative asses, and that this was clearly an attack of hobby/nerds/science and also a tax on the middle class....which the Republicans love to complain about taxes...unless it's on the poor or middle classers!!

  3. To the moon Alice! by Ottair · · Score: 1

    Kapow!

    1. Re:To the moon Alice! by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      That was my very first thought on reading this.

      Bang, zoom, straight to the moon of Omicron Persei eight!

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    2. Re:To the moon Alice! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Takes a real boomer to remember that one!

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:To the moon Alice! by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      I'm only 26 (definitely not a boomer) and I used to watch the Honeymooners on reruns when I was a kid...

  4. These have to be said.... by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hope this verdict doesn't back-fire on them.

    OR

    It seems ATF's case just blew-up in their face.

    --
    I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    1. Re:These have to be said.... by Penguinshit · · Score: 3, Funny

      APCP sales just skyrocketed!

    2. Re:These have to be said.... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You forgot the: A shave and a haircut 2 bits!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  5. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The ATF announced that they are going to refocus on conducting raids on wacky religious leader's compounds... Because they are much better at doing that.

    1. Re:In other news by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1, Troll

      You know, I'm pretty sure if those wacky religious leaders weren't breaking the law, they'd be left alone. It's not as if we have any lack of wacky religions in this country, and until recently most of their leaders weren't merely being left alone - they were mostly running it. So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".

      Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves, pretty soon you'll have a society where it's perfectly acceptable to fly airplanes into buildings. And I kind of have a problem with that.

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is they (the ATF) are a bunch of bungling fools.

    3. Re:In other news by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative
      You know, I'm pretty sure if those wacky religious leaders weren't breaking the law, they'd be left alone.

      You know, the Branch Davidians had a large number of weapons, all LEGAL, and were involved in firearms sales WITH A FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT. The Sheriff knew Koresh personally, and was positive that if ATF had simply asked him to meet with them, he would have shown up. As it was, Koresh was talking to the ATF agents, unarmed, in front of his building when ATF let loose and Koresh was injured.

      So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".

      ATF has nothing to do with "12 year old wives". They are Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their search warrant had nothing to do with "12 year old wives", it was based on an allegation already dealt with by the local sheriff that someone had heard "automatic gunfire" coming from the compound. The Sheriff had investigated and determined that nothing illegal was involved. The ATF didn't tell the court this when they got their warrant. In other words, ATF lied.

      Yes, I think it is quite reasonable to blame ATF for shooting someone who is unarmed and standing on their front porch talking to them. It is also reasonable to blame ATF for trying to entrap someone into building them a cut-off shotgun, and to then shoot that person's wife for no cause. (Ruby Ridge)

      Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves,

      If you call following federal regulations regarding gun ownership and sales to be "a law unto themselves" because you don't like someone, pretty soon we'll have a society run by your wants and fears instead of the one run by rule of law. I'd say that you were "a law unto yourself" in that case. I know which one I prefer.

    4. Re:In other news by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      no, the Waco Siege pretty much proved that lies and unsubstantiated rumors about non-existent full-automatic weapons and underage brides can summon a mass-murderer like Janet Reno with homicidal goons to use incendiaries to start fires and gun down those that try to flee.

    5. Re:In other news by publiclurker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sounds like someone needs to have the clinic up their dosage.

    6. Re:In other news by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was actually an FBI HRT sniper (Lon Horiuchi) that murdered Vicki Weaver, but that doesn't change the fact that the BATFE isn't much more than a group of thugs that feel they're above the law.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      no, the Waco Siege pretty much proved that lies and unsubstantiated rumors about non-existent full-automatic weapons and underage brides can summon a mass-murderer like Janet Reno with homicidal goons to use incendiaries to start fires and gun down those that try to flee.

      Give it up. Yeah; your version of reality is closer to the truth, but sooner or later everyone that saw what happened is going to die off, and only the "official" government version of what happened will be available in the history books.

      Governments write the history books. Ask any kid today about the bonus march massacre, and you'll get blank stares.

    8. Re:In other news by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Koresh was known to jog daily off of the compound alone. Had they really believed he would be un-cooperative and would have to be taken by force, they had every opportunity to quietly arrest him.

      Clearly they did not want a nice quiet legal arrest.

      As for the 12 year old wives, DFS (or whatever they call it in Texas) had investigated and dismissed those allegations months before. And, as you said, that's not ATF's department anyway.

    9. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're going to talk about a federal entity that is a law unto itself, we really should talk about the IRS.

    10. Re:In other news by AJWM · · Score: 1

      It was an FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge.

      It was also the FBI Hostage Roasting, er, Rescue Team that was responsible for the fire at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco.

      The BATF hardly has a monopoly on screwing up big time, whether through malice or incompetence.

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:In other news by little_hate_machine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your smart, you fight the ATF with lawyers. It might take 9 years but they won. If you are dumb you shoot at ATF agents, barricade yourself in armed cult compound and have the nerve to be surprised when Janet Reno shows up and kicks your butt.

    12. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's why I laugh when those idiots think their guns will help them against "their" government.

      When you resort to lawyers, as long as you can find a decent judge, the one with the best case wins.

      It's not just a matter of firepower or $$$$.

    13. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lon "Sovereign Immunity" Horiuchi

      He's still guilty, even if the Fed courts didn't think so. I group him with the likes of O.J. Simpson.

    14. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is they (the ATF) are a bunch of bungling fools that can destroy your life . Fixed it for you.

    15. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask any kid today about the bonus march massacre, and you'll get blank stares.

      ...and you get pretty much the same response from google. Must not have been that important.

    16. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the fact that you are completely correct, wouldn't it only be fair if all churches and homes of religiosity peoples should be dealt with in the same manor.

  6. second amendment rights by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    People obsess over their right to bear arms, and I do no dispute the inherent importance of killing an animal or blowing off the head of your fellow person, but how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. The Iraqis defended themselves with IED. The Israeli's depend on missiles. In both cases an understanding of explosives is important, and in the later case the people must understand rocketry. sure, in some sense the NRA is right. If there is enough cannon fodder around with simple to use guns, of the type they support, battles can be won. This is proved by the weapons smuggled into Mexico from the US and used against the Mexican legal authorities. But really, such things are toys and the people who obsess over them are just playing games. The real action is rocketry, and anyone who infringes on our right to practice rocketry is risking the security of the free state.

    Let the toy soldiers wear their camouflage underwear and play with their guns. Those of us in the know see the key in chemistry, physics, and the willingness to build a gadget that will solve the problem. For better or worse.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:second amendment rights by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. .... The Israeli's depend on missiles

      Take away the Israel's rifles, and I guarantee that the terrorists will stop resorting to bombs. They'll just get the rifles, and make sort work of anyone who gets in their way.

      A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.

    2. Re:second amendment rights by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Funny

      The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:second amendment rights by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Rockets don't end wars. Soldiers storming into a Hezbollah or Hamas stronghold will. Rockets are great for starting wars, but only soldiers on the ground can end them.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:second amendment rights by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Why? A sniper could do a lot of damage before being stopped even if everyone was armed. There haven't been many terror attacks with guns even in countries with extremely low gun ownership.

    5. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The real action is in biology, though it isn't as sexy as a rocket. One person with a petri dish of bugs can cause a lot more damage than a group of rocketeers. Actually, you don't even need the bugs, given the blind panic which will be caused by any white powder.

    6. Re:second amendment rights by MrSteve007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      My good friend is a Stryker brigade C/O. He told me that they deal with and are hit by IED's on a frequent basis, and their APC's take it quite well. He's lost far more guys from snipers. When doing house-to-house searches nothing tips him off more than a quality SKS with a scope.

      Because of snipers using these weapons, they have to essentially 'corral' their strykers, and shoot smoke in the air when they 'mount and dismount.' The main personal hatch is at the rear. Without these tactics, they're picked off one-by-one when exiting. He said they only made that mistake once.

      I'm not downplaying the dangers of IED's but don't disregard the danger of one quality shooter, with a 60 year-old weapon.

    7. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a mad scientist, I wholeheartedly agree!

    8. Re:second amendment rights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One addendum to your point. Back in the day, when the Clinton administration was pushing clipper and crypto regulation, there was not a peep from the NRA. Janet Fricken' Reno said that NIST and the Department of the Treasury were going to be escrow keyholders for all encrypted communications in the US. Seriously. And, IIRC, crypto was already regulated as a munition at the time.

      Just think about that. Janet Reno said that the Department of the Treasury would have its grubby hands all over something that was classified as a munition, and the NRA didn't utter a word, even on general "we hate the Clinton administration" principal. It is undeniably the case that guns are very effective tools; but the 2nd amendment lobby is, I think, rather myopic. They get admirably worked up about specifically gun related stuff; but are oddly passive on relevant ancillary issues. Without encryption, that "well regulated militia" isn't going to last long against the Feds.

    9. Re:second amendment rights by cortesoft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I hate to say this, but it probably depends on how big your rockets are.......

    10. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just like Japan in WWII. Remember when the U.S. stormed Tokyo...

    11. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Read up on Thailand and Israel, where either teachers have guns or armed guards patrol the schools.

      The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    12. Re:second amendment rights by oodaloop · · Score: 0, Troll

      While I support this move and people's rights to model rocketry, what you and your friends can cook up in your basement will never match my M-4. I can snipe from hundreds of yards or clear a house or shoot from the window of my car. I can also carry it slung tight in front with both hands free and carry hundreds of rounds quite easily. Meanwhile DoD has spent millions trying to get missiles to work properly. Good luck trying to get that to work on your own. And when you do, I'll kick down your door and take it from you. Just because it's new doesn't make it better.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    13. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Far more soldiers are lost to snipers (and automatic rifle fire) than IEDs and suicide bombers combined.

      As the older brother of 2 soldiers serving in the Gulf, not only do I find your ignorance offensive, but I wish I was a member here so I could moderate you -1 for "dumbass"

    14. Re:second amendment rights by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      Actually, you don't even need the bugs, given the blind panic which will be caused by any white powder.

      You're so right... Cocaine makes me super-paraniod!

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    15. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who in the hell was talking about Israel? This is the United States and United States law.

    16. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I support this move and people's rights to model rocketry, what you and your friends can cook up in your basement will never match my M-4. I can snipe from hundreds of yards or clear a house or shoot from the window of my car. I can also carry it slung tight in front with both hands free and carry hundreds of rounds quite easily. Meanwhile DoD has spent millions trying to get missiles to work properly. Good luck trying to get that to work on your own. And when you do, I'll kick down your door and take it from you. Just because it's new doesn't make it better.

      Aren't you a great big badass. Why, I bet your dick must be at least sixteen inches long. When flaccid!

    17. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you didn't notice what "NRA" stands for - it stands for National Rifle Association (not, for example, National Rights Association). Why are you surprised that they don't spend their members' money on issues outside their charter? Other organizations like the ACLU defend a broader range of rights (why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    18. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      While I support this move and people's rights to amateur firearms, what you can take down to the firing range will never match my katana. I can sneak up behind you in your house, or decapitate you as you round a corner. I can also carry it in at my side or slung over my back for ease of movement. It never runs out of ammunition. Meanwhile, DoD has spent millions trying to stop soldiers shooting the wrong people. Good luck trying to get that to work on your own. And when you do, I'll sneak into your house and take it from you. Just because it's new doesn't make it better.

    19. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      true, but no doubt a lot of the techie libertarians who are part of the NRA, are also part of the EFF. The NRA is one organization, focused on the 2nd. The EFF is another, focused on the 1st and 4th. No organization can spread themselves thin, defending every single right.

    20. Re:second amendment rights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I heard, the NRA was also interested in pistols, shotguns, submachine guns, and the like, not just rifles. 2nd amendment stuff generally. If the feds say that something is A) a munition and B) not allowed, that would seem to be enough to fall under their purview.

    21. Re:second amendment rights by definate · · Score: 1

      Also, every army around the world emphasises their infantry, even with modern technology it's a political nightmare to just bomb a country willy nilly. Especially when you're uncertain if that country is actually attacking you. People with guns are huge deterrents.

      However in response to "There haven't been many terror attacks with guns" has he really forgotten about the 2008 mumbai terrorist attacks, or all of the "insurgent" attacks, and similar?

      Guns are essential, necessary, and a damn sight more useful than "kill fucking everyone in a huge radius" bombs.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re:second amendment rights by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Rockets don't end wars. Soldiers storming into a Hezbollah or Hamas stronghold will. Rockets are great for starting wars, but only soldiers on the ground can end them.

      Or Rico's Roughnecks, who spent part of their time in the air. MI FTW!

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    23. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One addendum to your point. Back in the day, when the Clinton administration was pushing clipper and crypto regulation, there was not a peep from the NRA. Janet Fricken' Reno said that NIST and the Department of the Treasury were going to be escrow keyholders for all encrypted communications in the US. Seriously. And, IIRC, crypto was already regulated as a munition at the time.

      As opposed to now when all your communications are in the clear, and your landline (assuming you have one) can be tapped with a pair of alligator clips.

    24. Re:second amendment rights by definate · · Score: 1

      Good point. Although I'm sure a lot of people in the NRA, specifically the ones who push these issues, would not have understood the issue properly and might not have been as effective in arguing their point.

      Also, since they stand for guns, they would have looked at encryption being classified as a munition and thought, "well that's not a gun, so we don't care".

      Perhaps the NRA should expand their focus to civil liberties more, as they have huge support, and this could also work in their favour by providing a less "gun crazed" picture of themselves.

      You raised a good point.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re:second amendment rights by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      "Rifle" was the general term for a hunting firearm before the term "firearm" became PC. NRA has since expanded their scope to ALL firearms.

      Crypto isn't a firearm of any type.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    26. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockets don't end wars. Soldiers storming into a Hezbollah or Hamas stronghold will. Rockets are great for starting wars, but only soldiers on the ground can end them.

      Um, World War II called...

    27. Re:second amendment rights by praksys · · Score: 1

      The individual right analysis of the 2nd ammendment usually supposes that the right covers the types of weapons that might be used by an infantryman (there are several accounts of how you get to that, but they all land in much the same place). That's why nukes, tanks, giant lasers, and genetically modified wombats, are not covered, even though they would clearly be useful.

      When GIs start going into combat armed with crypto tools I'm sure the NRA will take more notice.

    28. Re:second amendment rights by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just think about that. Janet Reno said that the Department of the Treasury would have its grubby hands all over something that was classified as a munition, and the NRA didn't utter a word, even on general "we hate the Clinton administration" principal. It is undeniably the case that guns are very effective tools; but the 2nd amendment lobby is, I think, rather myopic. They get admirably worked up about specifically gun related stuff; but are oddly passive on relevant ancillary issues. Without encryption, that "well regulated militia" isn't going to last long against the Feds.

      Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/504/

    29. Re:second amendment rights by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      GIs have been deployed with crypto tools for decades. Radios.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it certainly worked in the examples you gave.

    31. Re:second amendment rights by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 1

      People obsess over their right to bear arms, and I do no dispute the inherent importance of killing an animal or blowing off the head of your fellow person, but how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country. The Iraqis defended themselves with IED. The Israeli's depend on missiles. In both cases an understanding of explosives is important, and in the later case the people must understand rocketry. sure, in some sense the NRA is right. If there is enough cannon fodder around with simple to use guns, of the type they support, battles can be won. This is proved by the weapons smuggled into Mexico from the US and used against the Mexican legal authorities. But really, such things are toys and the people who obsess over them are just playing games. The real action is rocketry, and anyone who infringes on our right to practice rocketry is risking the security of the free state.

      Let the toy soldiers wear their camouflage underwear and play with their guns. Those of us in the know see the key in chemistry, physics, and the willingness to build a gadget that will solve the problem. For better or worse.

      Every war ever won has been won on the backs of the boots on the ground. The assumption you are making is that rifles cannot compete with tanks and plans and missiles.

      That assumption is simply wrong and anyone remotely familiar with tactics and military history would tell you the same. The insurgents in Iraq and the VC in Vietnam surely didn't agree with this line of thinking.

      Q.) If the tanks, planes and rockets defend the country, who defends the fuel these tanks, planes and rockets rely on? The millions of gallons of fuels required to keep these things flying and driving isn't very mobile, yet these instruments are, so who defends, or can attack the fuel farm?

      A.) Men with rifles.

      Q.) Who finds targets for the planes and tanks and rockets? Sure satellites and P3's are good at narrowing them down, but there are good reasons reasons good reconnaissance units and forward observers are incredibly important in a modern military. Who then, could counteract the groups finding the targets for the planes and tanks, and how do these recon units and FO defend themselves while forward of the reach of the planes and tanks?

      A.) Men with rilfes.

      Q.) Who safeguards the maintenance and resupply of the planes and tanks and rockets? They break down, new ones need to be built, spare parts and munitions must be delivered from point A to point B in order for these things to be effective. Who can disrupt this supply line or defend it?

      A.) Men with rifles.

      These are just a few examples where properly executed maneuver warfare can completely break a technologically superior force, all accomplished with 'primitive' rifles. If one consistently masses their primitive rifles on the enemies weakest spots usually defended by men with rifles (fuel depots, logistical supply areas, etc), then the enemy must then use it's planes, tanks and missiles to defend it's supply lines. Who then is fighting in the front? Men with rifles.

      --
      Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    32. Re:second amendment rights by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns."
      And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.

    33. Re:second amendment rights by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      I assume it's because the NRA is taking care of the 2nd amendment. There're better things to focus on, if a huge organization is working hard already.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    34. Re:second amendment rights by lennier · · Score: 1

      "The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns."

      And the solution to citizens with guns who accidentally leave their gun cupboard unlocked, or have a domestic dispute escalate beyond fisticuffs, or lose their job and realise that a firearm gives them more negotiating power, or just snap one day and go on a rampage -

      - is MORE citizens with guns.

      It's a perfect self-correcting system.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    35. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well here, let me use a few more catchphrases for you:

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

      And what is wrong with this?

      2nd amendment + heller decision = The [individual] right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you want to ensure the security of the States and the Union without giving up essential liberty, logic dicates that you educate citizens in the way of the modern warrior and arm them accordingly.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    36. Re:second amendment rights by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean to say, don't underestimate the dangers of the native population using guerrilla tactics against an invading force.

      They get a bonus for knowing the land. They get a bonus for not identifying themselves as combatants. They get a bonus for being able to accurately identify their enemies, who are loud and obvious. They get a bonus for being sneaky.

      The odds are stacked against us, even with all of our equipment and training.

      We can take care of any traditional army in the world without much trouble, barring larger countries like China and Russia. We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country. Russia learned this years ago, as they made the same mistake, and they were better prepared than we were!

      The moral of the story is that snipers, IEDs, and guerrilla warfare, are all coming together in places like Iraq and Afganistan. A single civilian with a rifle or a 150mm shell can take out an entire squad of Marines and still make it home for lunch.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    37. Re:second amendment rights by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.

      The solution to all difficult social problems is pithy oversimplistic maxims that glorify cultural predispositions.

    38. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing an important point about the reason for public gun ownership. A politician from NV was on CNN [in the last two weeks] discussing gun rights. Paraphrasing him, "...public gun ownership is the first and last defense against tyranny. When you look at every tyrannical government in the history of the world, the first thing they did was disarm the population."

      I generally dislike liars and tax evaders (i.e. politicians), but I wanted to hug him because he's the only one I've met in a long time that gets it. Sure, the chances of this country devolving into a tyrannical state are slim, but wouldn't you rather your neighbor just keep his gun and eliminate all possibility?

    39. Re:second amendment rights by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Has history taught you nothing? Kids with simple hunting rifles can defeat an invading superpower.

      All kidding aside you're right in that projects like the $5000 cruise missile are the real potential game changers. Of course the idea of these being built by the wrong people is scary. Ubiquitous knowledge has changed the world.

      Our founding fathers recognized the need for militias and being able to bear arms. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Jefferson

      Well if I wasn't on the watchlist before.. I probably am now!

    40. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People obsess over their right to bear arms, and I do no dispute the inherent importance of killing an animal or blowing off the head of your fellow person, but how long has it been since such primitive weapons as promoted by the NRA has actually really defended a country...

      So you're saying that we should just equip all of our military's infantry with rockets? Yes, that would work extremely well when trying to search a building or any other close combat situation.

      Yes, we should try and minimize close combat but it's just not possible to do unless you're going to indiscriminately kill civilians just to get the enemy combatants.

    41. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Followed by the bombs that actually did the occupation and enforced the surrender.

    42. Re:second amendment rights by JesseL · · Score: 1

      The US did occupy Japan after they surrendered.

      Do you think that we could have just nuked them, let them surrender, FDR could have said "Well all right then. No more funny business", MacArthur could have sailed home, and that would have been the end of it?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    43. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Well, since the other choice was the pithy Brady argument of BANINATE EVERYTHING, I'll err on the side of the constitution.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    44. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country.

      So much so that many countries have a rifle of some form, often an AK47, on their nation's flag.

    45. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      gun cupboard unlocked: Your neighboor shoots the thief running off with your guns. What are neighbors for?

      domestic dispute escalation: guns aren't the problem here

      lose your job, use gun to renegotiate contract: If the business owner also owns guns, this would be a losing proposition

      random rampager: responsible gun owners can solve that too.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    46. Re:second amendment rights by cstec · · Score: 1

      The US did occupy Japan after they surrendered.

      Yup. And then we gave it back.

      Somehow that part always gets left out. ;-/

    47. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals.

      And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    48. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.

      Actually, that was all but explicitly understood until fairly recently when anti-gun crazies took power. People are all too much in a hurry to forget, not so many years ago, your neighbour might have a CANNON in his garage for the local militia. His neighbour, in turn, might have a mortar...so on and so on. Let's not also forget many powerful warships were actually privately held, and in many cases, owned by private merchant consortiums. Please keep in mind, warships were the strategic arm of their day.

      Even as recently after WWII, it was common for soldiers to retire with their weapon - which include BAR machine guns, .45 cal "Tommy Guns", and .45 cal pistols. Additionally, during WWII, civilians living on strategic coast lines were trained and ISSUED artillery to be used against any enemy ships or submarines found off the coast. And let's not forget CAP pilots, flying privately owned aircraft, dropped military issued bombs on U-boats off the coast, inside US waters.

      The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia. Its only been in fairly recent times anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-second amendment nuts have been empowered enough to spit on our forefathers with the ignorant applause of the majority. Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.

      And to clarify, many, many different types of weapons are categorized as "strategic arms" - which even includes air planes. Simple fact is, according to our forefathers and the US Constitution, militias have this right. And up until not so many years ago, this right was implicitly understood.

    49. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me

      This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    50. Re:second amendment rights by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      If FDR was speaking well after being dead, I would think that fewer people would have cared about nuking Japan than the President of the United States was a zombie.

    51. Re:second amendment rights by theodicey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you've answered your question. Why should the ACLU lift a flying finger to protect the 2nd Amendment? The NRA has a laserlike focus on the 2nd, has more resources, and doesn't give a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights.

      They're actually very complementary organizations, but don't tell that to an NRA member, because he'll probably go for the rifle in his pickup's gun rack.

    52. Re:second amendment rights by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      Thank you for pointing that out. I had never actually thought about the two together as I had never heard that crypto was classified as a munition.

