Yep. We was eating lunch in that area to make sure students weren't smoking. The Columbine shooters also resorted to firearms once their bombs failed to detonate and they targeted the time for lunch when students would be gathered which had the convenient benefit of the armed guard being well away from the scene when it was initiated.
You know..... people have always said that the only purpose to a database of gun owners is to know who owns guns so they can confiscate them. Think about the law. it requires registration of all gun owners (a database). If a mental health practitioner reports a dangerous individual, without the database there's no way for law enforcement to know the person owned a gun.
The 14th amendment has been ruled as such that any restrictions in the bill of rights on the federal government also bind the states. If these laws would be unconstitutional for the federal government then they would be unconstitutional for the states.
Charles Whitman brought a sawed off 12-gauge shotgun, Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a.35 caliber pump rifle, a.30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia.25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19.357 Magnum revolver when he went on his spree in 1966.
I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it reference hunting or recreational activities as reason for why the right is not to be infringed. You may disagree on the definition of what constitutes the militia and who is part of it but you can hardly argue the intent and purpose of a militia which is decidedly militaristic. If anything, revolvers and bolt action rifles are far less likely to be protected under the 2nd Amendment than fully automatic weapons.
Also, we call assault rifles small arms. The 2nd Amendment protects all arms. Remember that merchants privately owned their ships and were quite able to purchase cannon for their ships. Privateers were individuals who owned their own ships and weaponry and worked for governments.
The very nature of the 2nd Amendment is such that the weapons that should be freely available to citizens must be weapons of quality which would permit them to resist and fight a foreign invader. Consequently, that means that the US citizens should be armed well enough that they could overthrow the government of the United States. It was an implied threat, a threat that would be potentially treasonous (no member of the Confederacy was ever tried for treason), but a threat none the less to keep the government in check.
Functionally, the body count should be roughly similar.
Consider the states of the actors involved. You have the shooters, who while probably mentally unhinged are in a position of power and likely behaving relatively calmly. You have the victims who are in a state of panic and fear due to to being powerless. They're not thinking clearly or quickly and the only reliable reaction that is decently fast is to run away from the object of fear.
It does not take long to swap a magazine. Maybe 5-6 seconds at the upper end for a delay in firing. Do you expect that all these people cowering in fear are going to have the cognizance to recognize they have a chance to flee?
Dragon Age did not include any gay characters. The "gay" relationships were with bisexual individuals.
With Mass Effect, gay characters did not show up until Mass Effect 3 with Steve Cortez and Samantha Traynor. Every other possible relationship that could be "gay" was bisexual and that was after turning Kaiden Alenko from straight to bisexual. That's not even getting into the weirdness due to the nature of the Asari.
All weapons are arms. Tanks, helicopters, nuclear weapons. The constitution is quite clear that they should not be infringed. Whether or not I am personally comfortable with people owning and possessing them has no bearing on whether they can.
Not only that. They say "Hunters should have their guns." No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the right to bear arms for hunting shall not be infringed. It very distinctly calls for weapon ownership for a militia. People may disagree on what constitutes a militia, but the very nature of such is meant to be a militant force. Banning semi-automatic weapons or assault weapons should be an infringement regardless since those weapons are more designed for militancy than bolt action rifles.
At least 168 people have been killed by explosives in the past 20 years. That was from one event. I'm sure there are many other explosives related events in the past 20 years that qualify as a mass murder. I'd have to look up the precise statistics for mass murders, but I would not be surprised that more people have been killed by bombs than guns in the past 20 years during mass murders.
A dumb one or one that doesn't know the HIPAA laws might. The charge is bogus (unless there's been a huge change in how HIPAA works that I'm unaware of) and the guy is not a covered entity that must follow HIPAA's regulations.
He's not a covered entity under HIPAA. That's all there is to it.
If you hand me all your medical records, since I am not a covered entity under HIPAA, I could do whatever the fuck I want with them. I could plaster them on the Internet. I could drop leaflet copies of your medical records all over Manhatten. There may be other laws I could be prosecuted under, but it certainly wouldn't be HIPAA.
