I'd mod this up, but I only seem to get points on weekends.
Yes, each state decides how the votes of that state are apportioned; the state constitution could just say the governor decides, and that would be the way it went.
So everyone needs to start at the bottom to change this. Talk to and vote for state senators and representatives based on what you want, and support local county/city pols too, so they can move up the ladder.
The various solar energy collection methods cause localized cooling, and wind energy collection reduces wind. Yes, there is an effect, and enough of these would be noticeable.
We need to capture solar energy that isn't hitting us at all if we want to avoid that, but then we're adding energy to the system, and that might be bad, too.
Dagnabit! Paraphrase right, for Pong's* sake!
"Someone set us up the bomb" is coherent, even if it means something completely different than the intent. The phrase is "...set up us the bomb."
Kids these days....
*Yes, I know, but "Pong" sounds better than "Computer Space" there.
I have a point to spare, but I've already posted here.
On a related note, I seem to be getting mod points every weekend... when I have trouble finding things that need more modding than they already have. Too slow, I guess.
"Tubal"?
Are you implying that conservative former Democrats (define "neocon") forced women to have surgery to prevent pregnancy if they wanted better jobs?
Oh, wait, this wasn't meant to be serious, but looking at the posts, you might well take it to be, and offer "evidence" of just that.
"This option" can refer to the entire "Cancellations/Early Termination Fee" clause rather than just the preceding "three day" sentence, and likely does.
Felons lose the right to vote.
Felons lose the right to use, own, carry, or stare too hard at a gun.
Possibly some other things.
If this guy is convicted, he loses his vote forever, and that would indeed be a just punishment (if you feel it should be illegal at all, that is).
You do have choices:
* Mass transit/carpool
* Bicycle/walk
* Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle
* Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.
* The bus stop is a mile away from home and three from work, and the bus only runs during daylight hours. Not an option.
* The job is 12 miles away, down a highway. I can bike half of that if not carrying anything, in good weather, but not at night.
* Not in the budget for the next couple years. Hopefully it will be after that.
* Gas station attendant or deli counter person? Then I'll never be able to replace the car.
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom, in the following order:
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
I have to ask, when was the last time you tried to stand on a soapbox? If the first is now metaphorical, how far behind are the others? Ballot boxes are vanishing....
One interessant fact is that in the US, handgun crime dropped by 50% since 1993. Now I would like to know if really during that time MORE city imposed handgun restriction or LESS.
During that period, many states adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws. Violent crime rates dropped faster where such laws were passed than where they have still not been passed. More cities have had anti-gun laws superseded by state laws requiring that city laws not be more restrictive than the state's laws.
That's the sorta argument that gun-rights advocates should be making!
Where was it, Arizona? Where they recently became a "shall-issue" state, and all the anti-gun types were predicting a huge increase in domestic shootings etc, and it just didn't happen.
Arizona? No, that there is what happened in... oh, wait, Arizona is one of the states that happened in, along with every other "shall-issue" state since Florida.
Proposed law, anti-gun hype, passed law, and the streets continue to run un-red with all the lack of blood.
with original intent. There are plenty of people who argue that stingers and anti-tank weapons and what-not (short of ships) are exactly what the framers intended, and some of them are even constitutional scholars.
Because there's no reason that a person, having been cleared to use such through checks and training should not be allowed to own them.
Legal ownership doesn't make it legal to use a missile to stop someone trying to break into your house. The person who owns stingers would have to have them secured in an approved manner, and would have other weapons for taking down threats smaller than an attacking aircraft.
Anyway, next stop is Chicago, maybe San Fran, not the Oak Terrace Armory.
For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.
This is the stupidest sentance I have read all day. No protection from the police but I can't use my gun to defend myself from the police...I really don't get this!
Yes, grammar problems. Rephrase: "There is no expectation that the police will provide to the individual citizen any protection from crime."
Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
So, the competent use violence sooner? Otherwise, violence is the last resort, period. Now, see that word there, "ultimately?" Look it up. Ultimate = Final = Last.
