Can't you still get AK-47s in the US that are semi-auto only that arn't covered by the ban?
Yes. The following pictures shows two rifles that I aquired in full compliance with the (dead in a few hours!) "Assault Weapons" ban. The magazines are 30 rounders, but they were made before 1994 and entirely legal to posess.
In each instance (purchased seperately) I went into a local gunshow with $400, walked out with a rifle, 2 30 round magazines, and 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammo.
And they've killed less people than Ted Kennedy's cars.
http://www.justinbuist.org/images/two-aks/two-ak s. jpg
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Read the constitution. Whenever it means a person, it says "a person" or "no person". When it means a citizen it says "a citizen" or "a citizen of these United States". So why does it say militia in the text of the second ammendment? Because they meant militias- the second ammendment was meant to be a right for the states, allowing them to have an army. If they meant any citizen could have a gun, they would have used the term person or citizen, not "well-ordered 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.
Emphasis mine.
Please; go find a dictionary reference from the late 1700's while you're thinking about the subject and look up the word "regulated".
When it got to the Supreme Court, they never read or heard the defendants' views, heard only one side of the matter, the government's side, and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s).
And WHY did the Supreme Court only hear one side of the issue?
Miller was dead!
And short barreled shotguns were being used in WWI to clear trenches IIRC. The Supreme Court never got to hear that though. Might have changed a lot of things if Miller had still be around for his hearing.
I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
Really? Because Bill Clinton banned pretty much everything that Norinco, the Chinese small arms company, manufactures for importation during his presidency. They fetch a pretty lofty prices right now because they're so scarce.
I think we're still allowed shotguns from China, but they're just knock offs of the Rem. 870 IIRC... plus I don't get into shotguns much. Just 3 of 'em personally.
If you know where I can get a Norinco AK for the prices of the stuff Century Arms is importing ($300 or so) let me know. I'll order me up a couple!
Just addding to the good information provided above.
Now only has ful auto weapony been regulated since 1934, but the Glock 18 has NEVER been available for civialian consumption.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 basically authorized the ATF to ban "not sporting purpose" weapony - which means foreign automatic weapons were out of the question. Only domestically manufactuered ones were available.
Since the Glock 18 is an 80's era pistol, no can do. Since 1986 domestic manufacture of automatic weaponry for civilian sale has been prohibited. So, even if Glock setup a factory here... no go.
Nowadays, however, all the reasons for it are gone. Your argument is rubbish - why are the electoral college voters more suited for judging character than the populace as a whole? I wouldn't trust most of the politicians I know with keys to my house, let alone keys to the country's vote.
The average American isn't terribly bright. Statistically speaking, half of the population is dumber than the average American.
Defense from who? If I were Norway or France, the attacker I'd be most afraid of is the USA.
Right...
The last time the US invaded Europe unprovoked was...? Never
The last time Europe erupted in war was...? 1939
The time before THAT that Europe last erupted in war was... ? 1914
Didn't the Soviets try and invade Finland at one time? The Winter War IIRC.
Kosovo/Bosnia ring a bell?
If Europe can keep itself from getting into a gigantic shit storm for a period of 300 years maybe I'd think they could tone down their defenses. Fact of the matter is they ALWAYS end up fighting one another. Hey, not my problem, kill eachother if you want but we're getting the heck out of there because we've got more important things to do than babysit the world's immature children.
See my sig for links on how the social democracies of Europe fought and are still fighting for a better , less stressful workplace, for universal healthcare, and for a social welfare state/safety net that lets them less afraid of losing their jobs.
Europe is in for a rude awakening. The US has had roughly 140,000 trooops scattered about them since WWII. WE are their standing armies for the most part. Sure, each country has their own defence, but they don't spend nearly as much money on it as they would have to if we weren't there.
And we're pulling out too. Current plans call for 70,000 troops to vacate since we're not terribly worried about a war right there right now. We've got other issues to deal with.
Once we do that the EU contries have two choices: - Take their chances. or - Actually spend money on their defense.
They'll have to pick between the Socialist feel-good insane welfare programs that they have over there and their national defense.
This sysadmin scares me, if he doesn't think you are doing your job properly, then even after he has told your boss about it he thinks he can install spyware on your computer and watch you. What other thing that bothers him would make him feel justified in doing crap like this?
Sweet Mother of God! How many people on Slashdot are going to do this...
He was not working for a "company" -- he was working in govenrment. Consequently his boss was also feeding of tax payers and doing absolutely jack shit all day long. That's not just morally wrong, but criminal.
Grab a 12" stick of wood and tie 6 pounds to the end of it. Grasp your hands around one end (cover up 6" or so) and hold up that 6 pound weight.
Now, try it woth a 20 foot pole. Let's assume that the pole has no weight.
You know how a lever works? The fulcrum of your shoulder is right near the body. It's not designed to lift things straight away from your body because it's too damned long.
Shorter arms make this easier.
