Slashdot Mirror
Rapiscan's Backscatter Machines May End Up In US Federal Buildings
McGruber writes "The Federal Times, a weekly print newspaper published by Gamnett Government Media Corp, is reporting that the Rapiscan Systems 'backscatter' passenger screening machines used by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration will likely be redeployed to federal buildings. Rapiscan System's backscatter machines have exposed passengers to radiation since they were first installed. As previously reported on Slashdot, TSA decided last month to stop using the machines because the manufacturer was unable to make changes to the machines that were mandated by Congress. Now TSA is attempting to sucker another federal agency into taking the nude-o-scopes."
What better place for people to exposed to needless cancer risk from ionizing radiation concentrated just below the surface of their skin than the place that voted for this?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
They would be great for checking the freshness of avocados. And maybe they can be used to irradiate the meat you buy.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What a fucking waste of money
So is it Rapiscan as in "add" or Rapiscan as in "ape"?
Not only that, they'll pound on their chest about the erosion of their nonsensical 'second amendment' rights, while their truly important rights drift away like so much gossamer...
If you don't care a lot about the fourth amendment, I'm not sure anyone should give a shit what you say.
At the pre-launch meeting:
VP of marketing: we have several suggestions for the product name
CEO: it doesn't really matter, the sale is a shoe-in. We could call it anything we want.
Product manager: O RLY!?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
News at 6 from North:
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, people are so afraid terrorist attack, they have decided to give up their own liberty (and possibly their health) in exchange for (a possibly false sense of) security.
.....
I think that might be how the rest of the world perceive the new USA.
It's pretty amusing watching people freak out over these things and call them nude-o-scopes and similar. Just like with gun-control laws, I don't care a lot about the underlying issue, but it's so tempting to take a stance just because the NRA folk are so bloody nuts.
The NRA folks are nuts? It's the gun grabbers who are calling to lock people away in jail for owning a rifle with scary parts, or for owning a sheet metal box with a spring in it.
None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.
Why do you fear and hate your tax-paying, law-abiding neighbors so much that you want to see them spend hard time in jail for owning a gun?
Adult movie theaters should be snatching (pun intended) these things up. New 21st century peep show technology!
Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.
OK, what will you do when they tell you that you have to worship a religion not of your choosing? Or that you aren't allowed to bitch about what a shitty government we have? Or that you can't say the president is a douchebag?
The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be. Its not about hunting or sporting clays as our current leadership would have plebs like you believe. Its to give the people the ability to cast down a tyrannical government if ever the need arises.
You are massively confusing two distinct issues. The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia. The Fourth Amendment is for reasonable search and seizure. Objecting to backscatter X-rays is, unlike the gun nuts, defended by classical readings of the Fourth Amendment. That's aside from the serious issue of exposing people to radiation with minimal safety precautions. Moreover, doing this with federal buildings would be a lot worse. You can at least have other alternatives to flying (long car travel, train travel, boat travel). But when one needs to go do something at a federal agency one doesn't have any options.
Wow ... that's all really ... retarded.
FYI, calling people "sheep" is the easiest way to cause everyone to ignore what you're saying.
Simplifying much, with a side order of hyperbole.
None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.
So long as we're going to resort to generalities...
No, they would just rather project your right to confront and shoot kids for the heinous crime of playing their music too loud (or the even more heinous crime of wearing a hoodie in rainy weather while carrying a can of iced tea).
Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.
OK, what will you do when they tell you that you have to worship a religion not of your choosing? Or that you aren't allowed to bitch about what a shitty government we have? Or that you can't say the president is a douchebag?
The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be. Its not about hunting or sporting clays as our current leadership would have plebs like you believe. Its to give the people the ability to cast down a tyrannical government if ever the need arises.
This is what Americans actually believe.
Good luck taking down an armed military with your plinkers, if they actually WANT to get rid of you. Or they could, you know, keep doing the slow-boil that they've been doing for years. That seems to be working pretty well - as you already note yourself. Why fight them when you can just make them agree with you?
FYI, calling people "sheep" is the easiest way to cause everyone to ignore what you're saying.
Not really, a grammar error will do just fine. The laser-like focus on the misplaced comma will incite a half dozen threads about the Oxford Manual of Style, totally obscuring any point the thread had to make.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be
How?
The only thing more disgusting than Congress would be an image of Congress, nude.