Most of the population of New Orleans was gone (or at least not home), so the remaining gun owners were single individuals without support. They were surprised when the police tackled them and took the guns they had. Were there more of them, in groups, that would not have happened. Well, unless they were *all* 85-year-old women.
You have no frigging clue about how bad it is in US. A large city with population way less than 60M can easily have 500 gun-related DEATH per year.
Large US city -> strict gun control laws -> lots of "gun related deaths".
How many are criminals killing each other? How many are police killing criminals? How many are kids grabbing the guns of the criminals their mothers are dating? How many are criminals killed by honest citizens defending themselves?
No, in the US, places with strict gun control HAVE, present tense, major problems with crime. In none of those places has violent crime decreased after the passage of such laws to a greater degree than the national decrease. In most of those places, violent crime has increased.
I think what you are trying to say is that you think that criminals are able to use guns to kill people because they are able to get guns from the 'gun nuts'.
No matter where the guns come from, if you have one, and they are banned or need a license, then police can arrest you.
If you have a felony record, you are not allowed to own a gun. It has been found by courts that, in such a case, requiring registration or licensing is self-incrimination.
That is: if you are not allowed to have a gun, it is not illegal for you to not have a license for the gun you have. It is only illegal for you to have the gun.
So, if only people who are allowed to have guns need to have licenses for them, what good do the licenses really do?
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
It isn't known if this ruling will affect anything more than DC itself. Various parts of the Constitution have been overruled by states, and such situations have often been upheld. Part of what makes this case is DC's status, not being part of any state, so that the governing body directly above the mayor is the US congress. The ruling could therefore not apply to Chicago and suburbs, the only other major suppressor of the 2nd Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd mod this up, but I only seem to get points on weekends.
Yes, each state decides how the votes of that state are apportioned; the state constitution could just say the governor decides, and that would be the way it went.
So everyone needs to start at the bottom to change this. Talk to and vote for state senators and representatives based on what you want, and support local county/city pols too, so they can move up the ladder.
The various solar energy collection methods cause localized cooling, and wind energy collection reduces wind. Yes, there is an effect, and enough of these would be noticeable.
We need to capture solar energy that isn't hitting us at all if we want to avoid that, but then we're adding energy to the system, and that might be bad, too.
Don't forget we're slowing the moon's orbit around the Earth which inevitably will lead to the moon falling into the Earth.
Bonus! That'll make it easier to build a lunar base!
...U.N. efforts to reign in Iraq...
Actually laughing. thanks.
"Rein." I don't think the UN ever tried to take over Iraq.
Dagnabit! Paraphrase right, for Pong's* sake!
"Someone set us up the bomb" is coherent, even if it means something completely different than the intent. The phrase is "...set up us the bomb."
Kids these days....
*Yes, I know, but "Pong" sounds better than "Computer Space" there.
I have a point to spare, but I've already posted here.
On a related note, I seem to be getting mod points every weekend... when I have trouble finding things that need more modding than they already have. Too slow, I guess.
Dude: 5 letter word, starts with T, ends with L.
"Tubal"?
Are you implying that conservative former Democrats (define "neocon") forced women to have surgery to prevent pregnancy if they wanted better jobs?
Oh, wait, this wasn't meant to be serious, but looking at the posts, you might well take it to be, and offer "evidence" of just that.
So... nevermind.
"This option" can refer to the entire "Cancellations/Early Termination Fee" clause rather than just the preceding "three day" sentence, and likely does.
Felons lose the right to vote.
Felons lose the right to use, own, carry, or stare too hard at a gun.
Possibly some other things.
If this guy is convicted, he loses his vote forever, and that would indeed be a just punishment (if you feel it should be illegal at all, that is).
To sell your product. Otherwise, go ahead and block everything that isn't what you use.
Da*n movie, rewriting the story like that.
Any non-idiot living in the US should know that the US has no official language.
Having one would save on the duplicate forms in dozens of languages.
You do have choices: * Mass transit/carpool * Bicycle/walk * Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle * Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.