    53. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is so full of shit. If they were concerned about protecting Americans rights to own rifles, they would not be sending emails out complaining about United States officials shutting down US gun shops that sell to Mexican terrorists. The true goal of the organization is to set up an issue that distract the scared mice in this country from the fact that the larger war for personal rights is being lost.

      Over the past few weeks, the number of stories in the press regarding the escalating violence in Mexico has dramatically increased. Now, hardly a day goes by when another story describing the atrocities committed by violent drug cartels cannot be found in an American newspaper or on a cable news channel. Gun owners need to pay attention to these stories, because the opponents of our Second Amendment rights are starting to use this situation as a pretext to push their gun ban agenda here in the United States. New Attorney General Eric Holder is the first Administration official to cite Mexican drug cartel killings as an excuse to reinstate the semi-auto ban. And now some in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon.

      I am sure that a few Mexican police killed by American weapons are are no concern to NRA, and Mexicans streaming over the border with American automatic weapons is surely nothing to be concerned about. But still, rational people might think that closing gun shops that break the laws might be a good idea, even if it only spics that being killed. After all, we do live under the rule of law.

    54. Re:second amendment rights by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      *ahem*
      Do Re Mi!

      *cough*

      *clear throat*

      WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!

    55. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a gun nut but fermion states a common fallacy about the 2nd amendment- that it's to defend your country. The 2nd has NOTHING remotely to do with defending your country. It has 100% to do with defending YOURSELF FROM your country(government) (the rationale being that you need this so you can enjoy the first amendment). Now that you clearly(?) understand all the implications of that, the question may still be asked: "are small arms useful against my government". The short answer is - probably. And most certainly they make the government somewhat less likely to consider trying to completely control the population - or take away amendment 1.

      All govs always disarm the general population when THEY (the gov) fears the people.

      To put it simply, fear the gov that fears its people.

      So, the challenge continues - how do you let the general population reasonably own firearms while a the same time not letting the whack-jobs own them. One might argue that anyone who even wants to own a gun is by definition a whack-job but perhaps that's a different argument.

      Scott

    56. Re:second amendment rights by JesseL · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      It was a typo, I swear. The F, D, and R keys are right next to the T, r, u, m, a, and n. Yeah, that's the ticket.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    57. Re:second amendment rights by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country.

      Sure we can. If we decided so, we have a number of options which can easily quash all resistance in Iraq. Exercising those options would require anywhere from about 20 minutes to a few weeks, depending on which option is used.

      If we showed exactly the same level of care for innocent bystanders as the insurgents in Iraq do, we could end this as quickly as we desired.

    58. Re:second amendment rights by JesseL · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure; after we disbanded their military, restructured their government, and engineered a retrovirus to genetically alter their genome to rechannel all their aggression into a bizarre pop culture.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    59. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and nothing changed.

    60. Re:second amendment rights by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      ""The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns."

      And right there, that comment fully sums up the stereotype the rest of the world sees about US gun laws/ideals."

      What's your point?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    61. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mexicans streaming over the border with American automatic weapons

      Prove that a single *automatic* weapon from an American FFL has been used in a crime inside or outside the US by any Mexican, or shut your ignorant hole.

    62. Re:second amendment rights by GNT · · Score: 1

      It's not about defending the country.

      It's about making sure the tools to overthrow a tyrannical government stay in the hands of the People.

    63. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, actually, I don't think that's the reason. (Of course, my question was rhetorical as I know the answer).

      It's because they disagree with the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right -- preferring to embrace a modern notion, never endorsed by the Supreme Court, that it's some sort of "collective" right. It's odd that an organization which so vigorously (usually rightfully) defends individual rights would choose to read the word people as state in one, and only one, place in the United States Constitution while using the conventional understanding of the word people everywhere else it occurs. Oh, and that they would insult their readers' intelligence by claiming that Miller supports their collective rights view (of course, they are careful to cover their ass on that one by claiming that they don't rely on Miller to reach their conclusion -- I think because they realize that's so easy to disprove and accepted by so few scholars).

      [Miller lost his case for a variety of reasons. Certainly the fact that he was already dead and that his lawyer didn't appear at oral arguments probably didn't help much. But, the primary relevant reason was that he (or his representatives) didn't convince the court that short barreled shotguns actually had a military use. The strongest implication that one can reasonably draw from the court's analysis in Miller

      In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

      is that the Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear weapons that might be generally useful in a militia -- not that the right is restricted to the "militia". (Also, the notion of a "militia" "bearing" arms seems like very odd wording to me -- but arguing linguistic nuances of 200+ year old writings can be fraught with difficulties).]

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    64. Re:second amendment rights by GNT · · Score: 4, Informative

      NO. THE PEOPLE HAVE THIS RIGHT. The militia aspect of the 2nd Am is a subordinate inclusive clause, whose presence or absence does not change a RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

    65. Re:second amendment rights by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then. Maybe not as much as we'd all like but the world simply isn't the same place it was when your forefathers wrote the constitution. If GWB has shown the world anything it's that the US citizens are now so diverse in their opinions that I don't think it's possible for a militia to grow strong enough, fast enough, in the US, to overthrow the government. The same is almost certainly true of all the other westernized nations too. So with that said, really what does gun ownership get you? If it doesn't give you the power to overthrow the government, which as far as I know was the reason it was in the constitution, then it's just a dangerous weapon waiting to hurt someone.

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    66. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.

      Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.

      This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.

    67. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can snipe from hundreds of yards

      Not with a carbine you're not.

    68. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Umm... Perhaps the root cause is that we are not defending the borders? I think that's the job of the Federal Government (actually, one of their few jobs) but somehow they seem reluctant to do their job.

      Of course any gun shop that violates Federal laws by selling illegally should be held responsible and, generally, shut down (an exception being for, for example, minor inadvertent technical violations which don't actually result in ineligible people acquiring weapons).

      Can you cite a single case of an automatic weapon being illegally sold by a US gun retailer to a illegal immigrant who just came across the border for that purpose? After you provide that cite, we can then address how many cites you need to provide per day to justify your "streaming over the border". Are you sure you know what an automatic weapon is? While it is legal to own them in the United States, they are very difficult to get due to Federal laws that control them tightly. Be careful with your cite though - the news media regularly confuses the terms automatic and semiautomatic and "reenactments" on crime shows often show what were actually semiautomatic weapons "firing" as if they were automatic weapons.

      I'm also curious, if we find a case where an Iranian visiting the US buys a copy of Playboy and sneaks it back into Iran, should the US ban all printed materials (or clothing or videos) that Iran's Islamic government bans?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    69. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.

      Then amend the constitution.

      It's nice to say the constitution is a "living document" but go through the proper process instead of "interpreting" until it becomes toilet paper.

      If you don't like it then change it, but don't ignore it.

    70. Re:second amendment rights by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      YM: "An armed society is a police society."

      arm them accordingly.

      I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.

    71. Re:second amendment rights by little_hate_machine · · Score: 1

      Lee Harvey Oswald = rifle

      John Wilkes Booth = pistol

      Gavrilo Princip = pistol

      Brutus = knife

      Pontius Pilate = words

    72. Re:second amendment rights by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue against gun control perhaps you should compare to UK as owning a hand gun in UK is illegal.

      Unfortunately I see that as a trend. There are too many wackos around. Too many wackos who really should not be allowed to have a gun.

    73. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YM: "An armed society is a police society."

      arm them accordingly.

      I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.

      Actually, I bet the citizens of Grand Lake, CO probably would agree with you after watching Killdozer blow through their town a few years ago.

      Extremes aside, if every citizen was trained with handgun, shotgun, and rifle proficiencies (and allowed to carry where they wished to), just about any violent crime issues could be quickly solved by the local populace. Eventually you run out of criminals or the criminals decide to seek new business opportunities.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    74. Re:second amendment rights by Molochi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Rifle" is the general term for a longarm that has a rifled barrel. Hunting has never had anything to do with classifying something as a rifle. Rifles have been standard military issue for longer than the NRA has been around. At the time of their founding the the issued weapon for a US soldier was a singleshot breachloaded rifle (the springfield). It was popular for those with the funds to replace this weapon with a 16 shot, Lever Action, Henry Rifle. This was the state of the art, medium range, antipersonnel weapon of its day and it was a civilian weapon. Today it would be like being able to buy a SAW machinegun compared to an issue M-16. In 1871 there were no restrictions. Put a canon in the front yard? No prob. Mount a Gatling gun on your coach? Good idea. But we were coming out of the Civil War and there was a strong push to increase Federal powers over individual freedoms and the NRA was formed to oppose this.

      So I don't think the NRA has expanded the scope of their purview. If they were to have lobbied for a citizen's 2nd amendment rights to equal what we had when they were founded in 1871, we could all own our own Abrams tanks and Apache helecopters for the daily commute. They stuck to lobbying pro infantry weapons, because what you want in a militia are people that know how to shoot infantry weapons. Frankly, given their charter I think they're way behind in what they should be pushing for.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    75. Re:second amendment rights by Osmosis_Garett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!

    76. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

      I guess they didn't bother to look at WW1 "Trench Sweepers" which were simple sawed off shotguns, and they commonly issued.

      But, Of course they didn't look, because his lawyer didn't bother showing up...

    77. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every type of weapon you listed there, baring shotguns, are in fact rifles. Rifled barrel == rifle. Nowadays even many shotguns have rifled slug barrels.

    78. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia has half the population of the United States, and as poor as they have been post-USSR, I doubt they have the funds for an army that's anywhere near as big as the United States.

    79. Re:second amendment rights by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      If the South succeeded from the union again, what would stop them? Oh they don't have the legal right to do that. Why, because some piece of paper a bunch of northerners signed says they don't?

      Gun ownership is advocating your right as a human being to posses the means to defend your life, liberty and property. People who don't own guns scare me - are they really so casual about their life that they are unwilling to posses the means to defend it?

      You are operating under the false assumption, I take it, that the police will protect you.

      They will not.

      The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch criminals who have committed a crime. If a crazed axe murderer is in your house, the police cannot do anything (beyond perhaps the trespassing charges, but as if they will have responded to a trespassing charge before the axe murderer is done) until he kills you and/or your family. If you own a gun and he is threatening you with that axe, you are perfectly within your rights to blow his deranged brains out, or if you're like me you'll try and disable him instead of kill (multiple shots - if I can't get his shoulder or arm, then with the remaining rounds I might be forced for a body shot - yes I have been bored and thought through the classical canon of nightmare scenarios, you should too).

      Owning a weapon does not signify a crime. Owning a firearm does not enable someone to commit murder. Strangulation and stabbing are still completely viable (and probably easier) ways to kill someone.

      Please, wait for a crime to happen to punish it. Don't retro-actively punish us all by taking away our weapons because of the acts of a few strange people.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    80. Re:second amendment rights by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have never considered the quantity of rockets I propose using. If rockets are not your last resort, then you failed to use enough of them.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    81. Re:second amendment rights by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thankfully the advent of the computer lightened the backpack! Those Navajo Code Talkers really were a drag! (Imagine some poor guy with a Navajo in his backpack like something out of The Emperor's New Groove)

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    82. Re:second amendment rights by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 1

      It's not that owning private firearms save or defend a country, but a government that takes away that right from its citizenry has historically been an oppressive fascist one that then takes away all other rights.

      Thomas Jefferson said it best:

      A government big enough to give you all you want can also take away all that you have.

    83. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      The majority of their non-safe status can be tied to neighboring countries in both cases. The USA does not have the same external forces pressing on them the way those two countries do.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    84. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more likely that many of our founding fathers would be spitting in the face of gun owners who sat by and cheered a government that violated just about every part of the Constitution except the second amendment.

      If you aren't going to rise up and defend any of your rights other than the right to bear arms, then what's the point of having the right to bear arms?

    85. Re:second amendment rights by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No. Read up on Thailand

      You had me up until here, I've been to Thailand and its not the guns that make people safe, in fact the information you have on Thailand is wrong, everyone is not packing. If you believe the teachers have guns then you've never been to Thailand.

      Thailand is safe because of Thai culture, they grew up in a society that prized politeness and conflict avoidance at any cost (much of this stems from Buddhist beliefs), lying on the other hand, average Thai has nothing against, in fact it's an important part of conflict avoidance. This nation has had why the country has had 19 coups since the monarch gave up absolute power in 1932 and most of them have been bloodless. Gun laws are non-existent or non-enforced but this is par for the course for Thailand, policing there extends about as far as collecting bribe money or in other words, the law is only enforced when there is money to be made from it, Col Somsak of Kheon Khen's finest doesn't care about the local with the .45 because he's already spent any money he has on the .45, a Farang on the other hand will always have money. If you, as a westerner get arrested and charged under Thailand's gun laws remember, its not because you broke the gun law, its because you are Farang (Thai word, means white skinned foreigner) and the cops thought they could get some tea money out of you.

      A lot of shootings occur in Thailand, their just never investigated or reported. Even most Farang deaths aren't investigates or just declared "suicides". Thai police can easily tell you that someone with 6 .45 holes in them committed suicide, "som nam na" (got/get what you deserve) is considered a sufficient investigation of a murder in Thailand. If you're using Thailand as an example of how guns can make people safe then you've failed. You also aren't familiar with the Asian mind set on fighting, one citizen with a gun wont do any good because if a Thai is out to kill you and thinks you are armed he'll just bring 6 of his mates so you'll have no chance, in fact strike that as being an Asian only thing, it will turn out that way in any part of the world, winning trumps a fair fight any day.

      Israel's another story, if Britain were fighting against a war against guerrillas (Scots for arguments sake) then there'd be Royal Marines in every schoolhouse, they're there in Israel because of necessity not choice.

      The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.

      No, the solution to criminals with anything is efective law enforcement. Law must be effective right from the law makers making sane laws, to the courts applying appropriate punishment to the police acting appropriately and doing proper investigations. You will notice that effective policing, efficient courts and sane laws will be the common denominator in the safest countries.

      Guns on the other hand do not keep people safe, if this were true Somalia and South Africa would be the safest places in the world. Remember for every safe well armed society in the world there are at least 3 horrifyingly violent well armed societies in the world.

      Most of the guns in Thailand and Cambodia (Cambo is where firearms are really proficient in SE Asia, US$50 and the army will give you a live RPG to try out, US$20 and a foreigner can buy a gun on the street) are mostly leftovers from the Vietnam war and Khmer Rouge conflicts, some of the guns are considered antiques in the west. Further more Cambodia has one of the highest rates of armed robbery in Asia, the poverty of the general population combined with having most of the post-Vietnam guns (all being sold on the street as there is no effective policing) tends to cause this.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    86. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. THE PEOPLE HAVE THIS RIGHT. The militia aspect of the 2nd Am is a subordinate inclusive clause, whose presence or absence does not change a RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

      It doesn't matter, the second amendment is entirely toothless.

      What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?

      The second amendment grew out of a time in history where "The People" had just finished fighting a civil war over their government mistreating them. The second amendment was intended as a non-too subtle threat along the lines of 'We kicked out one government we didn't like through force of arms, We're electing you now but don't get uppity or history might repeat it self.'

      Sure survivalists and gun nuts have other reasons (logical ones too) but the second amendment wasn't about the ability to hunt for your table, it was a safeguard against the government. The ultimate safeguard to ensure the American people would never again be victimized by their government.

      Its the SECOND amendment, those suckers came in order, and its purpose was to make sure the government was scared of its people, and not the other way around.

      And the ATF's very existence puts lie to it.

    87. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.

      Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.

    88. Re:second amendment rights by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      I prefer bombs that "kill fucking everyone in a huge radius" . Way easier and there is less risk for your insurgents.

    89. Re:second amendment rights by Anzya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yay mob rulez!
      Hang them high!
      Might makes right and so on... :)

      On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm. No need to ask them if they have permit, just shoot them on sight :)

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    90. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 1

      Who are you kidding? Russia is run by the Mob, and they're not big on gun control.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    91. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 1

      It the clause doesn't mean anything, why did they put it in? The Founding Fathers were not big on slinging around a lot of meaningless decoration when it came to laws.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    92. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 1

      Hey, no problem. Let people have whatever weapons they want -- as long as they were honorably discharged by the military after having been trained in the use of said arms. And no one else.

      This would, of course, cut most of the right wing nuts right out.

      (Also, this might make those same right wingers straighten right the fuck out on their shameful treatment of our veterans.)

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    93. Re:second amendment rights by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      Knife. Crime.

    94. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 2, Informative

      the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist

      O RLY?

      I think what you meant to say was that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment differs from yours and is therefore invalid.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    95. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Because a single gun which isn't locked in the cabinet is enough for a school shooting. Having more guns available wouldnt have helped to prevent this.

      Imagine the other pupils had firearms too. I bet many more would ve been killed because everybody would shoot at everybody with a gun drawn and shooting.

      Russian might have the highest murder rates, but their problem is that it is practical impossible to enforce the gun control rights as you can buy the guns and the police hasn't enough manpower or will to go against that.

    96. Re:second amendment rights by mcvos · · Score: 1

      A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.

      No idea if it's true, but I once heard that no weapon in human history killed as many people as the AK-47, including gas and nuclear bombs.

    97. Re:second amendment rights by mcvos · · Score: 1

      And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings.

      Looks like the boy's dad might be criminally negligent for leaving his gun out of the safe. (He has several guns, all of them nicely locked up in a safe according to the law, except for the one his son used at school.)

      So at least when a kid goes crazy, there's someone to blame other than video games and music.

    98. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.

      Bullshit. Look at states that have enacted shall issue conceal carry permit laws. Violent crime goes down. Look at Illinois, which has the highest "gun control" laws in the nation, and has one of the highest if not the highest rate of gun crime in the USA. This statement of yours was made by the gun control activists in every state where shall issue CC laws were passed. This unintended consequence everyone feared NEVER HAPPENED.

      >Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.

      Non-lethal weapons have a tendency to not work on everyone. Bullets work on everyone. People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit and those people overall have a very good record of only using lethal force when appropriate.

      If you create a non-lethal weapon that does work on everyone with a higher success rate than small arms do, give the police and military a phone call, they'd all be very interested, as would gun owners that carry for self defense.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    99. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for all the lack of gun control in the USA, they have even more mass casualty school shootings.

      A lot of the stricter gun control laws were brought in after the first mass shooting. The most recent one was caused by somebody breaking the laws (the shooter's father left an unsecured gun and ammo in his bedside table).

      German police are also armed.

    100. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >Yay mob rulez!
      >Hang them high!
      >Might makes right and so on... :)

      The criminals seem to think so. But most criminals when confronted with imminent death will either shut down and wait for the police or run away like the devil himself is behind him. A citizen can in the first case place the assailant under citizen's arrest, contact the police, and let them cart the hoodlum off. There is only a very small subset of people in the world that act in a way portrayed by hollywood and attempt to Rambo their way out of a situation. People just want to be safe, and carrying a weapon enables this at no additional expense to anyone but the person buying the gun.

      We could of course spend the same amount of money on police as we do our defense budget, but even then, when seconds count and your life is in danger, the police are minutes away. I live under one mile away from the local police station, and it will still take them too long to get to me if someone is kicking in the door of my house and intending to harm me or my family.

      So until we perfect phasers with stun settings and set up a minority report style crime prediction system, firearms are the only realistic choice for self defense.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    101. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >You had me up until here, I've been to Thailand and its not the guns that make people safe, in fact the information you have on Thailand is wrong, everyone is not packing. If you believe the teachers have guns then you've never been to Thailand.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4651711.stm

      Excerpts:

      >More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants.

      >Teachers are often targeted as they are seen as symbols of Thailand's Buddhist authorities.

      >"We have granted special rights for teachers to carry guns," deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng told reporters on Tuesday, adding that 2,000 teachers had already requested arms.

      Oh SNAP!

      >Israel's another story, if Britain were fighting against a war against guerrillas (Scots for arguments sake) then there'd be Royal Marines in every schoolhouse, they're there in Israel because of necessity not choice.

      Except in Israel it is parents working as part of a volunteer defense force for schools, not the IDF (though some may also be IDF.)

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    102. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      So sad that we spent sixty-plus years arguing about the significance of Miller just because the (dead) plaintiff wasn't an effective advocate. Fortunately, I think from a precedent standpoint, Heller fixed 80% of this, now all that has to be done is unravel sixty years of cultural nonsense, educational bias, and media bias.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    103. Re:second amendment rights by mpe · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm. No need to ask them if they have permit, just shoot them on sight :)

      If guns were outlawed then how would the police be able to shoot anyone?

    104. Re:second amendment rights by geschild · · Score: 0, Troll

      "And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings. For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet."

      Those are insidious, not rational arguments.

      In the latest German shooting, the father of the shooter is being investigated for not storing the gun, used in the shooting, properly. The man had a total of 15 weapons of which only one wasn't in the strongbox it was supposed to be in. It was in the master bedroom. It so happens that a lot of fatal accidents with guns in the US are caused by guns kept 'under the pillow' as well. Not a very good argument for liberal gun-laws.

      Gun laws in Germany specifically require you to a) take a test of mental stability before you can own a gun and b) store the weapons safely. Those laws seem to work a lot of the time but if someone doesn't do b) and someone else takes advantage of that to circumvent a) you're SOL, no matter what. As with most tragedies, a number of things need to go wrong before things really turn bad. This is a good example. Laws do work. The amount of gun casualties is incomparably lower in Germany.

      That you bring up Russia, a third-world corrupt country, propped up by it's massive natural resources, is simply laughable. The only law that is really adhered to in ye ol' USSR, nay Russia, is the golden rule.

      In other words, the rest of us is comparing civilized countries where the rule of law is upheld to other civilized countries and the conclusion can only be: liberal gun laws get a lot more people killed than strict gun laws, if properly upheld. The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    105. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey mods... That's (at least) pretty funny (albeit, not PC). Do your duty!

    106. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Oh dear... I sometimes make the error of assuming that /.ers grok under- and overstatement. My apologies for overestimating intelligence...

      Of course I didn't mean that the ACLU counts 1,3,4,5,6,7....

      However, the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd is so lame as to be laughable and therefore equivalent to pretending it didn't exist. For about 15 years - perhaps from 1980 to 1995 - a few moderately respected academics took their view, but have pretty much abandoned it for the past decade or so. In the only SCOTUS test of the ACLU's position on this matter (Heller) in at about 70 years, their interpretation was a FAIL. The ACLU, on this matter, reminds me of one of our (stupid) cats -- he assumes that if he can't see me, I can't see him (the fact that his butt and tail are sticking out from under the sofa seems to be lost on him).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    107. Re:second amendment rights by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with terrorism? This is insurgency. They're specifically targeting the occupying forces

    108. Re:second amendment rights by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      However in response to "There haven't been many terror attacks with guns" has he really forgotten about the 2008 mumbai terrorist attacks, or all of the "insurgent" attacks, and similar?

      Okay. That's "one", as opposed to "many". New York they used planes, London underground, they used bombs, Madrid train bombings was bombs. Israel, where guns can be acquired cheaply, typically terror attacks use bombs. Mumbai - bombs as well as firearms. The IRA had access to guns but typically used bombs. There was the Ma'alot massacre. That was in 1974, in Israel, where one would have expected the gunmen to have failed because of Israel's high level of gun ownership.