American democracy is far more powerful to effect change than that Colt .45 under your pillow ever will be. Why will we see immigration reform in the USA in the next four years? Because Latinos vote. Why has the Republican party gone loony? Because Tea Partiers vote. Why is weed legal in Washington state? Because of the vote. If you want your rights back stop buying guns and start unelecting the people who are taking them away, and make it clear why you are unelecting them.
The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia
No, it's not. Just like the 4th prohibits the government from searching the people the 2nd prohibits disarming the people. You get the lowest level of freedom you accept: you probably support NYC stop-and-frisk because you are scared of guns, so stop resisting government control and relax.
Stop and frisk is covered as not ok under the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm scared of guns. As to the second Amendment it specifically starts with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It is the only Amendment with a preamble explaining its purpose.
As long as every official is FORCED AT GUNPOINT to go through them. Every single senator, Secretary, Tzar, even the President needs to be forced to use them at gunpoint like all of us have had to.
And every single one of the police force and security forces as well. they get the exact same treatment that is forced upon the rest of us.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't underestimate small arms. There's a reason the modern army still has an infantry.
A misunderstood purpose, too. "Well regulated" did not mean "pass a whole bunch of pain in the ass rules about" like it does now. It meant "well skilled" or "well practiced". The point being that you could't be good with weapons if you didn't have any to be good with. "Militia" meant "anybody who is physically able to fight when needed". That we now have one thing the founders most decidedly did NOT want, a massive standing military force, does not take away from what the second amendment is all about. It is not about the National Guard, it is not about hunting, it is not about anything other than people having the right to own weapons and become proficient in their use.
It is similar to why there is no right to "privacy" mentionedi n the Constitution. If you "wanted some privacy" back then it meant you needed to go to the bathroom. They wouldn't waste ink on stuff like that, even omitting the absolute silliness of it from their point of view. Yet today, because the word means something a bit different, some people excuse government intrusion in our lives by saying there's no right to privacy in the Constitution. They're just as wrong as people who think the second amendment is about anything but people owning guns. Period.
TSA still claims that NIST evaluated the machines and declared them safe even though NIST has plainly stated that it did not and can not.
No doubt some TSA officials are investors in Rapiscan. So there's no way that company will be taking a loss on these things.
Have gnu, will travel.
I was thinking I'd buy up all the old machines at bargain basement prices and then sell them to companies that do ore-employment drug testing.
A common way to beat a drug test is to smuggle in clean urine, say, in a condom taped to your thigh. If people had to be naked-imaged first, this would be quite difficult.
If these machines can't be used to fight terrorism, my company could facilitate their use fighting the war on drugs. And make a tidy profit too.
I was hoping that they could go into prisons instead of being destroyed. But only prisoners and their scumbag visitors have to. Go through them. Prison staff and lawyers get safe ones when they need to be screened. Actually scratch that, send the lawyers through the back scatter too.
how democracy like.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It's the gun grabbers who are calling to lock people away in jail for owning a rifle with scary parts
Even though I'm fairly liberal, I see little reason to believe bringing back the assault weapons ban will make a significant difference in gun deaths -- it would probably be somewhere well south of a 1% difference. So I'm not out arguing that the ban should be brought back.
However, every time someone says that the only difference between assault weapons and regular weapons is that the former look scary, I have to ask: Why are such guns so popular if that is the case? Do you realize you are implying that all those people clamoring to buy such guns are doing so simply because they look scary? If that is the only distinction between these guns and others, why else buy them? The sort of person who chooses a gun simply based on how scary it makes them look is exactly the sort of person that shouldn't have a gun.
There are, in fact, functional differences between assault weapons and other guns. How important those differences are with regards to mass shootings seems like a reasonable question, although as I mentioned, I doubt they are huge. Why don't you argue that instead of implying that people who share your politics are just fools who have bought into Bushmaster's marketing that they need an AR-15 to be big scary man?
The definition of 'militia' includes pretty much everyone, especially definitions #2, #3 and #4. Changing or limiting the definition of the word may be a clever way to limit the scope of the 2nd Amendment, although I'd have to call shenanigans.
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Yes, and historically definitions were closer to 1 than others. This isn't "shenanigans" but is the consensus of most law professors, linguists and others. The militias were official organizations under the state governors which eventually became what we call today the National Guard. Definition 4 is particularly egregiously modern and not relevant, and 3 just doesn't make sense in context.
Good luck taking down an armed military with your plinkers, if they actually WANT to get rid of you. Or they could, you know, keep doing the slow-boil that they've been doing for years. That seems to be working pretty well - as you already note yourself. Why fight them when you can just make them agree with you?