Oh, hell, tie the weight to your elbow if you don't beleive me.
See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison......
The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.
I take a trip to the range 2-4 times a week. Put me on the firing line with any beat cop and see who shoots better.
Grab a dictionary from the latse 1700's -- well regulated does not mean steeped in laws. It means trained. I am well trained.
Whoa boy. I didn't mean for this to turn into a gun debate, but this particular stream seems to have taken that course. I couldn't sleep well if I didn't at least do my part then.
And as for your objections to the 10-round limit, let me say this: I do not give two shits. I do not base this opinion on time spent on a rifle range; I have an entirely different and more personal level of experience with the capacity of a weapon's magazine. And I can say with a clear conscience that I honestly could not give a damn about your personal convenience. The fact that you have to stop to reload twice as often while squeezing off practice rounds doesn't matter one bit to me, because the greater good is self-evident.
Ok, so I'm opposed to the 10 round limit. I walk the same streets as the local law enforcement. I work in a high crime neighborhood. I own the same firearm (in a slightly more compact version) as the police officers in this area. Their firearm, the Glock 22 is meant to hold 15 rounds of ammunition. Mine, the Glock 23, is meant to hold 13.
Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds. I must pay insanely inflated prices for the full 13 round capability to get pre-1994 models. It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal, or somebody close to you has, and I'm sorry for that, but no law would have prevented them from doing what they did it seems. Whatever course of action was taken by them it was already 100% illegal.
Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.
The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.
Well, thank you. We had been watching S 659 and later S 1805 like hawks for months wanting it to pass.
The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.
Agreed, but the "no compromise" thing was valid. I'm sad to see S 1805 die like that but I'd have been foaming at the mouth if Feinstein's rider was attached. The NRA knew this and knows what it's members want to see first and foremost: the sunset of the 1994 bill in question. It's refered to as the "Assault Weapons Ban" but it's hardly that.
It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill. The Republicans screwed up and allowed time for the riders to be brought to the floor.
However, we'd rather deal with slightly higher prices as firearms manufacturers fend off lawsuits than deal with the 1994 bill for another 10 years.
The only way around this is to get involved with a group that will put in the man-hours to keep track of it. You'll never see a politician promite their true voting record. You can twist and skewer anything and make it look real. You absolutely have to track them down day by day on the specific bills you're interested in.
Find a group of people that align with your beliefs and start tracking your politicians.
Take a look at John Kerry. You can find him voting "pro-war" and you can find him voting "anti-war" in the past 12 months. What's his true stance? You can't tell that with a search engine. You've absolutely got to stay involved the whole way through.
Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.
That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.
Here's how it went.
One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.
This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.
Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.
My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.
Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.
Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.
Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.
Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.
So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.
It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.
All this information is recorded somewhere on the House of Reps and Senate websites. I was scanning records hourly as S 1805 (Protection for Lawful firearms commerce) was being debated and voted on in the Senate. I'll dig up the links in a second -- it'll be easier to spot once you've seen them before.
Oh, and Thomas can be used to search for the EXACT text of pending bills in both Houses. They're a myriad o them though so you pretty much need to be involved with an activist group that'll keep you posted on what bills are in committee and which ones have a chance of getting of committee. Unless your reps are on the actual committee it's not much use to call them up and voice opinions on a bill that's not going anywhere. Well, that's my take on it. Seems like your position would have more "oomph" if you call them when you know it's out of committee -- shows that you're on top of the issue.
Yea great solution. Killing someone to protect to a $300 piece of silicon is a great idea. Really worth it. Why don't we add rocket launchers to our cars so we can blow up anyone who cuts us off while we are at it.
I'm the last person to promote use of lethal force for protection of property. However, you're not understanding the nature behind the argument I feel.
A mugging is a violent act. In normal thinking parts of this world (IMHO) it's prefectly legal to respond to a lethal threat of violence with lethal force.
If I walk up to you, 10 feet away, and demand that you tell me you like me while pulling a gun on you to insure compliance I have put your life in danger. The level of my demands does not in any way, shape, or form effect the perceived threat level to your own person. It shouldn't at least. I don't care if somebody demands a stick of gum or my car -- if they pull a weapon my life is in danger and I not only have the natural right, but often the legal right, to respond with deadly force to neutralize the threat.
The wording of your reponse, "Killing someone to protect", just screams to me that you do not have any background in such areas. You do not shoot to kill, ever, you shoot to stop. A very small caliber round will kill a human being if given enough time. That is not the goal. The goal is to deliver a massive amount of trauma to their body to immediately stop all action on their part. That does not mean that you're trying to kill them. People shoot center of mass not because it's deadly, but because it's likely to stop the person. A shot to the upper thigh (if you hit a major artery) is horribly fatal despite what you see in the movies, however it's unlikely to IMMEDIATELY stop the attacker. Stopping is the goal, not killing.
I wouldn't shoot somebody over $300 dollars. I wouldn't shoot sommebody for any sum of money. The whole situation turns though once the perp presents the threat of deadly force.