      Insurgents tend to aim at specific targets rather than maximum disruption, so of course they use guns.

      Guns are essential, necessary, and a damn sight more useful than "kill fucking everyone in a huge radius" bombs.

      That depends on your aim. If you just want to kill a lot of people then bombs are more effective.

    109. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real question is who's the criminal. most often than not the guy holding the gun is.

    110. Re:second amendment rights by definate · · Score: 1

      I didn't see any mention of the terror attacks in Africa, which are primarily guns.

      Also, bombs don't stop people who bomb, guns do.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    111. Re:second amendment rights by Hesperus · · Score: 1

      What gun control in Germany?

      I don't understand why people keep thinking that European countries have strict gun control. Most of them don't really.

      --
      ____________________________________

      -- I beleve you'll like this -->
    112. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can still have a CANNON in your garage for the militia or whatever other purpose you like, blackpowder breechloaders are unregulated regardless of size. and here's a special link for the "the 2nd amendment is for hunting hurr hurr" crowd http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

    113. Re:second amendment rights by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you want to argue against gun control perhaps you should compare to UK as owning a hand gun in UK is illegal.

      And gun violence has been on a gradual rise in the UK ever since handguns were outlawed.

      Not only that, doctors in the UK have called for a ban on long kitchen knives, because now too many people are being killed by those. They've gone so far as to enlist support from chefs to "prove" that long, pointy knives are unnecessary for cooking, that you can do just fine with short pointy knives and long blunt-tipped knives.

      Next up: cricket bats!

      The fact of the matter is that violence has little to nothing to do with weapons. Weapons are merely the tools of violence and where one tool is unavailable, another will be used. Violence is a cultural issue that cannot be cured by limiting access to weapons. Chicago has more fatal stabbings than nearby Toronto has homicides of any form.

      To the contrary, actually, where a culture of violence exists, preventing the law-abiding from owning weapons tends to increase violence. The spread of permissive concealed carry laws in the US has proven to decrease violence sigificantly.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    114. Re:second amendment rights by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Knife. Crime.

      Is blown way out of proportion by the UK media.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    115. Re:second amendment rights by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you haven't noticed already, the police are above the law.

      Tribal thinking is strong. So it's "Police Tribe" vs the rest of the world.

      --
    116. Re:second amendment rights by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I think the machete beats the AK. It has a significant headstart though.

      The machete remains a mainstay in good old genocidal Africa.

      If you only have one or two clips with an AK47, you better have a machete as your alternate weapon.

      --
    117. Re:second amendment rights by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Israel's another story, if Britain were fighting against a war against guerrillas (Scots for arguments sake) then there'd be Royal Marines in every schoolhouse, they're there in Israel because of necessity not choice.

      People seem to willingly forget that Britain fought a terrorism war for 30 years not that long ago, against Irish dissidents, this isn't new to us. Oh, and we didn't have Royal Marines, armed police or any other branch of the military stationed in schools on anything approaching regularity.

      The situation we face today is not new, its just new politicians in charge.

    118. Re:second amendment rights by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "The simple fact is, our Constitution guarantees military grade weapons are to be available to militia"

      Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?

      BTW read the 2nd Amendment, you can consider the militia part to be independent from the right to bear arms.

      If you don't agree with that reading, you should then read the rest of the Constitution that deals with the militia.

      e.g. "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

      "Ye Old" Militia => Modern US Military.

      --
    119. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, I've heard about so many mass murders in the last few years in the United States, and the only three (Japan, Germany and Iceland) in all the rest of the world in the last few years.

    120. Re:second amendment rights by houghi · · Score: 1

      So gun control is irrelevant.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    121. Re:second amendment rights by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well, if you fight a really traditional war, then what we call genocide nowadays is part of winning the war.

      To me the world would be a better place if it became standard practice for countries to require referendums in order to _initiate_ a war (doing it in defense doesn't count as initiating a war).

      If political leaders wish to send troops to battle for _offensive_ (not defense) purposes (or risk lives of a substantial number of civilians), they have to put their own lives at risk as well.

      This could be done in the following manner:
      A referendum is held. If there is an insufficient majority, the proposers' lives are forfeit. They are put on deathrow.

      If there is actually a majority, there could be a "redemption" referendum, and their lives depend on the results.

      A similar referendum is also held if at any time it is found that a politician caused the public to be deceived/misinformed (even unknowingly) and "justify" a war or similar military action.

      If a leader's life is not successfully redeemed, but later it is found the war was justified, the leader will get the equivalent of a "purple heart".

      The idea is that even leaders who lie about "caring about the lives of soldiers" would actually think twice about sending soldiers to risk their lives. Even amoral people without a conscience would be inclined to take things a bit more seriously when it's not just a matter of losing the next election, or going to jail for a few years.

      After all if a leader thinks it is worth risking the lives of soldiers and civilians, that leader should also be willing to risk his/her life. That's only fair right?

      Also, very importantly, if > 66% of Nation A thinks it's worth attacking Nation B, then it's not so bad if Nation B tries to wipe Nation A out. It's no longer genocide, it's self defense.

      They want a war, they get a war. None of this halfbaked bullshit.

      With the current wars, you end up killing people who have nothing against you, who may not even want to harm anyone, but are dragged into a war just because of a minority at the top.

      --
    122. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government rolls a tank into your town, cf Tiananmen Square, and you're there with your rifle, what do you think is going to happen?

      The constitution of the USA was written at a time when it was plausible for a militia to be able to rise up against the government's military.

      Today, that's not so... well... maybe Iraq teaches us all something about fighting the machines of war with unconventional tactics.

    123. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who are you kidding? Russia is run by the Mob, and they're not big on gun control.

      That's kind of the point isn't it? Regular citizens aren't arm themselves at all in Russia (handguns are outlawed, rifles/shotguns are hard to get and useless for self-defense outside the home in any case) so they are at the mercy of criminal elements that don't give two shits that handgun they are carrying is illegal.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    124. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Is blown way out of proportion by the UK media.

      Amazingly enough so is gun crime in the United States but you never hear the advocates of gun control acknowledge that. You are more likely to have a heart attack in the United States than you are to be shot -- deliberately or accidentally. Clearly we need fast food control ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    125. Re:second amendment rights by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I didn't see any mention of the terror attacks in Africa, which are primarily guns.

      11 terror attacks - 10 were bombings, one was a shooting.

      Also, bombs don't stop people who bomb, guns do.

      Has this ever happened?

      There doesn't seem to be any evidence that public ownership of guns will in any way affect the tactics or effectiveness of terror attacks.

      Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.

    126. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And gun violence has been on a gradual rise in the UK ever since handguns were outlawed.

      If you are trying to imply this is cause and effect, you are mistaken. The UK has *never* had any significant number of handgun owners among the general law abiding population, so banning them made no real difference at all, except that before the ban we would get the occasional (say once every 5 years) massacre by someone with legally owned hand guns, and now they probably use a shotgun or something, possibly with slightly less lethal results (due to having to reload more frequently).

      Also, UK gun crime with proper guns (not replicas or air weapons) has been stable or falling in recent years.

      As for the pointy knife business, you do realize that this proposal was made by some doctors, widely derided, rejected virtually out of hand by the government, and is now a completely dead issue (not that it was ever really live to start with).
      So after this great success in not banning pointy knives, I guess the same doctors are going to move on to not getting baseball bats banned either. At this rate, everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon will not be banned in a few years!

    127. Re:second amendment rights by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might find this podcast interesting. Seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was to discourage america from having a large standing army that sapped resources and wagged the dog. If everyone has guns and there is an effective nationwide draft in the form of a militia, then the population of the US would be far more resistant to going to war. The founding fathers apparently recognised the downfall of every large civilisation was imperialism and wanted to build in a resistance to it. The world wars seem to have destroyed that mechanism though.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    128. Re:second amendment rights by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      There are too many wackos around. Too many wackos who really should not be allowed to have a gun.

      What proportion of those wackos join the police or military?

    129. Re:second amendment rights by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action."

      Your conclusion that citizen ownership of guns doesn't prevent "shooting rampages" is neither logically nor factually correct. Almost all mass shooting occur in places where there is little likelihood of armed defense - "gun free zones" such as schools, malls, restaurants. You cannot draw the conclusion that guns were ineffective for defense because it assumes the victims had guns and didn't use them.

      In fact, a recent case proves the opposite. At the New Life Church shootings, an off duty security guard, with a concealed weapons permit, stopped an massacre. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html Note that this wasn't under the color of law or authority: she, and other volunteers, were acting as private citizens and not sanctioned by the state, except insofar as she had a concealed weapons permit.

      You need to improve your google-fu if you missed that one.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    130. Re:second amendment rights by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm."

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    131. Re:second amendment rights by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      M-4s fire .233 rifle ammo. Carbines fire pistol ammo. Thanks for contributing, anonymous coward moron.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    132. Re:second amendment rights by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "When the government rolls a tank into your town, cf Tiananmen Square, and you're there with your rifle, what do you think is going to happen?"

      Hide and wait until the tank's occupants get out to take a piss?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    133. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all the gun control in Russia they still have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

      But not with guns, so that's ok then.

    134. Re:second amendment rights by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.

      Now check how many of those shooting rampages happened in "gun free zones". There is a reason that not many shooting rampages happen at firing ranges.

    135. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that a multi million dollar drug lord in Mexico needs to smuggle semi auto AK 47's from the US into Mexico? They are buying full auto versions from South America and China by the boatload. If they have the ability to move huge quantities of drugs around the world, what makes you think that they can't do the same thing with firearms. This whole "smuggle from the US" is just another media attempt to influence our gullible politicians to start another US gun ban attempt.

    136. Re:second amendment rights by infalliable · · Score: 1

      Non-lethal weapons aren't always non-lethal as well.

      There are people killed each year by tasers and other non-lethal weapons. Just see the "riot/celebration" after the first Red Sox Series victory a few years ago. A girl was killed by police using non-lethal weapons.

    137. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What good is your right to collect semiautomatic weapons against a tank or jet fighter?

      You need to learn some basic history. Bolt action rifles shot down jets during Vietnam. Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.

      And in the end, your point is exactly the point I was making. The 2nd amendment's entire point is to ensure the public has access to military grade weapons exactly so they can defend their country from both external armies and internal corruption.

      The 2nd amendment, as you said, is toothless only because anti-gun crazy people have been empowered enough to spit on the Constitution - in attempts to make it toothless.

      The ultimate safeguard to ensure the American people would never again be victimized by their government.

      Exactly!

    138. Re:second amendment rights by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "M-4s fire .233 rifle ammo. Carbines fire pistol ammo. Thanks for contributing, anonymous coward moron."

      Sorry, but you are the moron. "Carbine" is a name for a short rifle; "submachinegun is the name of a fully automatic weapon that fires pistol ammunition.

      The M4 Carbine is the 4th carbine the US military has issues since WWII - the M1 Carbine was first (NOT the M1 Rifle or Garand)and fired a modified rifle cartridge. The M2 was a full automatic version of the M1, and the M3 was an M2 with a special night sight (I think). The Army did not issue a carbine again until recently, because we were planning for a different war where a rifle's range, not maneuverability, would be important.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    139. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Informative

      It so happens that a lot of fatal accidents with guns in the US are caused by guns kept 'under the pillow' as well

      Citation?

      In other words, the rest of us is comparing civilized countries where the rule of law is upheld to other civilized countries and the conclusion can only be: liberal gun laws get a lot more people killed than strict gun laws, if properly upheld

      That's an interesting conclusion. How do you explain how Norway and Finland (two European countries with a lot of civilian guns) have a lower murder rate than Luxembourg (virtually no civilian firearms to speak of) or Poland (very few)? How do you explain how Wyoming and Montana have lower murder rates than New York or California? Could it just be that crime is caused by socio-economic factors and the access to firearms has very little to do with it? I find it interesting how "correlation is not causation" is a standard refrain around here in every argument except those put forth by the gun control crowd.

      The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable.

      A) You haven't demonstrated any "great cost" to society, B) This statement borders on trolling and I'm surprised nobody with mod points caught it. If you are interested in looking at a real study here is an interesting one from Harvard of all places. They set out to disprove the notion that more guns = more violence. It's a pretty compelling read.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    140. Re:second amendment rights by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!

      How safe is Israel? What is the death rate to terrorism and murder? This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates lists them as 80th out of 122 for murder rates, two below the UK and one above Canada. I don't know if that includes deaths from suicide bombings etc. But since you are making the claim it is very unsafe there, can you back that up with anything?

    141. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I think it's fair to say, society has changed since then.

      In what way. Actually, things are right on schedule according to what our forefather's expect. They fully expected our government would grow entirely corrupt and they specifically knew, understood, and made allowances for correction of a corrupt government by any means, up to and including revolt. Thus far, its pretty easy to see the rampant corruption of our government. The government is clearly no longer "for the people, by the people". And as time passes on, ignorance such as yours serves only to empower the corruption while destroying the very rights our forefathers put in place to protect us all.

      So with that said, really what does gun ownership get you?

      If you have to ask, you direly need to catch up on some basic military history from around the world. The people of the US direly need to take back our 2nd amendment such that silly questions as your own need never be asked; as it should be explicitly understood by the nature of the weapons to which the Constitution guarantees.

    142. Re:second amendment rights by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      They get a bonus for knowing the land. They get a bonus for not identifying themselves as combatants. They get a bonus for being able to accurately identify their enemies, who are loud and obvious. They get a bonus for being sneaky.

      Been playing a bit too much Dawn of War 2 lately have we?

    143. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Owning a weapon does not signify a crime. Owning a firearm does not enable someone to commit murder. Strangulation and stabbing are still completely viable (and probably easier) ways to kill someone.

      And this is exactly the perception that needs to change. Owning a gun is a civic duty, a national honour, and a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Contrary to poplar media, it is the anti-gun people that are both crazy and unamerican. They justify it by putting a face of a tiny, tiny minority and projecting it as the face of anyone who loves the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment, which are often referred to as, "gun nuts". But the simple fact is, if so many were not so unamerican and anti-gun crazy, the "gun nuts" wouldn't have a platform in the first place. And all of that ignores the vast, vast majority of gun owners are polar opposites from the often portrayed, "gun nuts."

    144. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Nukes are cool too. Everyone should have one. That will make all our problems go away. After all, a well armed society is a polite society and all that. Except there'll always be a few who insist on being a bit impolite with their nukes. But no problem since you can nuke them back eh?

      That's obviously crazy talk. You pretty well confirmed my "crazy anti-gun" comments all the while your ignorantly ignore the entire point of my post. I am in no way advocating nukes for private citizens. And contrary to your ignorance, nukes are NOT strategic weapons. They are strategic deterrents. Pretty much everyone post-MacArthur understands this. Nukes have a endless list of other issues; most all well outside the understanding of a laymen. You sir, have ignorantly validated by point by playing the obvious stawman argument.

    145. Re:second amendment rights by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough so is gun crime in the United States but you never hear the advocates of gun control acknowledge that. You are more likely to have a heart attack in the United States than you are to be shot -- deliberately or accidentally. Clearly we need fast food control ;)

      That doesn't surprise me one little bit, personally I think that UK gun laws are way too strict, and am in favour of liberalising them somewhat* as they seem to be ineffective, and that just about any criminal who wants a gun can get one anyway.

      *I don't go as far as some of you guys in the states with my ideas, I just think that we should move back to a controlled licensing system, with mandatory training and testing with specialist trainers at a gun club before you get a licence.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    146. Re:second amendment rights by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you are trying to imply this is cause and effect, you are mistaken. The UK has *never* had any significant number of handgun owners among the general law abiding population, so banning them made no real difference at all

      Well, it certainly didn't improve matters, since homicides (including firearms homicides) have merely increased. So at best citizens' rights have been reduced to no benefit.

      In the US, on the other hand, there is strong statistical evidence that increasing the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns *reduces* violent crime, even controlling for economic effects, the tendency of carry liberalization to occur in already low-crime areas, and the general downward trend of violence across the country.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    147. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was to discourage america from having a large standing army that sapped resources and wagged the dog. If everyone has guns and there is an effective nationwide draft in the form of a militia, then the population of the US would be far more resistant to going to war.

      It's too bad the population of the US doesn't want to go back to this model, because it would be very easy to implement something similiar to the Swiss model here. Withdraw from the rest of the world, keep a small standing army with the primary mission of training the state militia forces and retain our nuclear deterrent. Who is going to fuck with a country that has nuclear weapons and a firearm for every citizen? More to the point, if we aren't interventionists, why would they want to fuck with us?

      Yeah, we'd lose our ability to impose our will on the rest of the World, but so what?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    148. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If you own a gun and he is threatening you with that axe, you are perfectly within your rights to blow his deranged brains out, or if you're like me you'll try and disable him instead of kill

      You are much nicer than I am. If he is threatening my life I'm going to remove that threat as quickly as possible. Once that threat is removed I'll cease firing and tell the 911 dispatcher to send an ambulance along with the cops. If he survives then great but ensuring his survival should not be at the top of your priority list when he is threatening to kill you or your family.

      yes I have been bored and thought through the classical canon of nightmare scenarios, you should too

      Here's one: What if he has a friend and you just wasted several rounds trying to hit his arms or shoulders? Are you gonna have enough rounds left to defend yourself from his friend(s) until the police arrive? Personally, if he is threatening my life I'm shooting center of mass until he goes down. If he isn't threatening my life then I don't really have any reason to shoot him, do I?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    149. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *I don't go as far as some of you guys in the states with my ideas, I just think that we should move back to a controlled licensing system, with mandatory training and testing with specialist trainers at a gun club before you get a licence.

      The reason that many Americans are leery of such requirements is that gun registration/licensing schemes have historically wound up being used to direct gun confiscation schemes a generation or two later. Off the top of my head it has happened in Germany, Russia, Canada and New York City. I'm sure others can think of more examples.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    150. Re:second amendment rights by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If guns were outlawed then how would the police be able to shoot anyone?

      Congratulations, you just won my "stupid question of the week" award. Since when do the laws made for citizens apply to those in power?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    151. Re:second amendment rights by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, waiting for the turtle to come out of his shell is obviously advanced tactics only understood by military personnel, and that's why only they should have access to weapons. /removes tongue from cheek

    152. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always argued that my 65 year old mother who owns a pistol, and isn't that bad with it, stands a fair chance with a fight with an young fit attacker who also wields a pistol.

      However, go to ________ (enter country that bans guns) and my 65 year old mother, armed with a skillet, would have zero chance against a young fit knife wielding attacker.

      I see one option inherently more dangerous than the other. I see the difference in USA vs ________ (name your other country here) in murder, etc is a more cultural thing, than merely just an issue of the availability of firearms.

    153. Re:second amendment rights by babblefrog · · Score: 1

      If there were non-lethal weapons with the reliable stopping power of firearms, I bet they would be extremely popular. What do you have in mind?

    154. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.

      And a good number of them would be there to spit back. You're confusing societal norms with what our forefather's considered to be an inaliable right. Many of our forefathers were against slavery but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority.

    155. Re:second amendment rights by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      At the time the Constitution was written, the militia was all able bodied men. So, the militia having a right was the same as all able bodied men having that right. However, you have a point, because I am pretty sure that the people who wrote the Constitution would not have wanted to imply that women didn't have the right to bear arms (even if they thought that the majority would not choose to do so most of the time).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    156. Re:second amendment rights by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The point he's making though is that most gun grabbers never equate "taking away the guns" to include taking them away from the military and/or police. They want to both condemn the guns as devices that are somehow evil incarnate and whose presence magically results in hundreds of dead bodies wherever they go, but at the very same time acknowledge them as simple tools that the police and military must use.

      The simple fact is the gun is either an evil object whose only possible use is cold blooded murder, or it's a tool. If it's the former, then naturally it's of no use to ANYONE. If the latter, then butt the hell out of my business because I'm perfectly capable of using the tool. Hell your average shooting enthusiast is FAR more capable with a firearm than most police officers (many of whom shoot their guns at most once per year to keep up with requirements only, and many of whom never in their entire career will fire a shot while actually in the line of duty).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    157. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thailand is safe because of Thai culture, they grew up in a society that prized politeness and conflict avoidance at any cost (much of this stems from Buddhist beliefs), lying on the other hand, average Thai has nothing against, in fact it's an important part of conflict avoidance.

      Apparently a run-on sentence is something you have nothing against.

    158. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are saying is that there is never an absolute truth. Free speech is an absolute truth.
      We have a republic because the founders knew a democracy would not work.
      The founding fathers work still stands today as it did the first day.

    159. Re:second amendment rights by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Holy cow you're a twit.

      They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.

      Why in the hell should they waste limited resources on something which is already well defended??

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    160. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, calm down and actually read the constitution.

    161. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.

      Actually, no, they don't bother with the 2nd amendment because in their own words: "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

      Thanks for playing though. Next time trying actually reading their position on the issue before opening your mouth.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    162. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually all those guns in private hands aren't used against some big scary government (lots of guns are useless without organization). They usually end up being turned on each other, and if they do get organized and in control they just become the new big scary government. Don't kid yourself, gun nuts love to talk about freedom, THEIR freedom not yours.

    163. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority

      Which part of "a good number of them" says "all of them" to you?

      Also, I'm not confusing societal normals with inalienable rights. Today, we consider the right to vote to be inalienable regardless of sex, race, religion or creed. Back then, they did not consider these inalienable rights. There really IS no difference between societal normals and inalienable rights. If a society does not consider it the norm for you to have a certain right, they will likely take it away. Inalienable rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. Now, you can get into a philosophical discussion about if you have a given "right" if you are not allowed to exercise it, but I think that's a bit off the subject. The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.

    164. Re:second amendment rights by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      Happens to me all the time :)

    165. Re:second amendment rights by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      It's too bad the population of the US doesn't want to go back to this model

      Speak for yourself. I, for one, think this is one of the best things we could do. It would clear up that pesky "ambiguity" of the 2nd amendment being some kind of contrived collective right. After all, if everyone is a member of the militia, then everyone has the right to bear arms.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    166. Re:second amendment rights by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Knife. Crime.

      Is blown way out of proportion by the UK media.

      After knives, will England ban pointy things to prevent crime with pointy things?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    167. Re:second amendment rights by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it pays to read beyond the first sentence.

    168. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      The only absolute truths are the laws of physics.

      And sometimes even those get bent...

    169. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.

      I disagree. I'd argue few people are in a position to contradict the bulk of their arguments. Many of their arguments used to establish their position are as true then as they are today. When I take the time to review the works of some of our forefathers I'm often struck by the profound insight, in that many of their words ring true even today - and in some cases, truer.

      People then come along with tunnel vision and with five minutes of insincere "thought", which are found to be false statements with little critical review, go on to believe little if nothing established, discussed, or profoundly upheld after much debate, is applicable today.

      Frankly, I find it all too easily found, almost everything wrong with this country today wreaks of early dismissal by nothing more than irrational hand-waving and ignorant departure from the plans laid out by the founders of our country - and some who came after.

    170. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      If you're including me in this comment, I think you're missing my point. My feeling is that the arguments of the founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author. The weight we give them should not be based on who wrote them, but on the truth of what is written. As such, some of the things they wrote and believed simply do not hold with what we believe today. Many others still do.