The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends? It's one thing to be deployed to a different country in a distant land against a population that differs from you in ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The brainwashing needed there is fairly low level, of the patriotic sort. To view large groups of people from your own country, your own neighborhood, your own church as a mortal enemy that needs to die takes things to a whole different level.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.
I don't know if that makes it better or worse -- but they have _not_ passed a law that allows them to execute you without a trial.
What they did, was to write a secret memo that explains why that have that right already. Then they wrote a summary of the secret memo which they just released. They may already be executing people without a trial, but the law allowing this is yet to pass.
American democracy is far more powerful to effect change than that Colt .45 under your pillow ever will be.
Look back a few decades to the VietNam war. A bunch of peasants armed with AK-47s and Pungi sticks routed two Superpowers (first France, then the USA) armed with tanks, jet fighters, B-52s, Air Cavalry, & etc. Look at the US today. The DHS is terrified of shoe bombers. The FBI is manufacturing plots with willing dupes.
That voting box is looking pretty pathetic these days, and more so every passing day. When your front runners are Obama and Romney, or Clinton and Palin, it's not working.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
I wonder what they'd say when I hand carry one at the gate and switch it on...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
So it's only logic you lower the risk of terrorism by taking away these terrible freedoms.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Definition 4 is particularly egregiously modern
No it isn't. I don't know where you are getting this information. There is a reason Jefferson said at the time, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That quote was said in support of Shay's rebellion, which was a paramilitary group regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against interference of the government. There was some debate at the time, because not everyone supported Shay's rebellion. John Adams was worried that without central authority, there could be a descent into anarchy, as happened in the French revolution. However, the idea of a corrupt government trying to take their rights was strong in everyone's mind, since that is what had just happened to them a few years previous.
Some other quotes to drive the point home:
I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table[, the constitution draft,] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor. --George Mason
[W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people? --Patrick Henry
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. --Melancton Smith
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. --Noah Webster (who ought to know something about the meaning of words)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Presently individuals carrying weapons in the USofA are by no means forced to be 'well regulated'.
Just wait 'till a couple of sane presidents have stacked your supreme court with judges that understand the previous two points and there will be a lot less violence in the USofA.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not to mention that there are roughly 100 million armed citizens in the USA, and there are less than 1 million combat troops in the US military.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I'll say. Have you seen the average fatso who works there?
Yiyiyi!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ok. So egregious is probably too strong a wording in this context. But most of your quotes aren't at all relevant to the matter in question. First, you've (again) completely ignored the phrase "well-regulated". Second, the Webster quote, nor the Henry quote, nor the Jefferson mention the word militia. Also, trying to use Patrick Henry as evidence in this sort of situation is particularly strange given that Henry was an anti-Federalist who opposed the Constitution. So generic remarks by him simply don't matter. So let's look at the quotes that do use the word milita" Melancton Smith isn't arguing that that's the default definition of militia, he's arguing that he wants that to be what a properly formed militia is. The George Mason quote meanwhile is out of context, as you can see from reading http://www.saneguns.org/law/mason_01.html for example.
Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, has spent years explicitly pushing Rapiscan in airports. His security consulting agency includes a client that makes the machines.
ok, I can see you've set your mind and are willing to ignore evidence that opposes your view. Sorry, I thought you were reasonable.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
In my non-expert opinion the militia "preamble" is sort of relict of the language describing the right to be a conscientious objector. But, let's leave the quibbling over language to lawyers. The question is whether citizens should be considered too irresponsible to defend themselves, and the government should have an absolute monopoly on force. People on the left think so, though they are often reluctant to explicitly present their beliefs. Maybe because their conflict with the Constitution would be too obvious (Listen to their utter contempt for the "privileged white men" who created this country and this isn't really a surprise). The right at least talks about wanting to limit government, which was certainly the spirit of the Constitution, though they don't often live up to their role-models' example, since their kind of conservatism still values external control
And courts have ruled stop and frisk is a "reasonable" limitation to 4th Amendment rights, kind of like how gun registration, waiting periods, concealment limits, magazine limits, fees, etc., etc. are "reasonable" to the point where it's hard to find what freedom you are left with. Once you start balancing "government interests" with human interests, it's over, because government is obviously very very important .