* The bus stop is a mile away from home and three from work, and the bus only runs during daylight hours. Not an option.
* The job is 12 miles away, down a highway. I can bike half of that if not carrying anything, in good weather, but not at night.
* Not in the budget for the next couple years. Hopefully it will be after that.
* Gas station attendant or deli counter person? Then I'll never be able to replace the car.
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom, in the following order:
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
I have to ask, when was the last time you tried to stand on a soapbox? If the first is now metaphorical, how far behind are the others? Ballot boxes are vanishing....
One interessant fact is that in the US, handgun crime dropped by 50% since 1993. Now I would like to know if really during that time MORE city imposed handgun restriction or LESS.
During that period, many states adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry laws. Violent crime rates dropped faster where such laws were passed than where they have still not been passed. More cities have had anti-gun laws superseded by state laws requiring that city laws not be more restrictive than the state's laws.
Exactly!
That's the sorta argument that gun-rights advocates should be making!
Where was it, Arizona? Where they recently became a "shall-issue" state, and all the anti-gun types were predicting a huge increase in domestic shootings etc, and it just didn't happen.
Arizona? No, that there is what happened in... oh, wait, Arizona is one of the states that happened in, along with every other "shall-issue" state since Florida.
Proposed law, anti-gun hype, passed law, and the streets continue to run un-red with all the lack of blood.
with original intent. There are plenty of people who argue that stingers and anti-tank weapons and what-not (short of ships) are exactly what the framers intended, and some of them are even constitutional scholars.
Because there's no reason that a person, having been cleared to use such through checks and training should not be allowed to own them.
Legal ownership doesn't make it legal to use a missile to stop someone trying to break into your house. The person who owns stingers would have to have them secured in an approved manner, and would have other weapons for taking down threats smaller than an attacking aircraft.
Anyway, next stop is Chicago, maybe San Fran, not the Oak Terrace Armory.
For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.
This is the stupidest sentance I have read all day. No protection from the police but I can't use my gun to defend myself from the police...I really don't get this!
Yes, grammar problems. Rephrase: "There is no expectation that the police will provide to the individual citizen any protection from crime."
Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
So, the competent use violence sooner? Otherwise, violence is the last resort, period. Now, see that word there, "ultimately?" Look it up. Ultimate = Final = Last.
Most of the population of New Orleans was gone (or at least not home), so the remaining gun owners were single individuals without support. They were surprised when the police tackled them and took the guns they had. Were there more of them, in groups, that would not have happened. Well, unless they were *all* 85-year-old women.
about 500 serious injuries a year
You have no frigging clue about how bad it is in US. A large city with population way less than 60M can easily have 500 gun-related DEATH per year.
Large US city -> strict gun control laws -> lots of "gun related deaths".
How many are criminals killing each other? How many are police killing criminals? How many are kids grabbing the guns of the criminals their mothers are dating? How many are criminals killed by honest citizens defending themselves?
How many are NRA members?
No, in the US, places with strict gun control HAVE, present tense, major problems with crime. In none of those places has violent crime decreased after the passage of such laws to a greater degree than the national decrease. In most of those places, violent crime has increased.
No matter where the guns come from, if you have one, and they are banned or need a license, then police can arrest you.
If you have a felony record, you are not allowed to own a gun. It has been found by courts that, in such a case, requiring registration or licensing is self-incrimination.
That is: if you are not allowed to have a gun, it is not illegal for you to not have a license for the gun you have. It is only illegal for you to have the gun.
So, if only people who are allowed to have guns need to have licenses for them, what good do the licenses really do?
E-ink readers only emit light if they have lights. The whole point of the tech is that it powers down the screen between updates.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis of the arguments before the court.
It isn't known if this ruling will affect anything more than DC itself. Various parts of the Constitution have been overruled by states, and such situations have often been upheld. Part of what makes this case is DC's status, not being part of any state, so that the governing body directly above the mayor is the US congress. The ruling could therefore not apply to Chicago and suburbs, the only other major suppressor of the 2nd Amendment.