    171. Re:second amendment rights by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it pays to read beyond the first sentence.

      It was a roundabout sort of agreement with him. :)

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    172. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Quite the roundabout way to agree with me, but yeah, I share your same sentiment. When I first thought of it I wasn't so much thinking of the 2nd amendment (although that's obviously a huge part of it) as I was of thinking of ways to reduce the size and scope of our Government and ways to reduce the ill will that our interventionist policies have generated.

      I would advocate for a complete return to our non-interventionist roots. Not isolationism, as we should still trade with the rest of the world, just non-interventionism. Our security would rest on our nuclear deterrent and an armed population. The Swiss have managed to retain their independence with just the latter for hundreds of years so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for us (particularly when combined with the nuclear deterrent). You can also note how nobody is flying airplanes into Swiss buildings or kidnapping Swiss citizens who travel aboard.

      It would also allow us to wind down most of the military-industrial complex and return the monies spent on it to our citizenry where it would be put to more productive uses.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    173. Re:second amendment rights by Grashnak · · Score: 1

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      This is perhaps the dumbest thing the NRA ever said.

      An armed society is not, in fact, a polite society but rather it is a frightened society. People don't become more polite because you have a gun. They become afraid that you'll shoot them for cutting them off in traffic.

      The ridiculous difference in violent crime rates between the US (lots of guns and very high violent crime) and everywhere else in the western world (few guns and much much less violent crime) suggests the exact opposite of your theory.

      --
      Life needs more saving throws.
    174. Re:second amendment rights by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.

      Actually, no, you're wrong. They don't bother with the 2nd Amendment because their official policy is actually contrary to what Constitutional scholars have said for the past 200 years what the 2nd Amendment means. The ACLU interprets the Constitution as they see fit: the 1st Amendment is, to them, an inalienable right as set in stone as Mt. Rushmore. To them, the 2nd Amendment is part of a "living document" meaning they interpret the original document's clear definition is contrary to how we should do things today. Further, the whole "separation of Church and State" thing? They consider that one phrase written by Thomas Jefferson to supersede the law, and to mean the contrary as it was originally intended - ie, to prevent any Christianity or Christian beliefs to be manifest in law, vs. the intention of prohibiting the state from meddling with religions.

      Why in the hell should they waste limited resources on something which is already well defended??

      Because it's not, civilly? The biggest protection the 2nd Amendment has left are the arms (and the people who own them) themselves. (The NRA has been limp-wristed for almost 20 years now and has only been pushing to protect arms for "sporting use" as a matter of policy.) And maybe because they call themselves the ACLU?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    175. Re:second amendment rights by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The NRA was not originally a lobbyist group: they were a civil activity group, similar to the Boy Scouts, but for general societal participation and familiarization with rifles (in particular). The training and certification of firearm instructors is still their primary focus.

      However, their lobbying is, actually, largely in the role of supporting/protecting "sporting" rifles - not the other arms protected by the Constitution. That inconsistency is almost as bothersome as the ACLU supporting anything but the 1st Amendment, or the other Amendments when it involves minorities and/or undermining national safety.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    176. Re:second amendment rights by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      I think that the USA murder rate from guns is so much higher than many other countries with similiar rates of gun ownership because of the culture in the USA combined with gun ownership.

      Gun ownership is common in Canada, not as common as the USA, but still common. But there are big differences. Most Canadians only have long guns. Legally getting a pistol is rare. Most pistols are owned by criminials and they mainly shoot each other. It is a VERY rare Canadian gun owner who thinks his gun should be used to protect his home and person. A gun is for hunting and target practise. You call the police if there is a prowler about, you don't step onto the front porch with rifle in hand. It is this idea that guns are great first choice for self protection that causes most of the deaths.

      Each year many Americans die from guns, usually about 400 a week. Generally 50% are suicides, 25% accidents, and 25% murders. You guys need better safety training.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    177. Re:second amendment rights by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Quite the roundabout way to agree with me, but yeah, I share your same sentiment. When I first thought of it I wasn't so much thinking of the 2nd amendment (although that's obviously a huge part of it) as I was of thinking of ways to reduce the size and scope of our Government and ways to reduce the ill will that our interventionist policies have generated.

      I would advocate for a complete return to our non-interventionist roots. Not isolationism, as we should still trade with the rest of the world, just non-interventionism. Our security would rest on our nuclear deterrent and an armed population. The Swiss have managed to retain their independence with just the latter for hundreds of years so I see no reason why it wouldn't work for us (particularly when combined with the nuclear deterrent). You can also note how nobody is flying airplanes into Swiss buildings or kidnapping Swiss citizens who travel aboard.

      Playing devil's advocate here, have the Swiss ever had anything worth flying planes into or any citizens who were loud enough to warrant kidnapping?

      It would also allow us to wind down most of the military-industrial complex and return the monies spent on it to our citizenry where it would be put to more productive uses.

      Say, that reads like idealism. Mighty dangerous thinking. I agree with what you're saying, but would you really ever trust the government not to find some other way of spending the money it just saved by not funding the military-industrial complex?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    178. Re:second amendment rights by hacksoncode · · Score: 1

      I think the *point* of that statement is: "Fine, if times have changed enough that the Founder's principles no longer work well, we have a mechanism for solving that: Amend the Constitution". Trying to reinterpret it out of existence is a Bush League trick (hehe).

    179. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Playing devil's advocate here, have the Swiss ever had anything worth flying planes into

      The Swiss would probably say they do ;) The point I was trying to make is that they don't generally piss people off enough to fly airplanes into their buildings because they don't stick their noses into other peoples business.

      Say, that reads like idealism. Mighty dangerous thinking. I agree with what you're saying, but would you really ever trust the government not to find some other way of spending the money it just saved by not funding the military-industrial complex?

      The whole concept of idealism. I don't trust the Government one damn bit but my theory was that if the populace ever changed enough to want to end our interventionism that maybe they've also changed enough to want to cut the Government down to size. Yeah, I'm dreaming, but it's nice to dream sometimes isn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    180. Re:second amendment rights by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Hey, no problem. Let people have whatever weapons they want -- as long as they were honorably discharged by the military after having been trained in the use of said arms. And no one else.

      This would, of course, cut most of the right wing nuts right out.

      (Also, this might make those same right wingers straighten right the fuck out on their shameful treatment of our veterans.)

      It would also cut out people with shitty hearing (but of sound mind) who were rejected for military service. It would also eliminate any other military reject who was rejected for any other myriad reasons not related to presence of mind.

      Right-wing nuts pop up because of something like the dielectric effect. As soon as you put a polarizing issue out there, the right-wingers pull one way, the left-wingers pull the opposite. right-winger nuts are only right-winger nuts if you're left-leaning. The sad fact is that left-wingers are usually the ones advocating more outside control (from the personal perspective), and this is usually opposite what right-wingers believe in.

      You're making a stupid argument. The 2nd amendment is there to make sure the soldiers aren't the only ones with the ability to force the issue. If the only people who get to use them are soldiers and former soldiers, then you've just circumvented the spirit of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with poor treatment of vets.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    181. Re:second amendment rights by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Every American should own a tank, with bright orange safety switch in front, you know, for safety.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    182. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      True, but for better or worse a lot of the original language of the Constitution was intentionally unspecific. The problem is that they had to get a very heterogeneous group of people to all agree to the same thing. The only way that worked was if they were a bit vague on some of the more contentious topics. That way each side could believe their interpretation was right.

    183. Re:second amendment rights by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      Here's one: What if he has a friend and you just wasted several rounds trying to hit his arms or shoulders? Are you gonna have enough rounds left to defend yourself from his friend(s) until the police arrive? Personally, if he is threatening my life I'm shooting center of mass until he goes down. If he isn't threatening my life then I don't really have any reason to shoot him, do I?

      That wouldn't be "an [singular] axe murder," now would it?

      Obviously a higher number of targets means different munitions strategies need to be deployed. Even if you only see one violent intruder, there may be one or more accomplices that you don't know about. I don't think that even with a gun you can 100% guarantee your ability to come out alive, but I can 100% guarantee that your odds of coming out alive are massively increased.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    184. Re:second amendment rights by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Since the NRA exists specifically to support the 2nd amendment, the ACLU can spend its time and effort on the other ones.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    185. Re:second amendment rights by winwar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit..."

      Depends on the state. In Washington all I have to do is answer ten or so questions (are you crazy, are you a felon, etc.), get fingerprinted and pay the fee. If I pass the background check, I get the permit.

    186. Re:second amendment rights by Harry+Coin · · Score: 1

      If you own a gun and he is threatening you with that axe, you are perfectly within your rights to blow his deranged brains out, or if you're like me you'll try and disable him instead of kill (multiple shots - if I can't get his shoulder or arm, then with the remaining rounds I might be forced for a body shot - yes I have been bored and thought through the classical canon of nightmare scenarios, you should too).

      You should reconsider your response. You should never (unless you are a police or military marksman with specialized training) fire a gun with the intention of "disabling" someone. Do not point a gun at someone you do not have the intention of killing. Fear, stress, and anger will reduce your accuracy. If they comply when threatened with a gun, by all means hold your fire, but if you genuinely fear for your life then open fire. Always shoot at center of mass, and continue firing until they are down. Don't even consider shooting the gun from their hand, crippling a limb, taking a head shot or any other movie-inspired bullshit. And never, ever fire if you are not in genuine fear of your life. Any coup-de-grace delivered after the threat to your life is ended crosses the line from self-defence into murder.

      --
      That's pre 7-11 thinking....
    187. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I don't think that even with a gun you can 100% guarantee your ability to come out alive, but I can 100% guarantee that your odds of coming out alive are massively increased.

      Oh I agree. I was just looking to debate the merits of your "I'll try to wound him first" position. If you think you can actually hit his arms or shoulders then go for it I guess, but funny things happen to your fine motor skills under stress and I wouldn't bank on my ability to pull it off. I'll be shooting center of mass until he goes down or the slide locks back.

      Either way though, yeah, you are much better off with the gun than without. If he's smart he'll get the hell out of dodge. If he isn't then I guess you get to find out how effective of a man-stopper your chosen caliber really is.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    188. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Personally, I prefer the self-defense strategy taught to me by my father when I was a child:

      "If someone forcefully invades your home, shoot them. Shoot them exactly as many times as necessary to make sure they are dead. That way, they can't contradict your story about what happened, or try to sue your ass off later."

    189. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.

      In a number of states, like Virginia, the (unorganized) militia (SS 44.1 - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1 ) as defined by the state constitution are all males between 16 and 55.

    190. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are also forgetting that many of the conditions that our founding fathers did actually foresee are present today, and that their solution -- making sure that the populace remains armed -- is at least as relevant today as it has ever been in the history of our country.

      Further, if you are saying that the Constitution should be a "living document", and subject to change based on the norms and fads of the day, then you simply never learned the lessons of history. Our nation would no longer exist.

      If you don't see the danger of a corrupt government, then fine. Go your way and be happy. You can't be forced to participate in your own self defense. But don't try to step on the rights of others in the process. You are likely to make them angry -- rightly so -- and they might just treat you like all the actual traitors.

      --
      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis

    191. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >This is perhaps the dumbest thing the NRA ever said.

      Quote by Robert Heinlein, not the NRA.

      >An armed society is not, in fact, a polite society but rather it is a frightened society.

      Bullshit. The only people frightened by law abiding citizens who carry guns are people who plan on committing felonies. Fact backed up by only two recorded incidents so far of CCW permit holders ever doing something dumb with their guns.

      When I go to the shooting range, I have no fear of anyone going on a rampage and killing everyone with a gun. This daily example shows your argument to be utter hogwash.

      >They become afraid that you'll shoot them for cutting them off in traffic.

      Well, if that's what it takes for you to stop driving like a dumbass... :)

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    192. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You can read my comments elsewhere on this topic, but historical meaning, which was acknowledged by the majority opinion in the recent SCOTUS decision on the 2nd Amendment, goes like this:

      "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."

      A "well regulated" militia is an army. The citizen's militia (all able-bodied men were considered part of the citizen's militia) is not "well regulated".

      The founding fathers knew that the greatest threat to a democratic republic and its people was a standing army. Historically, all too often, the military would score a coup and the government would fall.

      So: the well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of the State against outside invasion, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... because the People represent the only force that could be effective against the internal threat, the "well regulated" militia, should it decide to get uppity.

      And that is why, historically, the right of "the People" to possess military-grade arms was protected: because they might, in fact, be called (or forced) to be fighting the military.

      Obviously, the citizens are not going to get nukes. But then, any government that was crazy enough to nuke its own citizenry would not be lasting long anyway.

    193. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, quite literally.

    194. Re:second amendment rights by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      But in the meantime how many would die to accidents? Would you trust the average American with gun safety? Would you be allowed to carry while at the bar?

    195. Re:second amendment rights by Atario · · Score: 1

      "Gun control" doesn't simply mean declaring that guns are illegal and hoping people comply. It means doing your level best to get the guns off the street too -- up to and including crushing the Mob. And that's what's not happening.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    196. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Our Constitution IS a living document and is subject to change based on the norms and fads of the day, given that it passes the amendment process. How ignorant of reality and history do you have to believe to think otherwise? If it wasn't, our nation as it currently is would never exist. And by "our nation as it currently is", I mean the one where black people aren't slaves and women can vote, among many other things.

    197. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, the amendment process is what it is, in order to prevent changing the Constitution according to the norms and fads of the day. The process of amendment is difficult, and intentionally so. That was my point.

      True, as you point out, the definition of (and perception of) "citizen" has changed. (But, I will point out, that is all that has actually changed, in regard to your points.) But those were long, hard-fought wars, not simply the whim of the current generation.

    198. Re:second amendment rights by Ailill · · Score: 2, Informative

      why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me

      This is the main reason I'm not a card carrying member of the ACLU. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.... American Civil Liberties Union, eh?

      I posed the question to an ACLU member. His response was: "There is an entire well funded organization which specifically focuses on second amendment issues. If it were the case that citizens could not get free quality representation on such issues, we would likely cover more second amendment cases. Additionally, since the NRA is more focused they typically have more expertise." His response makes sense to me. Basically, there are many civil liberties which need to be protected. If one is protected exceedingly well by another well funded group, the ACLU should focus on others.

    199. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Then you should tell him that they need to update their website, because their website specifically says that they don't consider the regulation of gun ownership to be a "civil rights issue". I find it hypocritical that they consider the regulation of free speech to be a civil rights issue but not the regulation of gun ownership.

      The excuse that there are other "well funded organizations" doesn't hold water with me. There are lots of well funded organizations working to end the death penalty, why does the ACLU get involved in that issue?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    200. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also get a bonus due to their enemy's restraint (unwillingness to level entire towns and eradicate populations).

    201. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Firearms accidents are an issue. My proposal which I am putting to local and state groups (and fed, if I can find a receptive crowd in congress) is to put forward a mandatory education system for archaic and modern weapons. Upon graduating from high school in the USA, every man and woman should be proficient with blades, guns, pepper spray, kubotons, and unarmed combat. With everyone proficient in all of these weapons systems, the dangers of firearms accidents would drastically drop.

      The only remaining major issue with firearms related deaths happens to be suicide. But suicides will happen regardless, a suicidal person will find a gun, knife, or noose to arrange their own demise. Only through the intervention of family, friends, and as a last resort the state can a person be prevented from taking their own life.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    202. Re:second amendment rights by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Well.. why not, I'll take a chance on being moderated troll like the other guy..

      You want a citation to prove that there are a lot of gun deaths for unlocked guns ? ... I suppose someone could research the number of gun deaths from guns locked up vs laying around the house... hey government grant !

      Gun control and murder rates in populated areas vs low population.. and you prove.. nothing.. because owning a gun does not necessarily mean your violent.. it also doesn't prevent violence...

      There is a theory that I would present.. and that is that although guns don't make you more violent, when you are violent you have a greater capacity for inflicting death. This doesn't mean that there are not alternative methods of killing.. but if I was unarmed, I would prefer to take on an attacker who had a knife than one who had a gun.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    203. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun control and murder rates in populated areas vs low population.. and you prove.. nothing.. because owning a gun does not necessarily mean your violent.. it also doesn't prevent violence...

      Right, also known as "correlation is not causation". I don't claim that more guns == less crime (although some do and they present an interesting case while doing so) -- my claim is that less guns != less crime.

      but if I was unarmed, I would prefer to take on an attacker who had a knife than one who had a gun.

      But why should you have to be unarmed? I would prefer to take on the attacker who had a knife with one of my firearms, thank you very much. Unless you have some sort of combat training (karate doesn't count either) you'd be a fool to take on someone who has a knife while unarmed. Your only option in that scenario is to surrender or run. I choose to defend myself with the best tool available for the job.

    204. Re:second amendment rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      This one is often repeated, but, much as I like Heinlein, it's simply not true. "Fear" != "politeness", even if the outward impression may be the same. The difference is that a guy who fears you will stop smiling and stab you in the back the moment you turn away. Guns are not the right way to make the society "polite".

      That said, I'm not against gun ownership, though I do think that it has to be very strictly controlled (particularly, that regular gun handling & safety courses should be mandatory for the entire duration of the gun permit).

    205. Re:second amendment rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan shows us semiautomatic weapons work wonders against tank crews; they all have to eat, sleep, go to the restroom, and refuel. Just ask the Russians. In fact, it took helicopters to turn the tide back in Russia's favour - to wit the US provided AA-missiles to shift things back the other way.

      When you speak about "shifting things" in Afghanistan, you have to look at things in the right perspective. The USSR lost the war because they did not have political will to continue fighting, not because the enemy was stronger (pretty much the same happened with US in Vietnam earlier). Now if you look at the casualty figures, it's a very different story:

      Soviet losses - ~15,000 killed
      Afghani losses - ~1,000,000 killed

      which actually illustrates the whole point of the pointlessness of "rifles vs tanks" very well. You can also check the figures for Vietnam, or Somalia, or Iraq, and they'll tell you the same thing. Technical superiority does matter, and so does professional military training.

    206. Re:second amendment rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We can take care of any traditional army in the world without much trouble, barring larger countries like China and Russia. We cannot, however, easily quash a pissed off and unorganized army in a small shit hole of a country

      Oh, sure you can. If you had all the options that were available to you in past wars, such as carpet bombing, indiscriminate use of napalm, etc, of course you can quash them. If need be, you can level the entire country to do so. Military might there is undisputed; the problem with those insurgencies, why the U.S. cannot fight them, is because there is no clear achievable goal that indicates a "win" (and, in particular, killing them all isn't a "win", otherwise it would be damn simple).

      Russia learned this years ago, as they made the same mistake, and they were better prepared than we were!

      I'm not sure what you imply here with regards to Russia, but if it's Chechnya, then "better prepared" is a joke - Russian Army was probably at its lower point in decades back in 1994-1996, when hungry, untrained and poorly equipped conscripts were sent to the frontline with little preparation and planning, and no coordination (a lot of Russian losses in the first battle of Grozny was actually from friendly fire, particularly artillery).

      A single civilian with a rifle or a 150mm shell can take out an entire squad of Marines and still make it home for lunch.

      Did such a thing actually happen, ever? Do you have a reference?

    207. Re:second amendment rights by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      If I see an axe murderer on the far end of my lawn (and given there is actual reason to think he will attempt to do me or my family harm), I will attempt to disable him first. If I see him at the far end of my kitchen, I will shoot to kill (though I wouldn't really keep a gun in the kitchen, but you get the idea).

      Given the tactical luxury, I will always opt for less-than-lethal.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    208. Re:second amendment rights by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I think what you meant to say was that their understanding of the 2nd Amendment differs from yours

      More importantly, their understanding differs from that of the SCOTUS.

    209. Re:second amendment rights by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, non-interventionism would not work for us, economically. We have only a fraction of the world's territory, yet we have need, in our economy, of every single natural resource in existence anywhere in the world.

      Obscure stuff - rhodium, indium, platinum, etc. Stuff we just don't have here. Yes, you can trade for it, but the bad news is that you need to be able to resort to force in order to get trade.

      If someone has you over a barrel - if what they have you NEED, and there is nowhere else in the world you can get it, you are in serious trouble.

      Sad to say it, but that's where diplomacy (including 'gun-boat' diplomacy) comes into play.

    210. Re:second amendment rights by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it is simply enough to take up arms (any kind of arms) to overthrow a government. Well, in France anyway.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    211. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Protection of the Second Amendment is one of the roles the NRA has taken on in recent decades as the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment have become threatened by local, state, and the Federal government. The NRA is historically more focused on training, safety, and promoting firearms awareness and still spends many (I believe the majority) of their resources on those activities (oh, and overpaying their ineffectual and PR challenged CEO).

      The much younger (founded about 30 years ago), albeit related, NRA-ILA is more specifically focused on legislative/judicial aspects of gun possession and ownership.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    212. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Obscure stuff - rhodium, indium, platinum, etc. Stuff we just don't have here. Yes, you can trade for it, but the bad news is that you need to be able to resort to force in order to get trade.

      We have to resort to force to trade with Canada and South Africa?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    213. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >This one is often repeated, but, much as I like Heinlein, it's simply not true.

      It simply IS true. When I see a police officer walk down the street with a gun in a holster, I don't fear him. When I see a civilian do the same, I don't fear him. When I'm at a shooting range with 20+ people, I don't fear any of them.

      The only reason you fear them is because of the mainstream media chanting "Guns are BAAAAD" for as long as I remember, and people fear bad things (or things they have been told are bad.)

      Fear is the mindkiller.

      Once you understand the things you fear, you can let go of the fear, and only you will remain, a wiser person and a safer person.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    214. Re:second amendment rights by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I'd say the definition of citizen changing is one of the fundamental revolutions of our entire experiment in democracy. It's a change that can't be emphasized enough. In reality, the original effect of the constitution was to create a democratic state for a small subset of people - white male landowners. Most of the founders simply did not intend for democracy to be extended beyond this subset of people. We far to often gloss over this reality.

      Speaking of the amendment process, you realize that's not the same as designed by the founding father's when they drafted the Constitution, right? We changed it indirectly by changing how the senators were elected. Their way of doing it just wasn't relevant to our times anymore. Many of them would be thoroughly pissed.

      So, back to my original point, plenty of the ideas of the founding fathers are just not applicable to our time. We should evaluate them based on their merit as it relates to our societal norms now.

      I think that's probably the last I'll have to say on this particular thread. It's already getting a bit circular.

    215. Re:second amendment rights by npsimons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me).

      The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it, and take the interpretation that it's a collective right and not an individual one (more details). I also think they stay off second amendment cases because other groups (I can think of two of the top of my head) are much more well funded and hyper focused on it.

      The ACLU will generally help those who ask for it when they think the person has had their civil rights violated, and has even been on the same side as the ACLJ when defending the right of students to pray in school. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as you can get.

      Another point the ACLU makes is that they don't think that the possession of guns raises a civil liberties issue. As much as the gun nuts like to say that "the second amendment guarantees the others", we've seen that obviously isn't true. And who would want to live in a country where you would have to kill to exercise your freedom of speech? If all we have left to protect is the second amendment, we've got bigger problems on our hands.