The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends? It's one thing to be deployed to a different country in a distant land against a population that differs from you in ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The brainwashing needed there is fairly low level, of the patriotic sort. To view large groups of people from your own country, your own neighborhood, your own church as a mortal enemy that needs to die takes things to a whole different level.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'd say that police and military will step in to stop what they consider crazies with guns hurting those other people with the same ethnicity, beliefs etc. as well, even if there isn't a us and them they will invent one to cope with shooting at them. That both the north and south were Americans hardly stopped the Civil War, nor would it stop people shooing each other now. Both democracy and the law has to become extremely corrupted before the people who believe they are defending democracy, law and order switch sides because during any revolution no matter how just there will be looting, mayhem and general lawlessness and they'll see it as their task to end it. Many of the world's worst hellholes have been plagued with civil war for years, even decades. No matter what many will deny the situation is so bad such a last resort is really required.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I see. So noting things like how quotes from Anti-Federalists aren't good guides to what the Constitution means makes one unreasonable? That makes so much sense...
Seems fraternities could fund their parties by selling the pictures.
Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.
So since they have passed all those laws, I guess the 2nd Amendment is basically useless as a mechanism for protecting your fundamental rights.
Whereas here in Canada, where we have moderate gun control (virtually no legal handguns, rifles and shotguns require licensing and training), we have considerably better legal protections against arbitrary arrest than you do in the US.
It's almost like there is something else--like a functional government that actually represents a broad range of people--that is protecting our rights. Not only does such a system work better at maintaining the rule of law than the juvenile fantasies of gun nuts, it kills fewer people too...
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Focusing on minutiae and missing the bigger point is a strawman fallacy, and unreasonable.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The primary risk is that the radiation is concentrated at the skin, but the "safety" studies the TSA was claiming to have used assumed that it's spread out through the body. Nobody wanted to take responsibility for doing an honest risk assessment. And because they were able to take them out of use because they didn't have a censorship feature, they didn't have to address that, but if they get deployed in Federal buildings, they might have to face serious challenges that they can't deflect by saying "Terrorist Underwear Bombers!"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Ugh. You're taking a phrase that used to be mean "disciplined" put into the constitution to specifically say "not a bunch of yokels with guns" and yet the NRA (and you) have decided to interpret it as "yes, a bunch of yokels with guns." Then you go on to say that what the second amendment was explicitly about, the security of a free state, is not actually what the second amendment was about. Brilliant.
The TSA folks have apparently been passing around X-ray porn for a while, in spite of official claims that the machines don't support it. And the standard images of the naked TSA official that they keep putting in press releases are low-res newspaper-quality versions, not the full resolution that the actual operators can see if they want.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you were paying attention a decade or two ago, Federal court buildings and many state and local court buildings all got metal detectors in a big hurry after some judge got shot by somebody who didn't like a decision they'd made.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Because there's a strong correlation between "looks scary" and "good ergonomics". 1950s vegetable peelers worked, but a quarter-inch-thick round handle was hard for everyone to use, and impossible for the old or arthritic to use. 1950s shotguns worked, but you had to adapt to the tool - if you were rich, you had an obscure English gunsmith make one to fit you; if you weren't, you made do with what the manufacturer thought was going to be popular. By using a separate pistol grip and an adjustable stock, you can approach the ergonomics of a $30,000 British double rifle for a price that mere mortals can afford. Nobody uses a mouse shaped like a rectangular prism any more, and even the cheapest ones now take into account the shape of the human hand. Why would I want to use a rifle stock that does not?
Why do people consider ergonomic weapons scary? That's a much more interesting question in my opinion. Some people, it's because they look and feel of military weapons. (Some - many - vets prefer the AR family for this reason - they already know where the buttons and levers are, and overcoming muscle memory is hard - and in this case, unnecessary.) Some people, I would guess, it's because of video games. Some people, violent media. Others, it's a lack of exposure, leading to an overactive imagination inventing disaster scenarios. But these are all speculation, because I'm not aware of a single study anywhere ever investigating that question, and I'd be fascinated to read it if one in fact exists.
I think you are probably right on two points at once. "Assault weapons" look scary because they look like military weapons (which of course are associated more with killing people that the average hunting rifle) and military weapons look the way they do because of ergonomics. It's much easier to effectively use a highly ergonomic weapon in a high pressure situation, be it combat or a mass shooting. That is more than simply a cosmetic difference like some people claim, though.