The complaints were grounded in the 1st Amendment (free speech), 14th Amendment (due process), and a religious freedom law of Texas.
Not a single one of these complaints would deal with the tracking aspect of the RFID. If they did there would be a complaint filed under some other law or the 4th Amendment. Since tracking isn't relevant to the complaints, lying about it isn't relevant to the decision the court makes. Since it doesn't matter to the decision the court makes it cannot be perjury.
I'm not going to try to analyze the mind of a Christian but I was just summarizing the complaint. The complaint also extended to bits saying that by only having the mark you can participate in the economy and that by not having the RFID chip the child was being burdened by not being able to participate in the school economy.
The complaint itself is basically filed under the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, and a Texas religious freedom law. For the court to examine the legality of the tracking, it would need to be a 4th Amendment styled complaint. For the court to make any ruling or judgment outside of the cited laws, it would overreaching its scope.
I like the fact that Slashdot is conflating this to a tracking complaint when the case is more of a "freedom of religion" case than anything else. The tracking bit is tangential to the meat of the case.
Summation. Student thinks RFID chip is the "mark of the beast" and refuses to wear badge on religious grounds. School offers badge without chip. Student's parent instead wants entire program removed because wearing the badge is "compelled speech" supporting the program and by extension supporting the "mark of the beast".
There's some other complaints in the case but that's what it revolves around and none of the complaints have to do with tracking.
The plaintiff's objection is that the RFID chip is "the mark of the beast" and that having to wear it or a badge that looks like the RFID badge is compelled speech supporting the "mark of the beast".
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. We was eating lunch in that area to make sure students weren't smoking. The Columbine shooters also resorted to firearms once their bombs failed to detonate and they targeted the time for lunch when students would be gathered which had the convenient benefit of the armed guard being well away from the scene when it was initiated.
Artillery are arms. Numerous private American citizens owned cannon, especially among shipowners.
You know..... people have always said that the only purpose to a database of gun owners is to know who owns guns so they can confiscate them. Think about the law. it requires registration of all gun owners (a database). If a mental health practitioner reports a dangerous individual, without the database there's no way for law enforcement to know the person owned a gun.
Ask Charles Whitman.
Most people wouldn't be able to afford a bofors if they wanted one, let alone the ammunition for it.
The 14th amendment has been ruled as such that any restrictions in the bill of rights on the federal government also bind the states. If these laws would be unconstitutional for the federal government then they would be unconstitutional for the states.
Charles Whitman brought a sawed off 12-gauge shotgun, Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver when he went on his spree in 1966.
I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it reference hunting or recreational activities as reason for why the right is not to be infringed. You may disagree on the definition of what constitutes the militia and who is part of it but you can hardly argue the intent and purpose of a militia which is decidedly militaristic. If anything, revolvers and bolt action rifles are far less likely to be protected under the 2nd Amendment than fully automatic weapons.
Also, we call assault rifles small arms. The 2nd Amendment protects all arms. Remember that merchants privately owned their ships and were quite able to purchase cannon for their ships. Privateers were individuals who owned their own ships and weaponry and worked for governments.
The very nature of the 2nd Amendment is such that the weapons that should be freely available to citizens must be weapons of quality which would permit them to resist and fight a foreign invader. Consequently, that means that the US citizens should be armed well enough that they could overthrow the government of the United States. It was an implied threat, a threat that would be potentially treasonous (no member of the Confederacy was ever tried for treason), but a threat none the less to keep the government in check.
Functionally, the body count should be roughly similar.
Consider the states of the actors involved. You have the shooters, who while probably mentally unhinged are in a position of power and likely behaving relatively calmly. You have the victims who are in a state of panic and fear due to to being powerless. They're not thinking clearly or quickly and the only reliable reaction that is decently fast is to run away from the object of fear.