    216. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, I bet your dick must be at least sixteenth of an inches long. When flaccid!

      Fixed that for ya

    217. Re:second amendment rights by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      While I agree on your points for gun control, you probably should have tried to compare states with similar population sizes or densities with and without strict gun control. Not stacking people on top of each other goes a long way to reducing violent crime on it's own.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    218. Re:second amendment rights by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to read the original verbiage for the second amendment as submitted by Madison to Congress:

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

      Considering how little the meaning of each was changed while being condensed, I definitely support the Heller interpretation of the second amendment.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    219. Re:second amendment rights by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope you are not serious.

      Solving things by lynching has never been very, er, civilised way.

    220. Re:second amendment rights by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Not stacking people on top of each other goes a long way to reducing violent crime on it's own.

      Ultimately that's the point. Other factors drive crime and when you look at firearm ownership statistics across multiple US States and/or different countries it's tough to argue that gun control has any meaningful impact on crime.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    221. Re:second amendment rights by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that violence has little to nothing to do with weapons.

      Are you a complete moron or what? None of the school shootings would have happened without a gun.

      P.S. There are wackos trying to ban everything. For some odd reason I think their reasoning is as idiotic as pro gun.

    222. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      I'm not proposing lynching. I'm proposing that citizens be allowed to react to immediate and unavoidable dangers to themselves or to innocents. Once that danger is avoidable or no longer immediate, lethal force is not an option that citizens who carry guns use.

      So yes, I am serious about what I am saying, and no, what you are saying I am saying is not what I am saying or what I was saying. Do you see what I'm saying?

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    223. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      And by dangers I mean imminent death or grevious injury.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    224. Re:second amendment rights by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it

      As your own post seems to point out (and as I did a few posts up), they are NOT neutral with regard to Second Amendment. In fact, they openly and specifically state that they disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation in Heller -- which is, I believe, the only SCOTUS precedent that addresses the bogus "collective rights" position that the ACLU takes. Because they take a discredited position to support the claim that "neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue", they are hardly neutral IMHO.

      To say that the ACLU is neutral on the Second Amendment is only barely more credible than asserting that an organization that claimed that the Fourth Amendment's protections:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      are referring to a collective right so the police only need warrants to search government property. Would you consider that position "neutral"?

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    225. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas,.."

      Agreed but show me a finer group of statesmen assembled within the same room. Heck, find such a group within the last 2500 years of history. Only a small mind would diminish the achievements of the founders.

    226. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep - sneaky bastards. Looming over us like that. Who do they think they are??

    227. Re:second amendment rights by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, just maybe, you should read a few paragraphs of history.

      "Quickly solved by local populace" ... bloody hell, that is why police and court system was "invented".

      Unfortunately "danger" is in the beholder of the eye.

      Same with "innocent" - it has been proved far too many times that "revenge" is too strong an urge.

    228. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >Maybe, just maybe, you should read a few paragraphs of history.

      Here, let me crack a history book open for you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

      >"Quickly solved by local populace" ... bloody hell, that is why police and court system was "invented".

      Where were the police and court systems for the 23 dead, 20 wounded? Oh right, they were the ones that told Suzanna Hupp she couldn't carry her gun in a restaurant. And because she obeyed the law, she got to watch her family die before her eyes.

      The same sad story is becoming more common. There were conceal carry permit holders at Vtech who left their guns at home because carrying them could get them expelled or arrested while on campus.

      Police and courts are only useful after a mass casualty event has occurred, not before and only sometimes during the event.

      >Unfortunately "danger" is in the beholder of the eye.

      No. There is a time when lethal force is a legally allowed by civilians in defense. It is the following(slight variations by state and locale, know your laws and this is not legal advice):
      "The accepted definition of the justifiable use of deadly force is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. There must clearly be no hope of escaping an attack safely. The attacker must fulfill three conditions to justify a lethal defense on the victim's part:
      1. ABILITY - The attacker must have the power to kill or cause crippling injury, or to be advantaged with a disparity of force or a disparity of skill, such as a prizefighter or black-belt karateist (which the victim must know before hand).
      2. OPPORTUNITY - The attacker must be capable of employing bodily harm immediately. He must be within range.
      3. JEOPARDY - The perpetrator must be acting in such a manner that a reasonably prudent person would assume he intended to attack. "

      >it has been proved far too many times that "revenge" is too strong an urge.

      Care to back that statement up? Words are only air unless they have facts to back them up.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    229. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Incorrect.

      I rebut your claim that firearms are the causation of school mass casualty events by putting forward the following:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre

      10 dead. Attacker used a Flamethrower and a Lance. You heard me, flamethrower and lance.

      Contrawise, school mass casualty events can be easily stopped with guns. Israel has proved this one quite handily.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    230. Re:second amendment rights by swillden · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that violence has little to nothing to do with weapons.

      Are you a complete moron or what? None of the school shootings would have happened without a gun.

      That is a stupid comment on so many levels. Where to begin?

      First, it's impossible to keep guns away from people who want to kill people. Especially in the US, but anywhere. It might be possible to stop one or two kids from getting guns. Maybe. Note the recent school shooting in Germany, which has extremely restrictive gun control.

      Second, you completely ignore the fact that had there been *more* guns on campus, those school shootings would have been much less deadly. Before you start spouting about "OK corral in the lunchroom", "blood running in the halls" and "innocents caught in the crossfire", you should do some research on the three school shootings that have occurred in the US where an armed individual intervened. In all three cases: (a) not a single person was injured after the intervention -- not even the shooter! and (b) the shooting was stopped immediately. That's a 100% success rate. Obviously, not every situation would go down that well, but lives would be saved.

      In addition, active shooters target schools primarily because they are "gun-free". If Cho had expected that there would have been a gun or two in each classroom, it's quite likely he wouldn't even have gone in. It's obviously hard to predict the actions of crazy people, but it's quite clear from the writings and videos left behind by shooters that they're on a power trip -- and guns don't make you powerful when someone can shoot back.

      The knee-jerk response you're feeling at this point is to tell me about all the enraged students that will "flip out" and blow away their professors, other students, etc., because they're stressed. Again, do some research first. There are a good number of schools in the US that allow adult students with no criminal record to carry a gun on campus, and the only result has been a decrease in violent crime on campus (rape in particular). There has not been a SINGLE incident of spontaneous rage resulting in someone getting shot. And if there were one such every few years, it would certainly be acceptable in exchange for the lives saved.

      Finally, even if it were possible to instantly make all guns disappear so that school shootings became impossible, you'd be giving a death sentence to hundreds, maybe thousands annually in order to save a handful. The fact is that guns -- especially handguns -- are used many, many times every day by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. The exact number is a subject of much debate, estimates range from a 150,000 incidents per year to 2.5 million. Hardly any of these make the news because the presence of a gun turns them into a non-incident. 95% of the time, just showing the gun is enough to stop the crime, even when the criminal is also armed. Of the remainder, 60% of the time no one gets hurt. And of the 2% of such incidents where someone does get hurt it is almost never anyone but the bad guy. Police are *11* times more likely, on a per-shooting basis, to shoot innocent bystanders or themselves than law-abiding citizens. This has more to do with the situations in which police shoot than any lack of accuracy or judgment on their part, but it's still an important statistic.

      Even if it were possible, and it's obviously not, to make all guns go away, the result would be an increase in violent deaths. Australia and the UK are very interesting cases in point. Statistics are complex, and choosing what factors to control for, and how to calculate the results, allows for a lot of variability in study results, but the most *optimistic* analyses of the effects of their laws is that they have had no effect. In Australia, gun homicides have decreased, but overall homicide has risen. In the UK, gun homicide has risen as well as overall homicide, though the percentage of homicide

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    231. Re:second amendment rights by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is, and you are doing the circling. We have already discussed the change in perception of "citizen", and you have added nothing to the mix, merely repeated what you stated before. I do have one bone to pick, however: your assertion that they "never intended for democracy to be extended beyond this subset" has nothing to back it up. You know full well that if, at the time, they had even suggested making slaves full citizens, OR women, that our government would never have gotten formed in the first place. Don't confuse the political reality of their day with some kind of "intent" on their part. It may well have been, but I rather suspect otherwise. Regardless, we will never know.

      As for the amendment process, it was not fundamentally altered simply because we now elect our senators. If anything, it has become slightly more difficult to pass an amendment for mere political reasons, now that they are elected rather than chosen by state legislatures. As far as I am concerned that is a good thing, since passing an amendment for purely political reasons is, and has always been, a bad thing.

      So, back to your original point. I strongly disagree with your position. You have already demonstrated that you do not even understand how some of those principles do, in fact, apply to your current situation. Which is just exactly why making amendments was made difficult.

      --
      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis (emphasis mine)

    232. Re:second amendment rights by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.

      Now, I'm sure that if gun ownership was mandatory, or at least actively encouraged, it would have had an effect, but the level of gun ownership is not sufficiently high for that to be an argument for keeping the status quo.

    233. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

      Am i going crazy or is that a line forbidding a draft?

    234. Re:second amendment rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am related by marriage to a man who put 3 security guards in the hospital, after they tased him for refusing to exit the vehicle.

      That's right, he was sitting in the back of a vehicle, they tased him, he got out and hospitalised all 3 (incidentally they security guards were in the wrong, lost their jobs and their company lost a lawsuit; the DA dropped all charges against my family relation). Tasers do not work on everyone. I even knew a nutjob in a martial arts club that bought a stun gun and repeatedly applied it to the inside of his thigh to "toughen up." I guarantee after a month of that tasers and stun guns had zero effect on him.

      Like the fellow to which I'm replying said, bullets from the average handgun work on everyone. It has little to do with hormones and more to do with using the best tool for the job.

    235. Re:second amendment rights by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.

      What do you base that on? How many times do you think they need to be shot before they are effectively stopped? Here's an example of it happening, at Virginia Tech, no less. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55326 here's another one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church,_Colorado#Shooting Seems like you need one or two armed to do an "effective stop". Besides that, it is the gunman not knowing who, if anyone, is armed that provides the deterrent.

    236. Re:second amendment rights by BranMan · · Score: 1

      I suppose one could argue the case better - it certainly should have won on its merits. There are at least 2 circumstances I can think of where a short barrel shotgun would come in really handy for the military.

      1) Storming, and specifically clearing, enemy trenches. Up close, personal, and the stopping power of a shotgun would be a lot better use than an unwieldy rifle.

      2) Tunnel clearing. Typically they used a pistol, but a shotgun not much bigger than a pistol would be a better option, if available.

    237. Re:second amendment rights by mjwx · · Score: 1

      >More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants.

      >Teachers are often targeted as they are seen as symbols of Thailand's Buddhist authorities.

      >"We have granted special rights for teachers to carry guns," deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng told reporters on Tuesday, adding that 2,000 teachers had already requested arms.

      So many inaccuracies. 1. there are no Muslim extremists or militants. There are separatisms which target government facilities specifically (not indiscriminately like the Islamic extremists in the Philipines and Indonesia) three southern provinces wish to break away from the predominantly Buddhist Thai government and join the predominantly Muslim (and more stable) Malay government. Teachers in the 3 southern provinces in question are being targeted as they are seen as part of the government.

      2. Teachers are not Buddhist Authorities, try monks and calling them Authorities is a bit of a stretch given the way Buddhism is meant to work.

      3. As for requesting arms, you clearly don't know anything about Thailand here either. Teachers don't make very much over there, what's the bet that these arms will be sold off to make a little extra money.

      Also youre using the Beeb as an authority on Thailand which is just stupid. The BBC doesnt have any decent Asia correspondents, also that page was last updated in 2005, Thailand has had 2 coups since then and the sepratists have reduced the number of attacks (they are also targeting Bangkok more).

      OH SNAP! anecdotal evidence from 2005 from someone who bases their opinons of Asia from sources in Europe. Hardly the decisive evidence I was hoping for.

      Except in Israel it is parents working as part of a volunteer defence force for schools, not the IDF (though some may also be IDF.)

      Big point of contention here, all Israeli's are members of the IDF, if only in reserve. Israel has mandatory national service (one of the big reasons my house mates parents moved to Australia when they had their first kid), every Israeli (men and women) were trained by the IDF.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    238. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      1. They aren't murderers, they're just misunderstood? Is that your argument?

      2. How things should work and how things do work are two different things.

      3. I provided source data which contradicts your sourceless data. You spending time there does not give you instant knowledge of every aspect of their culture, political systems, and lives.

      I've provided the BBC as a source, and you discredit it out of hand. Provide a countersource to prove your argument then.

      As for the IDF, replace my use of IDF with Active IDF then if that makes you happy.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    239. Re:second amendment rights by mjwx · · Score: 1

      1. They aren't murderers, they're just misunderstood? Is that your argument?

      They aren't relevant to this argument, they are partisans, non-uniformed combatants by a technical definition. Also they are the vast minority of Thailand's population, they live in the deep south which is the richest and most privileged part of Thailand. The majority of the population lives in the North and East (Most notably the Issan reigion) which are the poorest regions (produces mostly agricultural products). I suppose to understand what they are really requires an understanding of Thai culture and Thai politics (and if you think Western politics are messed up, learning about Thai politics will make the US congress look like saints). Put simply they are Separatists, I don't defend nor support them but they haven't used a foreign hostage to use as a bargaining chip and they've been around since the early 80's.

      2. How things should work and how things do work are two different things.

      Without explaining how things work in third world countries, or how governments are overthrown, both subjects would take too long. You took a single BBC article as gospel and formed your own conclusions based on what you knew about your own society.

      3. I provided source data which contradicts your sourceless data. You spending time there does not give you instant knowledge of every aspect of their culture, political systems, and lives.

      You provided one source of unreliable evidence, provided by the Thai government about anti-government forces and from 2005 which puts it from an unreliable source and out of date. No, I don't have knowledge of every aspect of their society but I know enough to say that what was originally posted about the Thai's is dead wrong, if you've spent time there (2 weeks is sufficient) you would have learned this. Nothing is more important in Asia then face, in Thai (Theravada Buddhist) culture nothing can cause the loss of face faster then losing your temper so shootings are rarely random and most of them are precipitated by a severe loss of face by the shooter (IE most attacks are revenge). There are numerous sites dedicated to Thailand and Thai culture, no definitive source however (this in itself is an indication of how Thais think) but you really have to go there and see it before you have an understanding.

      The original post said:

      No. Read up on Thailand and Israel, where either teachers have guns or armed guards patrol the schools.

      This is untrue, the only source you have provided is a single obscure report from 2005 (Pre-coup, when Thaksin Shintarawa was still in control). The article did not say that teachers had guns, nor were armed guards patrolling the schools. The article only stated that it was reported that a number of teachers had requested guns (in all likelihood free guns, if they wanted a firearm they need only purchase one out of their own pocket), nor did the report say that these requests were granted. By the way, the report specifies that all the information in the report was given the the BBC by government sources, this is my favourite quote.

      More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants

      I pointed out that your source had insufficient information to base your conclusions on. You made an incorrect assumption of a people you've never met (even in passing) in order to support your own theories, I called out both but you seem to be stuck on the less important point. Effective law enforcement has more of an impact on crime then an armed populace, often without effective law enforcement the armed populous become more of a danger, like in South Africa.

      I'm sorry if personal experiences aren't enough for you, you could always research these people for yours

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    240. Re:second amendment rights by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to be hung up on the BBC not being a reliable source of data for Thailand, could you provide a source that would be credible then?

      Also, a source explaining how the BBC is not credible there would be nice to see.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    241. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's a great re-cap!

    242. Re:second amendment rights by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author.

      I think we're playing with semantics here. My point is, the majority of our well recognized forefathers are well recognized for exactly the reason you state; the basis of their arguments are nearly bullet proof because in many cases they were debated for years if not decades. In other words, the author's stand on their own simply because the arguments which are so well read can still stand on their own after two centuries and some change.

    243. Re:second amendment rights by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      Without trying to normalize other factors, it's difficult to successfully argue either way.

      I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that when you *want* to compare the effect of gun control, you should try to isolate it as a variable as best you can.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
  7. terrorists? by thenewguy001 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised the feds didn't cite terrorist concerns over the deregulation of this rocket propellant. Oh well, I'm sure they'll just lobby to have the laws changed/enacted to bring this propellant under federal regulation. Doesn't anyone else think it's irresponsible to allow anyone to buy powerful rocket motors without a license? Who needs a suicide patsy when you can just set up a rocket? Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

    1. Re:terrorists? by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about we just realize that life is dangerous and grow the fuck up.

      Otherwise we should ban cars, liquor, cigarettes, saturated fat, and the jonas brothers... cause these have caused far more strife, suffering, and death, than the terrorists could ever hope for.

    2. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are being paranoid. I can build a high power rocket motor out of stuff that you have in the common kitchen.

    3. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to ban kitchens and lockup any A-Team, MacGyver wannabes!

    4. Re:terrorists? by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, all they have to do to make this stuff illegal to own again is to rewrite their regulation. I think I'm being paranoid too, in thinking they'll rewrite.

      I dinked around with model rocketry some 30 years ago, and at that time the size motor you could buy without some serious paperwork was really tiny. In fact, that was the main reason I didn't pursue it further.

      Anyway, I don't think "anyone" can buy a "powerful rocket motor" without sending up flags everywhere. Also, building a guidance system is not a trivial exercise, even with GPS.

      Not knowing what I'm talking about, I feel free to pontificate wildly. Thanks, /.

    5. Re:terrorists? by thenewguy001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      But those things have far more uses than just destructive activities. Not much use for rocket engines than to deliver a malignant payload. Do amateur rocketeers really need more powerful rockets to shoot into the sky just for kicks? Do they do anything close to scientific research, or is it just "haha lookit my rockit go!"?

    6. Re:terrorists? by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While APCP is the best choice, common table sugar and potassium nitrate makes a decent propellant as well in a pinch.

      If absolutely necessary, potassium nitrate can be had by peeing into straw bales and letting it ferment for a while. Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.

      APCP is used in rocketry primarily because it is a decent propellant that is safe to ship, store, and use with simple precautions. Plenty of other propellant options are available as well without a license but are considerably more dangerous to handle. I doubt that would stop a terrorist, but it does significantly deter harmless rocket hobbyists trying to get their kids interested in science.

      If you still think solid rocket propellant without a license is a problem, you will also want household ammonia and/or bleach and pool chlorine banned. I'm guessing that banning gasoline and diesel is right out of the question, but combined with an oxidizer, they have plenty of power.

      Considering that hobbyists have jet propelled r/c planes and helos available these days, the terrorist angle might be a hard sell to the courts.

    7. Re:terrorists? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When has regulating anything done anything to stop potential terrorist or other criminal activity? Almost never. When has regulating made it an absolute pain to do something? Always.

      We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses. Heck, even if someone just wants to see a rocket shoot up into the air very fast, let them. Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    8. Re:terrorists? by lenester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My girlfriend (cue +5 Funny reply) told me about her home state of Virginia moving the fences along the freeways back to 50 feet, because they were concerned about kids climbing over them on a dare. Since they didn't figure they could stop this behavior, they decided to make it safe ("over the fence" is no longer a traffic zone).

      Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy will be stopped cold for at least five years (i.e. one high school rotation).

      With fences in place, in the public eye it's the fault of the fence-builders for building insecure fences, not the kid for winning a Darwin. It's an outrage, not a lesson. And due to a false sense of safety, people get just as hurt just as often.

    9. Re:terrorists? by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      It's painfully obvious from your post that you are not interested in science.
      Do people really need cigarettes and liquor just for kicks? Or is it just "haha lookit me do drugs!"?

      Most of the model rocketeers that would be using these engines would send up scientific payloads (temperature and pressure data, video telemetry, etc). Sure, they aren't doing the latest and most breaking scientific discoveries, but you'd be hard pressed to find people building model rockets with warheads in them, although I'm sure some do.
      Besides, and probably most importantly: terrorists will always have the tools they need to do what they need to do. If they need to break the law to blow up a building, that's not going to stop them, it's only going to mean the hobbyists need to break the law or find a new hobby.

    10. Re:terrorists? by TechWrite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why in the world is "haha lookit my rockit go!" not a valid purpose? I would wager that for many a future engineer, physicist, astronomer, etc model rocketry is what set the hook of their interest in their future profession. I guess if we want everyone to be writers (and not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one) we don't need to encourage private experimentation and exploration and the sciences. But if we ever aspire to be more than that, we sure better encourage more kids to "haha lookit my rockit go!"

    11. Re:terrorists? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In addition to not being a trivial exercise, the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on. You might be able to get away with very small ones, but I don't really have a good feel for what the minimum weight you could get for servos, control computer and sensors would be, and what size rocket that would indicate.

      We build ~150-lbf thrust hybrid rockets for our senior design projects, and in the past few years its become more and more difficult to do anything interesting because of increased restrictions, from the school administration, the FAA, and Department of Homeland Security. Having a launch site that was pretty near Crawford, TX also made things difficult, had to find a new launch site.

    12. Re:terrorists? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.

      Don't be too sure about that... Never underestimate the stupidity of a government agency.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    13. Re:terrorists? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      While some simple licensing might be in order, in my experience the government is severely, ridiculously restricting model rocketry right now. For our senior design class we build ~150-lbf hybrid rockets that reach a mile in altitude (reasonably limited by the FAA in moderately dense airspace).

      We've always had some restrictions, mostly from the school and the FAA. The school doesn't let us build our own solid motors because of safety, and we have to go through a lot of paperwork with the FAA to schedule launches. We had to move from our old launch site because it was pretty close to Crawford, TX. Lately (as I commented before) they've cracked down on guidance systems, which I think is crossing a line, but is at least within the realm of being reasonable.

      Just this year, though, Homeland Security has gone to a new level of ridiculous, informing the advisor that the project now fell under International Trade in Arms Restrictions (ITAR). WHat this implies is that we can't tell any foreign nationals what we do... if there's a foreign student on the team they're not allowed to see any of the old classes materials. I was working to post a lot of information on the wiki for a student organization with a lot of chapters that do similar scale rocketry, showing our designs, the design equations, what equipment we've used, testing equipment, etc. Only now, I can't do that because if I did I'm afraid I'd bring legal trouble onto the organization which really doesn't have the resources to deal with it. So instead of being able to work collaboratively we're stuck recreating the wheel most of the time.

      Bypassing the fact that ITAR is a noose thats going to tighten on the US space industry eventually, I find it amusing that a project developed by a bunch of undergrads could possibly pose a threat to proliferating missile technology. The rockets that fly out of Gaza on a regular basis seem to able to fly much further than ours, and are probably much more robust, practical designs, since ours tend to go in a 'I wonder if we can do this?' kind of direction. I'm also pretty sure they'd be happy to share their knowledge with plenty of the people we're worried about spreading the technology too.

    14. Re:terrorists? by JustJonK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, yes we do something "close to scientific research." The rocketry club I am with launches a large rocket every year which carries experiments devised by middle and high school students. They've done everything from testing the durability of common electronic devices to studying the effects of acceleration on non-Newtonian fluids.

    15. Re:terrorists? by HBI · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".

      It's also how most Darwin Awards happen.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    16. Re:terrorists? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.