I don't know why people don't just argue that in fairly close quarters like where many mass shootings take place, a handgun is as effective as an assault rifle, and someone with a couple handguns and a couple pockets full of magazines will in most cases be able to do just as much damage as someone with an AR-15 (read: Virginia Tech vs. Newtown). That's a perfectly good argument against banning assault weapons -- it's not worth it because it won't have a significant effect. To have a significant effect we would have to ban semi auto guns in general, which just isn't going to happen in the US without a massive cultural shift, regardless of the daydreams of a few congresscritters on the left.
Who's the branding genius behind the name "Rape-Scan Systems".
I mean, really, that's exactly what it is--but usually they don't admit it so blatantly . . .
I'm pretty sure any attempt at banning semiautomatic firearms will make things worse. There aren't many gun nuts out there who would resist a ban with violence, but a ban is usually proposed in the context of reducing a vanishingly rare kind of crime. Even if we assume only a percent of a percent of a percent of American gun owners - one in a million - take it badly, (I have no idea how accurate that is; let's just pretend) one must remember there's slightly more civilian-owned firearms than citizens. Let's pretend that all the old sources of mass shootings are successfully stopped by a ban. By my estimate, there's going to be a substantial short term increase in violence - thank you first-order unintended consequences. If the police response to 300 mass shootings, sniper attacks, and other sorts of high-profile violence in a month is half as bad as the LAPD is demonstrating right now, I'd guess more people - innocent bystanders - will be shot by the police than the bad guys.
This will go over with the public about as well as a church fart, alienating them from their erstwhile protectors - second order unintended consequences. What's the result of a population at odds with its domestic police force? I dunno, I'm not a political scientist, but I get the feeling I don't want to find out firsthand.
Random thoughts related to and inspired by your post; pardon me, but it's late:
Not only are these scanners a very expensive waste of money as they fail to detect what they're supposed to detect, they're also a health hazard. Please stop this overpriced security theater and use the resources to actively prevent wannabe-terrorists from becoming the real thing. That's much more effective on every level. I mean even if the scanners actually work, what's to prevent a terrorist from setting off a bomb in the queue of people waiting to be scanned...? - By removing the terrorist of course. i.e. preventing radicalization or use early detection to identify and incarcerate those beyond prevention.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Not to disagree but wouldn't a militia of that sort require a state and federal structure similar to the National Guard?
Not sure, but even at the time of the Civil War, it was highly likely to find armies arranged by state, not necessarily at a federal level. (I know I'm ignoring the bulk of your comment that addresses the current military, but I was just looking at the basic issue at the time the 2a was ratified).
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Other than it already happened in the US
What the fuck are you smoking? I watched that video, and maybe you should too before you reply.
Now I didn't plan to take part on this argument and all I'm saying here is that the video clearly is not about what you think it is - and it's title is some kind of stupid scam (not clever scam, there's nothing "clever" about posting video about X and claiming it's about Y).
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Strongly related is weight: a modern AR weighs considerably less than an M1 and a fair bit less than an M14 (and less than your average 30 06 or 308, and less powerful to boot). This makes it easier/better for my girlfriend and son to shoot.
There is one guy on a gun board I frequent who has fused wrists. The pistol grip on modern sporting rifles is almost mandatory for him to be able to shoot at all. I think he might consider an ADA claim if pistol grips are banned in my state.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends?
Kent State
Jackson State
A certain LA cop currently on the run
Three examples should suffice; if not go Google for yourself.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Wow ... that's all really ... retarded.
skipping the 'insensitive clod' opening and moving right over to:
Stop calling crap like that 'retarded.' That's really lame.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
You already have a tyrannical government. How are your guns changing that?
It's not the weapon that's scary, but the thought of what might happen if it ends up in the hands of someone with a reason to mow down a bunch of kindergarten kids. Less guns in US homes will equate to less gun deaths.
While I understand that argument, I consider the point void if it's accompanied by an increase in home invasions involving gangs of about a half dozen men armed with machetes and nail bats who don't particularly care if the homeowners are home, who don't like leaving witnesses, and can be certain that there won't be any effective armed resistance. I'm frequently disappointed by those on both sides of this argument who assume there's never unintended consequences. And we can test for that using statistics, it's just that frequently people can't be arsed to try - or worse, deliberately fail to consider the side effects of their actions or the public policy they advocate.
Well we have no handguns or assault rifles in homes here in Canada and I've never heard of such an event occurring.
We have something terribly wrong with our culture - perhaps too many desperate, angry people with nothing to lose - and, with the exception of them hunting in packs, I found this scenario in newspapers.
Canadians are lucky.