It does not take long to swap a magazine. Maybe 5-6 seconds at the upper end for a delay in firing. Do you expect that all these people cowering in fear are going to have the cognizance to recognize they have a chance to flee?
Sprockets never interact with another sprocket. Gears do.
Dragon Age did not include any gay characters. The "gay" relationships were with bisexual individuals.
With Mass Effect, gay characters did not show up until Mass Effect 3 with Steve Cortez and Samantha Traynor. Every other possible relationship that could be "gay" was bisexual and that was after turning Kaiden Alenko from straight to bisexual. That's not even getting into the weirdness due to the nature of the Asari.
All weapons are arms. Tanks, helicopters, nuclear weapons. The constitution is quite clear that they should not be infringed. Whether or not I am personally comfortable with people owning and possessing them has no bearing on whether they can.
Not only that. They say "Hunters should have their guns." No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the right to bear arms for hunting shall not be infringed. It very distinctly calls for weapon ownership for a militia. People may disagree on what constitutes a militia, but the very nature of such is meant to be a militant force. Banning semi-automatic weapons or assault weapons should be an infringement regardless since those weapons are more designed for militancy than bolt action rifles.
I had to look up what the test is, because I'm not familiar with the term or game...
Now, I don't by any stretch of the imagination call myself a coder. It's not a primary function of my job but isn't it just a basic modulus operation?
At least 168 people have been killed by explosives in the past 20 years. That was from one event. I'm sure there are many other explosives related events in the past 20 years that qualify as a mass murder. I'd have to look up the precise statistics for mass murders, but I would not be surprised that more people have been killed by bombs than guns in the past 20 years during mass murders.
Do you know the difference between a double action revolver and a semi-automatic pistol?
I agree completely with what you said. The only thing I disagree with is that the lying bit being a hyperbole. It's a red herring.
A dumb one or one that doesn't know the HIPAA laws might. The charge is bogus (unless there's been a huge change in how HIPAA works that I'm unaware of) and the guy is not a covered entity that must follow HIPAA's regulations.
He's not a covered entity under HIPAA. That's all there is to it.
If you hand me all your medical records, since I am not a covered entity under HIPAA, I could do whatever the fuck I want with them. I could plaster them on the Internet. I could drop leaflet copies of your medical records all over Manhatten. There may be other laws I could be prosecuted under, but it certainly wouldn't be HIPAA.
It would be tough to get a suit if they don't prosecute the charges.
The complaints were grounded in the 1st Amendment (free speech), 14th Amendment (due process), and a religious freedom law of Texas.
Not a single one of these complaints would deal with the tracking aspect of the RFID. If they did there would be a complaint filed under some other law or the 4th Amendment. Since tracking isn't relevant to the complaints, lying about it isn't relevant to the decision the court makes. Since it doesn't matter to the decision the court makes it cannot be perjury.
I'm not going to try to analyze the mind of a Christian but I was just summarizing the complaint. The complaint also extended to bits saying that by only having the mark you can participate in the economy and that by not having the RFID chip the child was being burdened by not being able to participate in the school economy.
The complaint itself is basically filed under the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, and a Texas religious freedom law. For the court to examine the legality of the tracking, it would need to be a 4th Amendment styled complaint. For the court to make any ruling or judgment outside of the cited laws, it would overreaching its scope.
I like the fact that Slashdot is conflating this to a tracking complaint when the case is more of a "freedom of religion" case than anything else. The tracking bit is tangential to the meat of the case.
Summation. Student thinks RFID chip is the "mark of the beast" and refuses to wear badge on religious grounds. School offers badge without chip. Student's parent instead wants entire program removed because wearing the badge is "compelled speech" supporting the program and by extension supporting the "mark of the beast".
There's some other complaints in the case but that's what it revolves around and none of the complaints have to do with tracking.
The plaintiff's objection is that the RFID chip is "the mark of the beast" and that having to wear it or a badge that looks like the RFID badge is compelled speech supporting the "mark of the beast".
It doesn't matter because the information wasn't pertinent to the complaints being raised.