      Shush... please don't give them any ideas, I just drank half a pot of coffee.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    17. Re:terrorists? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      Anyone who doesn't understand what "amateur rocketry" is all about really should go someplace where Serious and Constructive discussions of a Serious and Constructive nature take place amongst fellow Serious and Constructive users of Serious and Constructive model rocketry.

      The rest of us are going to LDRS!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    18. Re:terrorists? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno, do we really need to allow you to drive beyond the city limits? I mean, if freedoms are defined as "what you really need to get along", why I bet I could deprive you of pretty much all your freedoms.

      Freedom means having to put up with things that may be inherently dangerous. There's an old saying by a guy named Benjamin Franklin about that, but then again, since I'm thinking of removing your freedom to use the Internet or look at books, I don't suppose you'll ever know about it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:terrorists? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Why rocketry? Because people have a right to learn.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:terrorists? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 5, Informative

      In addition to not being a trivial exercise, the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on.

      This is simply not true.

      First, the FAA (Office of Commercial Spaceflight, or AST) regulates rocketry unless it's intended to be a weapon. I.e., don't load it with explosives or flash powder, or fire it horizontally from a tube, and it's fine.

      Second, guided rockets are fairly ok now.

      The old FAA regulations for rockets treated guided rockets as needing permits or waivers for flights. Now, if you're under certain altitude thresholds and far enough from an airport, it's fine - hovering flight under guidance out on a ranch for example just requires calling the nearest airport and notifying them.

      A flight out of one of the (few) unregulated airspace locations in the US (Black Rock desert, for example) to any altitude, with a rocket with less than 200,000 pound thrust-seconds of impulse (up to about a thousand pounds of propellant, give or take some performance normalizing) also requires no permitting or waiver, other than notifying the nearest airport a day ahead of time.

      Larger rockets, or rockets flown near airports, or not far from innocent bystanders, are subject to increasing scrutiny for safety (of the general public and overflying aircraft).

      Even if you do reach the size or performance that requires a waiver or permit, doing the paperwork is being found by experience to be less burdensome than doing a decent job of designing the rocket and testing it. It just isn't the hardest part of it. If you're spending six months to a year building it, what's a month or two's part time effort on the paperwork?

      If you're in that performance regime and flying near where you could conceivably kill someone, the FAA will quite reasonably give you plenty of free advice on how not to do that, as will plenty of other amateur and semi-professional and professional rocketry people... John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace has helped other companies and groups out a lot with advice and moral support, and he's far from the only one.

    21. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Have you ever tried to buy a high power rocket motor? The BATFE did, and got shut down in 5 states. The hobby does a great job of policing itself, and certifies rocket fliers to use various sizes of rocket motors. There are written tests, approval committees, and the general rocketry community watching everything (we are protective of our hobby and make sure that motors are used safely and within NAR/TRA guidelines).

      We have been fighting this ruling for 9 years. It's not like we are unmotivated and unskilled. One of the clubs I belong to has fostered a number of aerospace engineers through our programs, and several of them (from Japan) are now designing satellites to orbit Venus.

      We have great fun flying our rockets, but we do real science, real engineering and real aeronautics. We do not need this heavy handed regulation squeezing the last remaining area of practical science and engineering from us or the young people we inspire.

    22. Re:terrorists? by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses.

      You see, weapons are special, because they do not have non-destructive uses. You either kill people with them, which is never a legal activity, or you hunt and kill animals, which only an extremely tiny fraction of the population has to do (as in not for recreation).

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    23. Re:terrorists? by TerribleNews · · Score: 1

      Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy will be stopped cold for at least five years (i.e. one high school rotation).

      Well, that's easy to say when you or someone you love is not the Darwin award winner in question. I think moving the fences back shows remarkable foresight on the part of a government body. I understand your argument about people getting a false sense of safety (just look at China and the baby formula thing), but I think overall, the fence will result in less danger. And while teaching people lessons is a good thing, I think keeping people out of danger in sane and reasonable ways is a better thing.

    24. Re:terrorists? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      or is it just "haha lookit my rockit go!"?

      It's how I get my children interested in math, science, physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering and aerodynamics. If you have a better method than punching holes in clouds I'd love to hear it. Difficulty: it has to actually work on children 4-10 years of age. If you haven't got them hooked on thinking by then, you ain't gonna.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    25. Re:terrorists? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place

      You obviously don't live somewhere with a large whitetail population ;) I've always assumed those fences have more to do with making it harder for animals to get onto the freeway and less to do with making it hard for humans to do the same.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:terrorists? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the red iron oxide. video

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    27. Re:terrorists? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".

      It's also how most Darwin Awards happen.

      Also a worthwhile human endeavor.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    28. Re:terrorists? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      You either kill people with them, which is never a legal activity

      Wrong. You are either dangerously ignorant of the law or just lying.

    29. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring defensive uses of a firearm (which include circumstances where it is legal to kill someone) and you are assuming that a firearm must be discharged to be used in self-defense. Common estimates of unreported successful self-defense without discharge are 50-100x the number of reported uses (stated differently: it is believed by criminologists that 98-99% of successful uses of firearms for self-defense, including simple brandishing at an attacker, are not reported to the police). If those estimates are accurate, then the presentation of a firearm without discharging it is used to prevent between 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 crimes per year.

      Personally, I deterred a thief from burglarizing my home in Cincinnati using a firearm but without discharging it. The kitchen door opening woke me up, I picked up a loaded shotgun, went to the top of the stairs, racked the slide, heard the thief run out the door he entered, never to be seen again.

      I know you're afraid of guns, but they're not scary once you understand them. If you live close to me (West Los Angeles), I will quite happily pay for the two of us to go to a gun range and you can learn about firearms, how to safely handle them, how to shoot them, how I keep them safely in a house with children, and I will answer any number of other questions you may have.

    30. Re:terrorists? by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      You see, weapons are special, because they do not have non-destructive uses. You either kill people with them ... or you hunt and kill animals...

      So, what you are saying is, if a weapon has a non-destructive use, it is no longer a weapon?

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    31. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where I am from, a couple of years back a tagger climbed a fence surrounding a transformer to tag the transformer. he was summarily electrocuted and caused a power outage in the surrounding area for three hours.
      I forgot where I was going with that, I like that story. :)
      oh yeah, fences, public safety, etc.

    32. Re:terrorists? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      In Columbia, SC, after years of people getting hit on a restricted access highway because they were cutting holes in the fences to cross it (at the exact same place every time it got repaired), we decided to build a pedestrian bridge. Apparently people are too smart to let those damned fences protect them.

    33. Re:terrorists? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Virginia the state that, on every single on-ramp, has one of those delightful "no left turn" signs?

    34. Re:terrorists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I know of at least one project that used hobby rockets fitted with spools of copper wire to trigger lightning strikes for serious research purposes.

    35. Re:terrorists? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, although someone is telling us we can't. Maybe an overambitious local FAA office, maybe DHS, maybe the school administration. I'm guessing its similar regulations that we have to deal with for UAV's. Also, we're based out of College Station, TX and have a limited budget, so we can't go all the way out to White Sands or somewhere similar. We're right between Houston, Austin, and Dallas, and the area around Waco hasn't been usable for the past 8 years because of Bush's ranch. It's really an annoying area to deal with. We also do spend quite a bit of time getting the permits to fly, still limited to a mile altitude.

      So while I'm not sure on where all the restrictions are coming from, we keep getting more and more restricted in what we can do, and although there are ways to get around many of the issues, our budget isn't big enough to allow us to do those things. I think Armadillo does most of their higher altitude testing out in Oklahoma, which is really outside of our practical range, although that is a good suggestion. I actually know people there, but haven't talked to them about these particular problems, I finished being directly involved a while ago.

    36. Re:terrorists? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Famous last words:

      "Hey guys, watch this!"

    37. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulation doesn't work because getting your hands on dangerous substances really is pathetically easy, I mean like, you'd be shocked to know what a highschool knowledge of chemistry combined with random crap around the house can produce. I mean hell I could make me some cheap thermite by raiding your medicine cabinet and your kitchen.

      Chlorine gas is another great household producible goodie, a crude form of napalm too. And lets not forget you can go to the nearest gas station and simply pump your self a few dozen gallons of a gas.

      would be terrorists don't need to sneak weapons into the country, just money. Theres plenty of toxins and explosives, and flammables in our days to day lives thats simply associated with an industrialized culture. Hell you can even GROW your own, lets not forget that some of the deadliest poisons known to man come from plants.

    38. Re:terrorists? by Anzya · · Score: 1

      So... before this pedestrian bridge, besides cutting a hole in the fence and running over the highway... what did a pedestrian need to do to legally and more importantly safely get to what ever is on the other side of the highway?

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    39. Re:terrorists? by lenester · · Score: 1

      Heh! Actually I live in rural Northern California, where we have mountain lions who would just knock the fences down, so that honestly didn't occur to me. If that's the actual reason for them being there in the first place, I can understand it.

    40. Re:terrorists? by Atario · · Score: 1

      We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses.

      Beware absolute unlimited statements. Following your assertion, nuclear bombs should be available at the corner store. For that matter, driver's licenses (and headlights, and driving on the right, and...) would disappear and we would all just be trusted to figure it out.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    41. Re:terrorists? by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Do amateur rocketeers really need more powerful rockets to shoot into the sky just for kicks?

      Low Earth Orbit, Here I Come!

    42. Re:terrorists? by bgeer · · Score: 1

      Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license.

      What makes you think that?? They've ruled that shoelaces are machine guns, ruling that pee is an explosive would be a return to common sense by their standards

    43. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even the ATF isn't stupid enough to try to ban peeing without a license."

      Yes, but other government agencies have the "right" to make you pee on demand, so, perhaps, this isn't too far off.

    44. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A flight out of one of the (few) unregulated airspace locations in the US (Black Rock desert, for example)

      There's a *lot* of uncontrolled (class G) airspace in the western US. Take a look at a sectional chart on skyvector and look for wide blue or purple banding that fades along one side. Everything on the hard-edged side is class G. In Colorado it's most of the western half of the state. On the Salt Lake City sectional, it looks like 70% of the chart is G. Likewise the Las Vegas chart.

    45. Re:terrorists? by funkybiggorilla · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? But what kind of crack are you smoking? You haven't got a flipping clue what the real regs are about FAR 101.

      First of all, there is NO "certain altitude threshold" for anything. It's all weight, weight of the vehicle and weight of the on board propellant.

      Second, the Office of Commercial Spaceflight as you call it has nothing to do with regulating rocketry.

      There have been NO regulations for so called "guided rockets." There has been NO permits and NO waivers for flights of such. The FAA doesn't care. The FBI does, and they raided the offices of a national organization many years ago and seized guidance plans. Other than that, nobody cares about guidance. Besides, so called "guidance" isn't easy and costs lots of bucks to implement.

      And Black Rock is not "unregulated" and you can not fly anything, to any height as you claim.

      Leave the rocketry expertise to the rocketeers and go back to your bong.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

    46. Re:terrorists? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on

      That would be consistent with the rest of the BATFE's regulations, as they view even trivial changes to be highly illegal and worthy of a lengthy time in jail.

      Take, for instance, Curio and Relic firearms. Let's say you buy a $200 Yugoslavian SKS - a Korea and Vietnam era Soviet carbine. It's got a 1lb 'grenade launcher' attachement on the end of the barrel (which is essentially nonfunctional as its impossible to get the grenades for them), and a bunch of other things which make the firearm impractical for casual use (hunting, shooting, etc.). However, modify it slightly - cut the launcher off, permanently, or install a less crude trigger - and you've just violated the law.

      I believe the regulation is something like 922r.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    47. Re:terrorists? by deraj123 · · Score: 1

      Walk about 3/4 of a mile to the nearest bridge (consisting of a road with a sidewalk). The pedestrian bridge got a lot of publicity when it was first built, mostly due to the fact that it basically connects two public housing complexes.

    48. Re:terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, Homeland Security has already defined as an explosive any thing that can be made to explode. Water (Popcorn explodes due to exploding water) is in pee and thus pee is a felony already.

      I wish I was joking.
      Cheers fellow (hopefully) unconvicted felons

  8. Wow by stonedcat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe this was ever actually up for debate.
    Seriously.... model rocket engines..... ya know lets just ban shoes since they could be used for terrorist acts.

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
    1. Re:Wow by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Some of the motors are 6" in diameter and 5 feet long and weigh a couple hundred pounds and have a thousand pounds of thrust. I generally agree that APCP is not explosive but it's not silly to at least think of some sort of regulation. These aren't black powder 1/2A6-2s from Estes.

              Brett

    2. Re:Wow by geekboy642 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In all fairness, model rocket engines (above the Estes A-D types) are seriously nothing to play around with. A poorly-made engine could easily explode, and licensing the larger ones in the interest of public safety isn't a bad thing. But still, I think the government has far bigger problems to deal with than mis-labeling a rocket propellant and ruining hobbies.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    3. Re:Wow by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But similarly, who can afford them? They aren't just sold for $10 at Wal-Mart. And generally those who can afford them and buy them will be the people who know much more about rockets then either you or me. The thought that because these things are regulated will suddenly make them be only in the hands of those who are good is a myth, it will only make getting them a pain. Remember 9/11. The planes weren't hijacked by anything that is regulated (or hopefully will be regulated) they were hijacked by boxcutters, today anyone can go into a hardware store and buy boxcutters, even most bomb attacks were not bought as bombs but as fertilizer or other "non-explosive" compounds.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The large 5 five foot long 6" in diameter rocket motors that you are talking about are only done by professionalsm, are extremely rare, and are generally not for sale to the public. Before launching something of that size, there are other agencies that have to be coordinated with such as the FAA who require distances, maps, trajectories and all sorts of information. I am not up to that level yet, but I'm close to that level. The biggest concern for the rocketry community with this lawsuit is that people were not able to aquire a rocket motor because of the paperwork involved in getting the license. Many people simply couldn't because they lived within 75 feet of a neighbor.
      My biggest thrill was watching us give a demonstration to the ATF when they visited us, we lit the rocket motor (or explosive as they refer to it) and then watched all these agents lean forward to look at this thing on the ground that was burning like a road flare.

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because something is potentially dangerous it needs to be regulated?

      God, I hate that mentality.

    6. Re:Wow by Gleapsite · · Score: 1

      Except that this is a court case and courts don't legislate regulation. There'll probably be a regulatory bill in congress here shortly.

      --
      face the world with eyes of fire.
    7. Re:Wow by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But similarly, who can afford them? They aren't just sold for $10 at Wal-Mart. And generally those who can afford them and buy them will be the people who know much more about rockets then either you or me.

      No, the people who will buy them are the people who can afford them. Being able to afford them is no guarantor of knowledge or common sense. Consider the number of people able to afford GPS navigators - and follow them off into la la land as has been reported here repeatedly on Slashdot. Consider the audiophiles who'll spend hundreds of dollars on wooden knobs for their stereo equipment.
       
       

      The thought that because these things are regulated will suddenly make them be only in the hands of those who are good is a myth, it will only make getting them a pain.

      The OP didn't claim they should be regulated to keep them out of the hands of terrorists - but to keep them out of the hands of the clueless.

    8. Re:Wow by SpartaChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We already have regulation. We have FAA regulations, NFPA regulations and our own regulations. We don't need any more.

    9. Re:Wow by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those are not being used by professionals and certainly ARE available for sale to the public. I have been to plenty of HPR launches and "professional" is not part of the equation.

            I am not arguing the BATFE case because I think they were wrong. But with this decision, the only policing to be done will be self-policing by Tripoli and NAR. And my actual point is that the original poster trivialized the entire issue. It's arguable point, but it's not trivial.

              After having seen numerous LMR and HPR models shot through civilian roofs, carports, leave large divots in blacktop, and generally shot into uncontrolled areas and over crowds, with full oversight from the NAR and Tripoli, I really don't think self-policing is viable. I mentioned this on rec.models.rockets a few years ago and nearly got lynched, I briefly exchanged emails with Mark Bundick on the topic, but while several people saw the issue, the LMR/HPR crowd seems bound and determined to keep going until they kill someone, and I wasn't about to tilt at that windmill.

              Brett

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd really hurt if one of those hit you in the chest. Or hit your aeroplane. But taking one of those massive motors and getting it to do either of those things is extraordinarily complicated. Much more complicated than acquiring an RPG or SAM through underground channels. Plus those options have a warhead on, so will do more than just tear a hole through. Billions of your tax dollars have gone into the research to produce effective, reliable, accurate weapons; you don't have to worry about either hobbyists or terrorists spending billions on their own research program.

    11. Re:Wow by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I have some friends who build these. Notice I said "build," not "buy." I really don't think you can buy P-size motors. The people who are flying these things are making them themselves.

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Significantly dangerous to you, and only you? Well, keep it out of the hands of unsupervised small children, but otherwise, whatever. Significantly dangerous to you, your neighbors, and their neighbors... er yeah, there needs to be some kind of agreement about how that risk will be handled. Regulation is a reasonable solution. Consider that the alternative is your neighbors getting out their gun and asking you some hard questions about why you're endangering their lives.

    13. Re:Wow by Jamie's+Nightmare · · Score: 0

      Yeah, screw regulations. Who cares about safety? So what if the wiring in electric blankets and space heaters isn't up to code. I'm not the one who's going to burn. They'll die, I'll live. Where's the problem? Assholes trying to stomp on your freedom. How dare they! Keep fighting the power, bro.

      --
      "When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
    14. Re:Wow by stonedcat · · Score: 1

      Protecting consumers from businesses who would otherwise make a dangerous product is rational and should be expected from a government.

      Telling consumers what they can and can not have is fucking nannyism and any self respecting human being should not stand for it.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
    15. Re:Wow by anegg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, like we regulate the purchase of gasoline and cars... highly dangerous to neighbors, friends, and enemies. And all you need to buy either one is money... Regulation may be a reasonable solution *if there is a problem that needs a solution*. But lets not go assuming something is a problem when there is no evidence that it is.

    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't about to tilt at that windmill

      Thank you XKCD for refreshing an old idiom.

      Also, you're absolutely right. Given enough time, and enough moderately intelligent individuals someone will launch into a school. Then the "think of the children lobby" will make all hobby rocketry illegal. Hell, big governments with a staff of brilliant people miss better than 5% of the time.

    17. Re:Wow by anegg · · Score: 1

      You're mixing apples and bananas here. The regulations around the rocket motors required me, the user, to have a Low Explosive User Permit, to keep records of each motor I purchased and what I did with it, and to allow the BATFE to visit me whenever they wanted and to inspect my records for compliance with the record keeping regulations. The regulations in question were not anything like the regulations around consumer products where you are trying to keep a relatively large and ignorant population safe from careless manufacturers. (And yes, I include myself in the relatively ignorant population, as I don't have time to get smart about every electric blanket and space heater I might want to buy.)

    18. Re:Wow by sploxx · · Score: 0

      Thank you very much, you just summed up what I was thinking for quite some while about the whole 'we need everything to be safe' issue!

      --
      Hey mods,

      this is a very insightful post and should deserve some points!

    19. Re:Wow by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Because something is potentially dangerous it needs to be regulated?"

      Er, yes? Is that a trick question?

      Restricting dangerous things is what regulation *is*.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    20. Re:Wow by lennier · · Score: 1

      "You're mixing apples and bananas here. The regulations around the rocket motors required me, the user, to have a Low Explosive User Permit, to keep records of each motor I purchased and what I did with it, and to allow the BATFE to visit me whenever they wanted and to inspect my records for compliance with the record keeping regulations."

      Ever stop to think that might be because, oh, I dunno, you might be able to kill quite a lot of people with a rocket? I mean historically that's what they were originally built for, in wars and stuff. You might well know what you're doing, but what exactly is it that you *are* doing? And we know this for sure how?

      Oh, we have your *word* that you don't plan to hurt anybody with your near-military-level ordnance. That's great, sir. Hope your Rocket Club goes well. We'll get back to watching jaywalkers.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    21. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we start to regulate the usage of stones and spoons too? I mean, if you try hard enough, you can easily kill someone with a spoon. May even be more fun than with a riffle or missile. How about we stop regulating the shit out of everything and go after the people who actually do damage, no matter what they used for it? Granted, nukes and chemical weaponry should be restricted.

    22. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's time for your regulation, dear Lennier.

    23. Re:Wow by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      No, because something is dangerous and is routinely an typically used in what any objective human could see was a highly irresponsible manner; then, yes, at some point adults have to step in. I know there are plenty of modelers who are responsible and can see the issue and thus avoid it, but a fair fraction of the current participants aren't responsible and have repeatedly caused property damage and numerous near misses. I note the glee with which many of the participants in the Argonia launch shown on the Discovery Channel in 2003 flew 20 lb supersonic models into clouds, and note "oh, maybe it's behind the crowd", leading lights of Tripoli flying a full-sized. barely stable, porta john, multiple unstable flights or flights with no recovery - all in an uncontrolled range and virtually every single model built like a bunker-buster ground-penetrating bomb. It's insane, and not in a good way. It's a damn disgrace, and instead of being embarrassed, it was widely hailed as a triumph of public relations.

              Ask yourself this - do you think its a good idea to fire a gun in the air to celebrate New Years? Now, same question, except the bullets are much less likely to go where you aim them and carry three orders of magnitude more energy. That's what I mean.

                I don't want the BATFE involved any more than anyone else, and their argument was, as described, capricious and baseless. I am a national champion modeler and an aerospace professional making life-critical products, and can make fair assessment of risk. I fear that without the hindrance of the LEUP, the floodgates will be opened to every cretin with a streak of pyromania and someone is going to get killed. This ain't about Estes models, this is serious business, and I haven't seen anything like the kind of care, responsibility, or even common sense, from the people that this is likely to empower.

            I know I am pissing into the wind on this and no one is going to pay a damn bit of attention, but they are treating it like blown-up Modrocs and it isn't. And these guys, the irresponsible ones, are bound and determined to fuck it up for everyone.

                Brett

    24. Re:Wow by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Ever stop to think that might be because, oh, I dunno, you might be able to kill quite a lot of people with a rocket?

      I'll bet money I can kill more people in less time with my car than any model rocket enthusiast can with anything at their disposal. Would you prefer to have the government hold our hand for gasoline purchases? A gallon of gas contains enough energy to cause some serious chaos, after all. Kerosene fueled the first stage of the most powerful rocket ever built - should we put that under the BATFE as well?

      Welcome to the concept of freedom, which is inherently at odds with the concept of safety.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    25. Re:Wow by sjames · · Score: 1

      And the death toll after decades of this? Hrmmm, for something so dangerous, it seems oddly non-lethal.

      It's not as if you can just walk into any hobby shop and walk out with one of those 5 foot long motors with no questions asked. You're going to have to show your membership in a recognized organization and that it has certified you for that size engine. That means people there have known you for a while. About the largest no questions asked motor is a G.

    26. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree... but for the sake of argument I'm thinking of a creative way of twisting your statement and mapping it onto the current financial crisis...

    27. Re:Wow by terrymr · · Score: 1

      The FAA regulates them. That seems to make sense for something that flies.

    28. Re:Wow by evanbd · · Score: 1

      After having seen numerous LMR and HPR models shot through civilian roofs, carports, leave large divots in blacktop, and generally shot into uncontrolled areas and over crowds, with full oversight from the NAR and Tripoli, I really don't think self-policing is viable. I mentioned this on rec.models.rockets a few years ago and nearly got lynched, I briefly exchanged emails with Mark Bundick on the topic, but while several people saw the issue, the LMR/HPR crowd seems bound and determined to keep going until they kill someone, and I wasn't about to tilt at that windmill.

      Public safety concerns resulting from how the rockets are operated are quite clearly under the jurisdiction of the FAA and the local fire marshal. Concerns related to use of explosives are clearly BATFE territory. APCP isn't an explosive, so it isn't a BATFE issue. I note that none of your concerns care whether the propellant is APCP, nitrous hybrid, Zinc/Sulfur, KN/sugar, or black powder. Yes, there are real issues, but that doesn't mean the BATFE has any reason to be involved -- not to mention, both FAA and the fire marshal are better equipped to actually do something sane to solve the problem.

    29. Re:Wow by Atario · · Score: 1

      You hate reasonableness? This explains much.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    30. Re:Wow by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      The non-lethality of HPR is not really surprising, given the results when non-guided rockets are intentionally used as weapons.

      The Qassam rockets used by the Palestinians bear some superficial resemblance to high power hobby rockets, in that they are unguided, homemade rockets, with similar impulse range. But even though the Qassams are built of steel pipe (rather than cardboard or phenolic tube), are equipped with an explosive warhead, and are INTENTIONALLY fired into populated areas, they have a piss-poor record at actually killing anyone. 28 fatalities out of 1700+ launches.

      There is a reason that billions of dollars have been spent by governments on equipping missiles with guidance systems. It makes it possible that they might actually hit their targets by more than dumb luck.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    31. Re:Wow by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

      I'm involved in rocketry, so here's a couple clues. :)

      Yes, very big motors are available. Nothing on the scale of space shuttles or even most military missiles, but they do get quite large.

      This change will allow us to buy and store motors for ourselves without having to get an explosives permit from BATF. This only makes sense, as APCP is NOT an explosive.

      Note that we do regulate ourselves and are subject to other regulation from government as well. For example, to buy large motors, you have to get certified by one of the two industry groups. This allows experienced rocketeers to judge your ability to build and fly large high power rockets safely. Government also restricts our activities via the FAA (make sure we don't crash into airplanes), and Fire Marshalls (make sure we don't burn down neighborhoods). There are others, but those are the big ones. This case just gets the BATF out of our hair (we hope). There are still a number of regulations in place and most of us think those are fine.

      Personally, I'd much rather have to notify the FAA and/or get permission to fly than have my rocket hit an aircraft. I do check the sky before I launch, but it helps. The FAA will let pilots know where we are flying and to what altitude, so that they can avoid us.

    32. Re:Wow by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, responsible people don't make good TV. I've attended large and small launches in person. They have always been run quite well in my view. They have restrictions on how close you can be to spectators with various size rockets and motors, and have good range safety protocols.

      Like any large group, you will have individuals that don't like the rules. Most of the time, the rest of us will self-regulate them as best we can.

      This is a somewhat dangerous hobby. Deployment failures happen, it's part of the hobby. We do our best to make sure it doesn't happen often, but hey, even to pros screw up once in a while.

  9. BATFE is redundant by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BATFE is the most redundant element of the US government. The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?

    1. Re:BATFE is redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The BATF (when did they add the E anyway?) was never supposed to be a law enforcement agency. They were created as revenuers, all they were originally supposed to do is make sure the moonshiner's were paying their booze tax.
       

    2. Re:BATFE is redundant by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      The BATFE is the most redundant element of the US government. The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?

      Yeah, as somebody once mentioned, it's much more reasonable to have it as the name of a store rather than the name of a government agency. I'd go there...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:BATFE is redundant by bughunter · · Score: 1

      The BATFE was originally a part of the Dept of Treasury. They're the "revvin'ooers" that pre-prohibition moonshiners used to shoot at. Their charter was originally enforcement of the tax code for items that were notoriously difficult to tax, due to smuggling, etc... However over the years, especially after they were transferred to the Justice Dept during Prohibition, other enforcement responsibility has fallen to them as well... like the enforcement of prohibition laws.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:BATFE is redundant by PachmanP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a government agency.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    5. Re:BATFE is redundant by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      Which is probably why they feel the need to overstep their authority all the time, so that the rest of the agencies and the American people know that they actually do something.

    6. Re:BATFE is redundant by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      There used to be a closed-end investment fund called Morgan Funshares that invested in alcohol, tobacco and firearms companies.

    7. Re:BATFE is redundant by lennier · · Score: 1

      "The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?"

      A world where alcohol, tobacco, firearms AND explosives are sold at a drive-thru so that a man can use them all before he gets home.

      Heck, all in one mixed drink if he likes.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:BATFE is redundant by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Mission creep in a Governmental agency? Say it isn't so!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:BATFE is redundant by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      The BATFE is the most redundant element of the US government. The FBI covers the B, the F and the E. The FDA covers the A and the T. What's left?

      Chips and dip?

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    10. Re:BATFE is redundant by mbstone · · Score: 1

      If marijuana is legalized to balance the federal budget, some agency will need to collect the taxes on it, so we can rename BATFE accordingly.

      How about Marijuana, Ethyl Alcohol, Tobacco, and High Explosives ADministration -- M.E.A.T.H.E.A.D.

    11. Re:BATFE is redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory:

      I called up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regional office and asked, "What wine goes best with an M-16?" The guy who answered did his best to be helpful: "That depends. What are you smoking?"

    12. Re:BATFE is redundant by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      That's been my .sig for years. I don't remember where i first saw it.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    13. Re:BATFE is redundant by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      To continue the GPs thread, doesn't the R in IRS cover revenuers?

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    14. Re:BATFE is redundant by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. If President Obama wants to demonstrate a platform of change, he can start by eliminating bloat in the government. Dissolving the BATFE would be a good start. Hell, just moving it to be a subset of the FBI would be a good start - they wouldn't have to maintain their own "everything." (Note - I'm not holding my breath on this one.)

    15. Re:BATFE is redundant by thefekete · · Score: 1

      I've got a shirt that reads:

      ATF: Alcohol, Tobaco and Firearms
      Who's bringing the chips?

      --
      The cool things is to have windows that bounce up and down like a good tits.
  10. If only the UK were more sensible by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

    We still need an explosives license for APCP here, and it is a lot harder for us. FFS, even the largest estes black powder motors can't be sold because they aren't CE approved

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:If only the UK were more sensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your information is out of date. You no longer require anything to buy or store up to 5kg of APCP motors (no single motors more than 1kg). You require only a very simple piece of documentation to carry those motors around. Plus even if you do want to store them, although it's not cheap, it's still less onerous than the LEUP and magazine requirements the bATFE have been placing.

    2. Re:If only the UK were more sensible by damburger · · Score: 1

      Well how do you buy and store them if can't carry them around?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  11. In defense of the BATF? by girlintraining · · Score: 0

    This compound is used to fire ejection seats out of aircraft. As well, ammonium perchlorate -- pure, not this compound, is an explosive according to OSHA. How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP? If it is not overly difficult, the BATF has every reason to be worried that mass distribution of this without licensing could open a channel for acquiring explosives materials domestically and in bulk under the guise of "hobbyist". It wouldn't be the first time -- pseudoephedrine can be readily broken down to ephedrine, which is one of the components needed for methanphetamine production (and derivatives).

    Perhaps someone with credentials in chemistry beyond self-educated (as I am) could comment on the feasibility of this?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:In defense of the BATF? by bigtangringo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You realize you can buy black powder, by the pound, in cash, with no identification, right?

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    2. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

      How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?

      Pretty difficult. APCP consists of AP and a powdered metal (Al or Mg) locked in a matrix of synthetic rubber. The material has about the consistency of a pencil eraser. Anything that would dissolve away the rubber binder would most likely react with the AP.

      Besides, AP itself was not regulated by the BATFE, except for a VERY finely granulated (If it is not overly difficult, the BATF has every reason to be worried that mass distribution of this without licensing could open a channel for acquiring explosives materials domestically and in bulk under the guise of "hobbyist".

      First of all, this whole court decision was based on the fact that APCP is NOT an explosive. Even contained in a sealed metal pipe, it is pretty worthless for building a bomb. And second, these motors will not exactly be "mass distribution" type items you will find on the shelves at Walmart or whatever. Purchase will STILL require certification through one of the 2 national rocketry organizations (NAR or Tripoli), HAZMAT shipping (which can only go to a valid address, not a PO box) and legally using them still requires airspace waivers from the FAA.

      It wouldn't be the first time -- pseudoephedrine can be readily broken down to ephedrine, which is one of the components needed for methanphetamine production (and derivatives).

      Which makes for a major PITA for law-abiding citizens who now have to get the 3rd degree from a pharmacist to get a pack of allergy pills. Meanwhile, the meth keeps pouring in from the "superlabs" south of the border. At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also buy pipe, wire, and clocks

    4. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just an oxidizer, like ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate or liquid oxygen. I hope you aren't proposing the banning of all. If you are, I guess you must have nightmares over the mass distribution of millions of gallons of gasoline.

      Seriously, no law stops any motivated person from developing/acquiring/using deadly tools, as recent history around the world demonstrates clearly. Killing yet more of our individual liberties will not help. It'll only hurt in much more diffuse, but much more damaging ways.

    5. Re:In defense of the BATF? by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Extracting ammonium perchlorate from APCP wouldn't be too difficult--the AP is basically just mixed in with a bunch of other compounds that control the rate of deflageration.

      However, I think you're missing the point here. APCP is not an explosive. That is the issue. The BATFE does not control chemicals that can be used to make explosives. In fact, binary explosives, ammonium nitrate, and black powder in quantities of less than 50 pounds are all supposed to be out of their jurisdiction. Why then, should they be investigating a mixture that doesn't even detonate?

    6. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, ammonium perchlorate -- pure, not this compound, is an explosive according to OSHA. How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP? If it is not overly difficult, the BATF has every reason to be worried that mass distribution of this without licensing could open a channel for acquiring explosives materials domestically and in bulk under the guise of "hobbyist". ?

      You are assuming (incorrectly) that the BATF has the authority to regulate a non-explosive substance (APCP) for that reason. The legislation that created their regulatory oversight specifically says they can only regulate a substance if it's "primary and common purpose is to function by explosion". Thus by law they can not regulate something that, when misused or modified can be made to explode. Otherwise they'd be regulating your gasoline purchases, propane gas, fertilizer, solvents, dry ice...and on and on.

      Secondly, more practically, making pure AP from APCP is technically difficult, would be very expensive and in the end make a lousy explosive -- there are much better and more readily available ones.

    7. Re:In defense of the BATF? by JustJonK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't be the first time -- pseudoephedrine can be readily broken down to ephedrine, which is one of the components needed for methanphetamine production (and derivatives).

      Which makes for a major PITA for law-abiding citizens who now have to get the 3rd degree from a pharmacist to get a pack of allergy pills. Meanwhile, the meth keeps pouring in from the "superlabs" south of the border. At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!

      Exactly, Ellis. It doesn't stop a small group of people going to every pharmacy in the area to buy one box of Sudafed at each so they can use them in their meth lab.

    8. Re:In defense of the BATF? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      Wow, are you serious? I remember it being that way long ago when I was a kid, but I figured that some terrified lawmaker would have put a stop to it by now.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    9. Re:In defense of the BATF? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Oh noes bad guys could turn something into a weapon, lets ban or regulate the hell out of it!

      Jesus. You are actually afraid of someone making a bomb out of this? You really think someone is going to buy a ton of rocket motors and blow something up? Where do you live? I live in NYC and let me tell you the 9/11 attacks didn't scare me one bit. Neither did it scare my friend who was one block and saw the second plane hit and had to run for cover. WHY? because the chance of being killed or even hurt by a random bombing or attack is slim to none. I am more concerned of crazies out there who are willing to do bodily harm or gangbangers who will kill at the drop of a hat. Hell my house catching fire has me more worried then a random bombing attack. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash than any terrorist attack.

      And Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer not explosive. If you read the OSHA page it clearly states: "It becomes an explosive when mixed with finely divided organic materials." There. See? It becomes explosive because anything that is mixed with it will burn so fast it actually explodes. Mixing it with a fuel such as powered aluminum or hell even shredded paper will yield an explosive compound. By itself it does not explode.

    10. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Nope, black powder is still available without a license, as long as it is sold for use in antique firearms (muzzleloaders, cannons, etc.). Because these weapons do not require a permit, essentially anyone can own them, and purchase powder for them. You can buy and store up to 50 lbs of the stuff with no license or permit required.

      Ironically, it is illegal for rocketeers to purchase/use a single gram of black powder for our parachute ejection charges without a federal explosives permit. And today's court decision does nothing to change this. Fortunately there are alternatives for ejection charges which are axempt from BATFE regs.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    11. Re:In defense of the BATF? by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      Government: Arbitrary, stupid, bloated, and unnecessary.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    12. Re:In defense of the BATF? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      Government: Arbitrary, stupid, bloated, and unnecessary.

      Honestly, in many cases I think it's better to have government that's arbitrary, stupid and bloated than precise, methodical and efficient.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    13. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can also buy ammonium nitrate and diesel, by the truckload. Black powder is for pikers.

      Field and Stream, the hunting and fishing magazine, once published an article showing how to build duck ponds to support duck populations. There, in black and white and color, in the library of my junior freaking high, was an article teaching you how to build bombs. It was great.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    14. Re:In defense of the BATF? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      It's relatively easy to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from sodium chloride (table salt) and ammonium chloride (many uses from snowmaking to candy making to cattle feed supplement to expectorant). Build a glass reactor vessel, buy some anodes off eBay, use a car charger and several days to force the sodium chloride table salt to sodium perchlorate in solution, destroy any residual sodium chlorate using one of a number of reactions, dump in ammonium chloride, collect ammonium perchlorate as the precipitate. The even more exciting potassium perchlorate is equally easy to make and you can make ten pounds for less than $10 in supplies from Home Depot (electricity costs will vary by location in the US). One bag of potassium chloride and your reactor can make as much potassium perchlorate as you have electricity to put in and time to pull out of it.

      It's much more difficult to try to extract the ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate from mixed and cured rocket motor grains. In the rocket motor grain, the APC or PPC has been mixed up with aluminum powder, an accelerant or inhibitor, one or more stabilizers and the composite resin, which is chemically similar to epoxy. You might as well try to get the glass fiber back from a finished sailboat hull.

    15. Re:In defense of the BATF? by terrymr · · Score: 2, Informative

      How hard would it be to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from APCP?

      Makes about as much sense as buying 4 cases of soda because you need 2 cups of sugar for a recipe.

      All kinds of chemicals you can make explosives out of are mostly unregulated, why goof around trying separate AP out of commercial rocket propellent.

    16. Re:In defense of the BATF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why then, should they be investigating a mixture that doesn't even detonate?
      Being Russian I saw a lot of that kind of behavior. Answer is - to get bribed.

    17. Re:In defense of the BATF? by raymansean · · Score: 1

      Knock Knock Who's there We do not have to tell you that under the patriot act!

      --
      insert inflammatory comment here!
    18. Re:In defense of the BATF? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The greatest defense we have against government malice is government incompetence.

    19. Re:In defense of the BATF? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      It's pretty common knowledge. Google "ammonium perchlorate synthesis" and you'll get all sorts of recipes, including the specific details of how to remove the sodium chlorate (which is necessary to avoid blowing your head off when you throw in the ammonium chloride).

    20. Re:In defense of the BATF? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Technically, firearm ammunition doesn't explode, either. But they regulate that.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    21. Re:In defense of the BATF? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Technically, firearm ammunition doesn't explode, either. But they regulate that.

      Not really. Like other deflagrating substances (including dry ice and coarse crystals of ammonium perchlorate), you have to ship ammunition via ground transportation with an ORM-D designation, but there are no federal regulations on the transport of ammunition that are more restrictive. There are a lot of state and local regulations regarding the purchase of ammunition that imply additional restrictions on shipment (seller must have copy of photo id), but that's not the same as regulating shipment.

      Notably, most of the state and local regulations that put additional processes around the shipment of ammunition do not further restrict the purchase of smokeless powder (the actual deflagrating substance) or primers (containing an actual explosive) in the same way. So if I lived in LA, it would be very difficult for me to purchase ammo off the internet, but not to purchase separate brass, powder, bullets, and primers.

    22. Re:In defense of the BATF? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes, there are additional ATF regulations you're not aware of. See; AP ammunition - particularly handgun AP. It's unclear whether .308 AP is also illegal.

      Yep, that's right: nuggets of copper- and lead-clad steel or tungsten in certain dimensions is illegal.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    23. Re:In defense of the BATF? by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates firearms ammunition?
      Maybe that has something to do with firearms rather than explosives?

      They regulate alcohol too, but that doesn't mean it explodes...

  12. Re:In defense of the BATF? (footnote) by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Ah.. sorry. Footnote: I was referring to the government's interest in controlling various chemicals in my previous example, not trying to imply ephedrine is an explosive. Though, if you take too much of it something will explode. :)

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  13. Great. Cmmon sense prevails.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    as a long time rocketeer, it's nice to see us win one.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  14. I've been dreaming of this day by SpartaChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Man, what a great day. It reminds me of the quote by Margaret Meade: "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more important issue is that a Federal Judge just told a government agency that they were no longer allowed to impede on the rights and freedoms of private citizens "just because." So while it's a tremendous day for rocketry, it's also a great day for the American People at large.

  15. A great day in the history of rocketry... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    and even more so coming on the anniversary of Robert Goddard's first successful launch of a liquid-fueled rocket, in 1926.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  16. This was a smackdown by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I found this to be a hollow victory. The bureaucrats at ATF were just too full of themselves to respond to the order of the court to clarify themselves the first time. So when they came back and told the Judge "we've explained enough" the Judge sent them packing. They came this '' close to making criminals of 12 year olds. They won't make the same mistake next time...(but their asshole lawyers probably will)

    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 437 F.3d 75 In defense of its unbounded comparative analysis, ATFE insists that it had no burden to make more particularized findings. The agency concedes that it "certainly could have conducted experiments or otherwise researched burn rates specific to APCP used in model rocket motors to bolster its conclusion that APCP is capable of deflagration," but claims that "nothing in the OCCA or the APA required it to do so." ATFE's Br. at 15. Unsurprisingly, then, rather than resting on concrete evidence to support its judgment, ATFE simply points to evidence relating to the properties of "rocket propellants" and claims deference on the basis of its presumed technical expertise and experience. The purported evidence cited by the agency does not support its determination in this case, and the cry for deference is hollow.

    1. Re:This was a smackdown by Garnaralf · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but you're wrong. They responded. They responded with seven thousand pages of documents. Of course, it was all fuzzy math and BS. They did say they weren't required to but they did respond. This has been a long fight. One that has cost alot of money as well. But we have to remain vigilant. Otherwise they'll try it again.

    2. Re:This was a smackdown by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      At any rate, it won't stop the ATF from making shit up. If they want to take someone down on federal crimes, they will as they have in the past - with manufactured and planted evidence, and whatever other dastardly things they're keen on doing.

      The regulations on the ATF books will remain, and they will continue to use them - if past behavior is any sort of indication. They'll get a slap on the wrist, at best, if they get caught.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  17. I'll take a stab at it.... by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    Virginia huh?

    when you were like 9 did you perchance refer to this same person as your sister?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:I'll take a stab at it.... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      No, that's WEST Virginia...

  18. Next up on the ATF list of banned substances: by cutecub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mentos and Pepsi.

    -Sean

    1. Re:Next up on the ATF list of banned substances: by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Mentos and Pepsi.

      Paper match heads and C02 seltzer cartridges

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  19. ATFE Blows Itself Up by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.

    They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.

    As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.

    The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.

    As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.

    NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1
    Rocketeer since June 1964

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:ATFE Blows Itself Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.

      They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.

      You've just proven what many defenders of the 2nd Amendment (or gun owners if you prefer) have known for years: the BATFE is riddled with arrogant and/or incompetent power hungry people. If there are any rocketeers that are amazed at the BATFE's incompetence in rocketry, I encourage you to do research at their incompetence in firearms. You might be amazed at another set of arbitrary, stifling and baseless rules they concocted. You may even want to wear a safety helmet if find yourself smacking your head while discovering the depths of their ineptitude.

      It seems to make no difference who the POTUS is as their actions have repeatedly proven why they're one of the most hated govt agencies. This agency is a consequence (and part of the legacy) of the 18th Amendment. Without getting into the long history of it, the agency has done everything it can to "stay in business" when its actions have proven it should've been repealed long ago.

  20. Tannerite anyone? by BobBoring · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can buy binary explosives off the internet in 50 pound lots. You just have to mix it at the point of use on private property and not store it over 24 hours.

    Google for boomer shoots and tannerite. Look at the National Firearms Act of 1934 for the definition of what fun stuff is legal with the right tax payment.

  21. Beavis and Butt-Head have the BATFE figured out... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    Bill Clinton: In recognition of your great service, I'm appointing you honorary agents in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
    Butt-head: Whoa. Alcohol and tobacco?
    Beavis: Yeah. And firearms! Yeah.
    Bill Clinton: Cool, huh?
    Butt-head: Cigarettes and beer kick ass.
    Beavis: Yeah, yeah. We're in the bureau of beer and fire and cigarettes. And maybe some chicks, too.

    -- from Beavis and Butt-Head Do America.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  22. Amen! by BobBoring · · Score: 1

    Tannerite is a common binary explosive. You can order it shipped via USP ground.

    Great stuff. Only caveat is you can not store the stuff except in an approved magazine once it is mixed. The components are stable and only mildly flammable before mixing. Once mixed it is cap sensitive/high impact sensitive. Most common detonation method is high velocity impact. 5.56X45mm is just barely enough. 7.62 NATO works every time.

    Explosive are not illegal. Unsafe/improper storage is a crime.

  23. Let the Fun Continue by this_is_art · · Score: 1

    I've been into flying model rocketry since I was in elementary school, and years later I still love it. Nowadays however you can build much larger rockets and fly real instrument packages. To make it even better you can now purchase simulation packages that allow you to construct virtual models of commercial rocket kits as well as fully custom designs. You can then perform virtual flights with different sizes of engines and payloads, prior to actual construction and flight. In actual flight though, there is nothing that beats that crackling roar when modern composite engines shoot off the pad. Regards, Art

  24. Only binding in DC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This decision only effects those in the district of Columbia, however the bureau may choose to re-write it's regulation.

       

  25. You don't read very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia.

    "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."

    The right is "to keep and bear arms", that first part is a justification. The sensible interpretation of the first part is that it's one example to justify the right. Anyone who thinks clearly will realise that it wasn't the only justification at the time, but it sure sounds important compared to shooting dinner or robbers and such.

  26. And yet we won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The odds are stacked against us, even with all of our equipment and training."

    And with those odds against us, the Americans won. There's probably the same level of violence in Baghdad as there is in NYC. The primary difference is the hookers and alcohol are better in NYC.

  27. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Today we set to find out, whether we can really build a Quassam rocket [wikipedia.org] on a budget.

    I hope they are building them on a budget. 1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    if we can successfully hit police station with it.

    Why am I picturing Adam Savage saying something like "Alright, the way I figure it, we've got a 10% chance of hitting the police station, a 50% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested! Let's do this thing!"

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  28. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why am I picturing Adam Savage saying something like "Alright, the way I figure it, we've got a 10% chance of hitting the police station, a 50% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested! Let's do this thing!"

    I'm so going to hell for laughing at this...

  29. Ouch..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Effective immediately, the BATFE has no legal jurisdiction over hobby rocket motors, and a federal Low Explosives User's Permit will no longer be needed in order to purchase APCP motors"

    -.....And Uncle Sam takes yet another swift kick to the nuts.....

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  30. Hobby Rocketry is SAFE by clairm · · Score: 1

    "...vacating the agency's decision will not pose any serious threat to the public's health or SAFETY, the Court will vacate the agency's decision to classify APCP is an explosive pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Â 841(d)." One of the reasons for the judge's decision is the fact that hobby rocketry is so SAFE. Try and find a single rocketry related death or serious injury. I couldn't find a single one.

  31. Finally some good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Good news... finally.
    This is a good day for science and imagination.

  32. With enough laws, we are all criminals... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    ...and with everyone a criminal, it is just a matter of how much "they" like you, as to whether or not they come after you for a violation.

    Some laws are "right", they proscribe a behavior most would agree is wrong. However, some laws claim to prevent a crime, after all, "the law's the law"; But, they're really nothing more than a "Thought Crime", IMHO.

    As you suggest, possession of a shotgun, for example, that is "too short" (Say 16" instead of 18.5") is, in and of itself, a "crime". I'd rather have every law abiding citizen own such a weapon against than a single criminal legally owning the 18.5" model. Of course if either group used either weapon in a crime they should be punished in a like manner. After all, if one of your loved ones were criminally assaulted, would you really want the penalty to be any different if they perpetrated the crime with one weapon over another?

    There doesn't appear to be any easy way for average folk to get around the law like the privileged can, by simply bowing to the "spirit" of the law. We are stuck with the "letter" of the law...

    Also, for reference, here is something I saw recently that seems like a reasonable idea.

    Remember, kids, it's not about big scary guns... someday, in a jurisdiction near you, mere possession of strong encryption may mark you as a publisher of child pornography just as much as the possession of brass knuckles makes one a thug.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  33. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Maxmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) 5,303 Palestinians injured.

    No wonder the Americans invest in Israel, they're the winning horse...

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  34. the meth laws were to fight home meth labs by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    At least we're all safe from those evil packages of Sudafed, though!

    First, "cold medicines" have been found to be essentially useless. Second, Sudafed is not an allergy medicine- it's a decongestant. Third, there are numerous alternative medicines that achieve the same effect, but they cost slightly more to make. Fourth, I've repeatedly purchased Claratin and other allergy pills without so much as a glance from anyone.

    Lastly, the legislation you're talking about was designed to make it harder for meth addicts to make their own meth "at home". Why? Because they kill themselves (and anyone else living in the house/apartment at the time) either by blowing the place up or from breathing in the chemicals involved in the various stages of making the meth...and also in the process, turn the home into a massively contaminated structure that has to be torn down. Hell, even the neighbors nearby are at danger if the wind is blowing the wrong way.

    No benefit, readily available alternatives, public safety issue. Closed case to me.

    1. Re:the meth laws were to fight home meth labs by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Pseudoephedrine is a component of many allergy preparations, both OTC and Rx. The "D" in products like Claritin-D and Allegra-D stands for "decongestant", which is almost always pseudoephedrine.

      For myself, and a few other hay fever sufferers I have talked to, it seems to be the pseudoephedrine that actually provides the relief from the symptoms, not the antihistamine. It was cheaper to just buy plain old Sudafed or the generic equivalent, at least before these new bullshit regs went into effect. Now, pseudoephedrine products have skyrocketed in price, the number of pills available per package has been slashed dramatically, and you have to put yourself into a DEA database to get any! And if the pharmacist behind the counter doesn't like the look of you, you're screwed.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    2. Re:the meth laws were to fight home meth labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that Sudafed is a decongestant rather than an antihistamine. However, you're wrong about the effects of the available alternatives. As a long time allergy sufferer, none of the other decongestants on the market work anywhere near as well for me as pseudoephedrine. It's a personal thing, but this one is hardly uncommon. Lots of people find it to be the most effective available.

      If one or two yahoos awarding themselves Darwin awards per year is enough for you to stamp a "case closed" on interfering with the lives of millions of people... well, you sound like the average politician. My condolences.

  35. Triple Q's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Triple Q motors here we come! Actually Three Q's for stage 1, and liquid/lox stuff for stages 2 and 3. No air means you have to provide your own.

  36. Just Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conspiracy nuts like you give ordinary skeptics a bad name. While you're busy yammering about Waco and 9/11 "truth", there are real scandals playing out in the government. The louder you yell the less people hear about the actual abuses. It's as if the government planned it that way all along - except that I'm not nutty enough to believe that they could.

    1. Re:Just Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troofer power ACTIVATE! Form of MOONBAT!

  37. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by mcvos · · Score: 1

    1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) 5,303 Palestinians injured.

    Keep in mind that the Israelis are throwing a lot more money at it. Could be that their ROI isn't really all that different.

  38. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

    Good thing it's not their money then. $2.4bn a year must go a long way.

  39. Ammonium, Ammonium... by Herve5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    't wasn't perchlorate but nitrate IIRC, that destroyed the complete french AZF plant in the city of Toulouse's suburbs, leaving a definitely war-like scenery. Was in sept. 21, 2001 so indeed scary believe me. 29 casualties, countless wounded, explosion was heard 50 miles away.
    A friend of mines was working kilometres from there in a building whose complete frontage fell down in front of her.
    So well. Not ammonium perchlorate but ammonium nitrate...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF?bcsi-ac-ED4481DDE3DE1057=18BDC0EE00000203sh7mtJMzRnjkMofxetcnL1GX+ybEAQAAAwIAAH/ogQAQDgAADQAAAOzTAQA=

    --
    Herve S.
  40. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

    Actually you could build one anyway as they use sugar and potassium nitrate as the propellant.

    Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket, there is a reason that millions are spent on putting in guidance systems.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  41. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Why am I picturing Adam Savage saying something like "Alright, the way I figure it, we've got a 10% chance of hitting the police station, a 50% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested! Let's do this thing!"

    That should be 20% chance of hitting the police station, a 70% chance of it blowing up on the launchpad and a 40% chance of getting arrested!

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  42. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by rohan972 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket,

    We'll make up for that by doing volume!

  43. Say what? by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The anti-social behaviour of people wanting to be able to 'defend themselves', at great cost to society at large, is despicable."

    That statement is simply breathtaking.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Say what? by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0

      Whoever uttered that statement has only about six million to whom s/he must apologize.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  44. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

    As quoted above "1700+ launches for 28 dead", have fun with that.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  45. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    Well, technically where it hits and the legal ramifications would be independent result sets...

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  46. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

    It was meant to be funny, not informative. Mods on crack.

  47. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be more effective to build something better, like a remote control missile with webcam and wi-fi card? Qassams just hit something over yonder in that general direction. If you have a guided missile, you can hit valuable targets every time.

    You could set up wifi transponders along its route, to repeat and amplify warjammed signals from nearby businesses. The launcher could be installed and camoflaged weeks earlier in the city park. Then from the privacy of your van sitting outside an apartment building where you can steal internet signal, hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime, you initiate the launch sequence, 3 2 1 blastoff.

    The missile rockets to a ballistic trajectory in the general direction of the target. As the motor peters out, the first stage breaks off, falling to earth, while control surfaces deploy to steer the warhead toward it's target.

    Nobody suspects or hears a thing as the homemade smart bomb homes in on it's target. There's no warning, not even any explosion on impact, the weight and high speed of the projectile being more than sufficient to destroy life. The only sign at first is the fallen body. The 10 foot inflatable SpongeBob on top of Burger King has been assassinated, and the glass canister of concentrated 3-methylindole has been released. Nobody will ever eat at that Burger King again.

    --
    ...
  48. Not technically correct by goodben · · Score: 1

    While APCP will not detonate, it will deflagrate (which is what it is designed to do).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration

    APCP when burning produces large amounts of gases quickly, which if confined, will cause the container to burst (dry ice also bombs work on this principle). For safety reasons (more than fear of terrorism), the US Department of Transportation regulates shipping materials that strongly deflagrate as explosives under the HAZMAT cateogory of Class 1.3 explosives.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAZMAT_Class_1_Explosives

    There is a large misconcetption between a detonation and explosion. All conventional military bombs desgined to explode use a detonation as the mechanism because it is easier to control, more powerful, and more precise, but explosions can be caused by other mechanisms as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation

    Rockets are powered by materials that will explode under confinement (like gunpowder), but will usually not detonate.

  49. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to miss when you are dropping bombs onto homes in a congested area. Seems the Israelis took a page from the Nazi guide to collective punishment.

    Remember, it isn't terrorism if you are wearing a uniform!

    No wonder the Americans invest in Israel, they're the winning horse

    And we send billions in foreign aid to them (that they don't need) so they can turn around and compete with us? WTF? That is a pretty expensive way to buy US Jewish activist votes.

  50. Congratulations! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Congratulations to the National Association of Rocketry, and the rest of the team defending model rocketry.

    Well done, guys!

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  51. Parent is wrong on guidance by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Model rocketry (the NAR code) specifically prohibits guidance systems in these rockets. As for FAA permitting, new rules went into effect two months ago, and the requirements for larger motors - 40,960Ns of impulse - are severe, including 6DOF flight simulations and fallout prediction for every launch. http://www.rocketryplanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2740&Itemid=28

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  52. Good Decision! by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The BATF argued that they could regulate model rocket engines, because ammonium perchlorate is an explosive.

    The National Association of Rocketry argued that ammonium percholorate is not an explosive (it is in fact an oxidizer) and appended massive amounts of technical information to show that it is not.

    The BATF replied "we don't give a damn about the facts, we will regulate it and you can't stop us."

    And, after nine years, the judge ruled that the facts actually are relevant, and the BATF is allowed to regulate only the things that they are legally allowed to regulate.

    Congratulations, NAR.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Good Decision! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which basically means they can do whatever they want to for a while and will get away with it until the public opinion that made them feel so powerful fades. You have to do what the man says because he's bigger than you and will wipe his ass with you if you stick your head up.

    2. Re:Good Decision! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      well, not in this case and hopefully any other case. Granted it takes time to work through the courts and all, but publix opinion doesn't have to fade. The federal government is limited in what it can or cannot do by the constitution and the premise held by the founding fathers that it only has the powers granted to it by the constitution.

      When the government wants to regulate something that it cannot or impose some law it doesn't have the power to, the courts can put them in check and stop it. Hopefully, the courts don't act on public opinion and instead rely on sound laws, the constitution, and treaties made according to it. If this is the case, then public opinion wouldn't mean much outside motivating the feds to do something it couldn't normally do. So what it would more or less mean in this case is that they can do whatever they want even if it is unconstitutional for a while and will get away with it until the courts step in as the voice of reason.

  53. AP Explodes by Clueless+User · · Score: 1

    AP explodes... The PEPCON explosion demonstrates that (at about 2:24): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8RY_ibNq3c

    AP is the oxidizer in the APCP propellant.

    1. Re:AP Explodes by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      AP can explode if large amounts are heated in a fire in closed containers, such as happened at PEPCON.

      Nonetheless, AP is NOT regulated as an explosive unless in a very finely granulated form, with 5 micron particle size. APCP is typically manufactured using a much coarser powder, around 200 micron.

      This court decision only affects APCP, not finely powdered AP, which remains on the explosives list.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  54. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by The+FNP · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't you use putrescine or cadaverine to ensure proper levels of horror and distaste in the sheeple, I mean, human test subjects, when subsequently casting a mere gaze upon the logo of the defeated conglomerate?

    Also, congratulations on assassinating SpongeBob in a manner practically guaranteed to get you arrested by not only your local cops, but the DHS, FBI, and probably also the BATF.

  55. Get rid of the BATFE by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    We really need to get rid of the BATFE. They're modus operandi is to overstep their bounds and push for more power and restriction in all sectors. They've got no business as a part of our government.

    The ATF/BATFE came into existence as a way to shore up Prohibition era anti-alcohol agents. Instead of fire them, they created a new regulatory agency for them to work within. It's been nothing short of a disaster: a quick look can see that they're made mistake after mistake, and tend to operate carelessly and with little regard for the laws themselves. Instead, they rely on internal ATF regulations.

    This rogue agency has burnt to death over 80 men, women and children at Waco, executed a woman and her baby at Ruby Ridge, MT, and have killed unarmed home owners at a multitude of illegal raids nationwide. They destroy honest gun dealers by illegally confiscating millions of dollars of inventory, and even lying under oath in court. The regulations they subject people to are vague, contradictory, and onerous. They constantly try to destroy the status quo of firearm ownership - and the standing of the 2nd Amendment - through regulation, outside the context of the 2nd Amendment (ignoring it outright).

    This organization really needs to go. It's like having the RIAA as a legit part of the government with its own enforcement squads, which if obviously completely unacceptable.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  56. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by The+FNP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go look at the Interwebs and see the Bomb Shelter BUS STOPS they have in areas bordering Gaza and the West Bank. It's not just the rockets, its the fact that Isralis are living in a land where when they hear the rocket warning alarms, they have mere seconds to be inside the nearest bomb shelter. These people are as trained in what to do when a rocket is incoming as members of the US Military and they have daily "drills".

  57. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by jafac · · Score: 1

    That is a pretty expensive way to buy US Jewish activist votes

    Expensive for whom? Not the beneficiaries of the votes. It's only the general taxpayer who pays for this. Who gives a crap about that dumb schmuck. If the general taxpayer gave a crap, he'd be out in the streets marching and rioting. Instead, he's in his backyard, barbecuing pork ribs.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  58. Bonus March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anon to not undo mods...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_March

    Short version: US Veterans marched on DC for better veterans benefits. After the DC police fired on the marchers, killing 2, the US Army was called in... which responded to the marchers with a cavalry charge and bayonet attack.

  59. No, they did not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    The BATF tried to argue that Ammonium Perchlorate Composite fuel was an explosive, not Ammonium Perchlorate by itself. There is a very big difference.

    1. Re:No, they did not. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      The BATF tried to argue that Ammonium Perchlorate Composite fuel was an explosive, not Ammonium Perchlorate by itself. There is a very big difference.

      Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:No, they did not. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      And the NAR's argument was that the burn rate of APCP was too low to qualify as an explosive.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  60. No, you have confused the two militias. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "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."

    As was recognized by SCOTUS in its recent 2nd Amendment decision, our founding fathers were well aware that the biggest danger to a democratic form of government was a standing army. (A "well regulated" militia is an army, as opposed to the citizen's militia, which is not "well regulated".) However, an army was needed to protect the nation from invasion.

    So: a standing army being necessary to the security of the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... to act as a counter-force to the well regulated militia, if necessary.

    In other words, we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect ourselves from our own government, and its army. This is exactly why, historically, it was our right to possess military grade arms that was protected.

  61. NAR safety code does NOT prohibit guidance... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Neither the NAR Model Rocket code or the High Power safety code prohibit active guidance syatems.

    http://www.nar.org/NARmrsc.html
    http://www.nar.org/NARhpsc.html

    They both prohibit launching a rocket AT A TARGET.

    In fact, a rocket with active guidance (a "sunseeker") won a NAR R+D award a few years ago. George Gassaway built it, but his webpage seems to be down at the moment...

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  62. Mod up. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    You should qualify that, however. Where I live, and also in California and certain other states, if someone is forcefully invading my home, I have the right to keep them away using deadly force if necessary.

    Plain and simple: if someone tries to force their way into my home, they are going to get shot. I don't give a damn whether they make me fear for my life or not. And it is specifically spelled out in the law that this is self-defense, not murder.

    Some years back, California legislators got tired of all the bullshit lawsuits by burglars against homeowners who shot them. They passed a law that specifically stated that if someone is forcefully trying to enter your home, you have the right to shoot them. And it is the same in my state.

  63. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Or are the winning horse because America invested in them?

  64. Re:Zero'th Ammendment by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    You have the irrevokable right to do anything you believe is right if you have the means and can get away with it. You also have a duty to know what is right with confidence commensurate with the effects of your actions IMHO.

    --
    ...
  65. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Actually you could build one anyway as they use sugar and potassium nitrate as the propellant.

    When I was a lad, we made rockets using sugar and sodium chlorate (that's chlorate not chloride). Of course, we also made small bombs by packing the mix into tobacco cans or copper pipes.

    Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket, there is a reason that millions are spent on putting in guidance systems.

    Ah, happy memories! None of our rockets actually turned back on us, but damned few flew straight for much of a distance.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  66. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Hard to miss when you are dropping bombs onto homes in a congested area. Seems the Israelis took a page from the Nazi guide to collective punishment.

    I think you mean "the Allies guide".

  67. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) 5,303 Palestinians injured.

    The numbers are not at all surprising, as similar ratios show up every time a well-trained professional armed force meets a ragtag guerrilla army in the field. It worked that way in Vietnam, Afghanistan (for both Soviets earlier, and the US-led coalition later), Somalia, Iraq... you name it.

    Anyway, when it comes to speaking of "war crimes", the numbers are rather pointless unless you know how many of those are civilians. Merely killing more enemy soldiers doesn't make it a war crime. For example, in the 1993 battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, UN lost 20 soldiers killed, while the Somalian casualty figure is very hard to estimate, but is somewhere between 500 and 2000 killed. Note that this is up the same 100-to-1 ratio. Still, vast majority of those killed by UN forces were paramilitaries assaulting the UN forces, and the rest is collateral damage - UN did not deliberately target civilians at any point.

  68. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Maxmin · · Score: 1

    I made no claims about war crimes. War is hell... period. Anyone who's ain't ever been a working soldier, and glorifies war, is an idiot.

    You're right about strength... that's the other half of "asymmetric warfare," modern firepower vs. guerilla fighters... damage will be done.

    In terms of war crimes in Iraq or Afghanistan, two points:

    1) Do you know what it means to dead check?

    2) Using whiskey pete over a densely populated urban area (Gaza) will get you civilian casualties nearly every time, regardless if IDF claims to be using it for Channukah lights or whatever. Most MSM photos I've seen of its use over Gaza were taken during daytime ... kinda puts an end to the lighting argument right there.

    The little guy acted badly, the big guy kicked his ass. But the big guy has been keeping the little guy in a locked box for many years... trouble comes of that.

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  69. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Do you know what it means to dead check?

    Nope, so I went and had a look on WP. This quote from the soldier makes sense to me: "You do this to keep the momentum going when you're flowing through a building. You don't want a guy popping up behind you and shooting you." - that's what I do when I play video games for just the same reason, and I don't see why it should be any different IRL, particularly as the bullet you can catch in the back will be quite real there. Though, technically, I'd imagine that it is still a Geneva convention violation...

  70. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, technically you're supposed to take captives and administer medical attention etc. Too much hassle, and they'll only be back out on the street in a couple weeks. Things haven't changed in centuries, millenia, of warfare...

  71. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by makomk · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, that. As some people pointed out at the time, it's fortunate for the people who planned and carried out the Dresden bombings that the Allies won World War II, or they'd be on the wrong end of some well-deserved war crimes trials.

  72. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by rthille · · Score: 1

    Whenever I watch a horror/thriller movie, I'm always screaming at the TV, "Don't assume they're dead, until you've given them a double-tap to the head!"

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  73. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright now I can build the rocket that I never wanted! 8==D

  74. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Not really, in their first couple of wars, they basically took sticks and rocks and used them to steal tanks and artillery pieces from the enemies just to turn around and use them to capture more ammunition for them. They did this all with the US and most other powerful country sitting back and watching.

    Actually, they had some real weapons. But they might as well have been primitive campfire novelties compared to the tech they went up against. The first war (1948) was pretty even on arms but the Israelis outnumbered the arabs pretty good. The others, it was pretty lopsided against Israel as far as armaments go. However, they rode the winning horse before the US and/or Russia got involved with supporting them. In fact, money and later arms development are about the only support the US ever gave Israel. In the beginning, we contributed to the Palestinian territories too. That stayed in effect until Hammas became leaders in their governments.

  75. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by mi · · Score: 1

    I hope they are building them on a budget. 1700+ launches for 28 dead Israeli's doesn't seem like a good ROI to me ;)

    You are supposing, that Quassam is a weapon of war. It is not. Its used not to kill, but to terrorize, and as such it is very effective. Israelis near Gaza live in constant fear (a.k.a. terror) and are always advised to be within 15 seconds from the nearest shelter...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  76. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by mi · · Score: 1

    Though, technically, I'd imagine that it is still a Geneva convention violation...

    Neither Israel, nor the US are a party to the additional protocol banning use of white phosphorus. So, no, they were not violating anything.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  77. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Neither Israel, nor the US are a party to the additional protocol banning use of white phosphorus. So, no, they were not violating anything.

    Please read the original post to which I replied. It was not about white phosphorus. It was about the practice of "dead checking" that is apparently practiced by U.S. troops in Iraq.

  78. Re:Build your own Quassam at home! by mi · · Score: 1

    Things haven't changed in centuries, millenia, of warfare...

    Of course they have — the conquerors no longer kill all men of a captured city, rape all women, and sell all survivors to slavery.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  79. Full circle by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.

    And now we come full circle, as the first gun control laws targeted free blacks to make them easier to lynch. Unarmed women are also easier to rape.

    This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.

    The nature of humanity has not substantially changed in 250 years. Our toys have, and the extent that we bullsh*t ourselves about our current superiority has, but human nature? Unchanged.

    Some principles, facts and philosophies are timeless. Others change with the season. I doubt you can differentiate between the two.

    If 'right at the current time' is the sole basis of a legitimate 'right', then rights are subject to being argued away by charlatans and sophists. I'll pass, thank you, and fix my rights to be eternal and unchanging.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Full circle by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Some principles, facts and philosophies are timeless. Others change with the season. I doubt you can differentiate between the two.

      But how do you know which ones are timeless? By continually evaluating them and deciding if it makes sense in the current times or not. If it always makes sense in the current times, it's timeless.

      Shockingly enough, I'm not anti-gun rights. I come from a rural background and have a decent amount of experience with them. I never was all that interested in hunting, but I do enjoy knocking down some cans or shooting some skeet. I even own an NRA-licensed collectors item, though I admit it was a present. When I visit with my brothers and father, half of the conversation is about old guns, rebuilding them, showing each other what they've picked up recently, etc. Again, I'm not a collector so a lot of it is lost on me. But it's the culture I come from and I understand it well.

      You'll see that I have never said a single anti-gun rights word in any of my posts. People seem to attack me because they have a kneejerk reaction when I question authority. I don't like the argument that I should just agree because someone who is Very Important and a Deep Thinker says I should agree.

      The funny thing is if I'd prefaced my posts with the background I gave above, I probably would have had a lot fewer detractors because I would have been seen as "one of us." But I'd also rather my own arguments stand not on the basis of who I am, but on the argument itself.