Someone walking down the street with a 20 GB iPod, a Palm Tungsten C and a Minolta dImage is carrying about $1000 (US) in potential swag.
If you're carrying $1,000 in nifty gizmos that are prime targets for criminals it wouldn't be such a bad idea to invester $300-$500 more dollars and get yourself a good sidearm. You rarely (as in I've never) heard of somebody's Glock being taken off their belt and stolen!
Have everybody bring in their microwave when touring offices. When they say it'll support situation X have people walk out their car, grab microwave, and plug it in. See if they're still confident in supporting that load. If they are, flip 'em on.
Nothing beats proof you can actually see. Just figure out what how many microwaves you need to simulate your load.
A slew of Slashdotter's ranting on and on about the $300,000 dollars as if it's dead set in stone that he absoulutely without a doubt asked "for $300,000 dollars or else!".
You want to know what happened? He probably asked them for a $15k up-front payment for the next year, maybe less... whatever. Just enough to keep him from LOSING money on the site. When the Sheriff got all pissy he probably VERBALLY informed them that it's actually cost him near $300,000 in time and real money over the years... which is probably inflated but given that he was pissed at the time he's likely to over-estimate when shooting from the hip.
Show me, in writing, an invoice from this guy with the figure $300,000 on it (or something anywhere NEAR that) and I'll beleive it.
Anything less than that and I'm going to chalk it up to an overzealous sheriff going way overboard.
I'm no expert, but DS3 lines (capable of up to 45Mbps) run over copper just fine. You're probably better off if you can get fibre, but copper will do in a pinch.
Sorry... my words were rather harsh becuase I've used the "email ahead" feature once or twice about dupes and it's ignored. I don't have access to my email else I'd have tried to.
I originaly searched for "Speak Freely" myself but tried the alternate when I didn't see the dup come up right away.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The following pictures shows two rifles that I aquired in full compliance with the (dead in a few hours!) "Assault Weapons" ban. The magazines are 30 rounders, but they were made before 1994 and entirely legal to posess.
In each instance (purchased seperately) I went into a local gunshow with $400, walked out with a rifle, 2 30 round magazines, and 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammo.
And they've killed less people than Ted Kennedy's cars.
http://www.justinbuist.org/images/two-aks/two-a
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.
Emphasis mine.
Please; go find a dictionary reference from the late 1700's while you're thinking about the subject and look up the word "regulated".
And WHY did the Supreme Court only hear one side of the issue?
Miller was dead!
And short barreled shotguns were being used in WWI to clear trenches IIRC. The Supreme Court never got to hear that though. Might have changed a lot of things if Miller had still be around for his hearing.
Really? Because Bill Clinton banned pretty much everything that Norinco, the Chinese small arms company, manufactures for importation during his presidency. They fetch a pretty lofty prices right now because they're so scarce.
I think we're still allowed shotguns from China, but they're just knock offs of the Rem. 870 IIRC... plus I don't get into shotguns much. Just 3 of 'em personally.
If you know where I can get a Norinco AK for the prices of the stuff Century Arms is importing ($300 or so) let me know. I'll order me up a couple!
Just addding to the good information provided above.
Now only has ful auto weapony been regulated since 1934, but the Glock 18 has NEVER been available for civialian consumption.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 basically authorized the ATF to ban "not sporting purpose" weapony - which means foreign automatic weapons were out of the question. Only domestically manufactuered ones were available.
Since the Glock 18 is an 80's era pistol, no can do. Since 1986 domestic manufacture of automatic weaponry for civilian sale has been prohibited. So, even if Glock setup a factory here... no go.
Checks and balances.
Right...
The last time the US invaded Europe unprovoked was...? Never
The last time Europe erupted in war was
The time before THAT that Europe last erupted in war was... ? 1914
Didn't the Soviets try and invade Finland at one time? The Winter War IIRC.
Kosovo/Bosnia ring a bell?
If Europe can keep itself from getting into a gigantic shit storm for a period of 300 years maybe I'd think they could tone down their defenses. Fact of the matter is they ALWAYS end up fighting one another. Hey, not my problem, kill eachother if you want but we're getting the heck out of there because we've got more important things to do than babysit the world's immature children.
Europe is in for a rude awakening. The US has had roughly 140,000 trooops scattered about them since WWII. WE are their standing armies for the most part. Sure, each country has their own defence, but they don't spend nearly as much money on it as they would have to if we weren't there.
And we're pulling out too. Current plans call for 70,000 troops to vacate since we're not terribly worried about a war right there right now. We've got other issues to deal with.
Once we do that the EU contries have two choices:
- Take their chances.
or
- Actually spend money on their defense.
They'll have to pick between the Socialist feel-good insane welfare programs that they have over there and their national defense.
Sweet Mother of God! How many people on Slashdot are going to do this...
He was not working for a "company" -- he was working in govenrment. Consequently his boss was also feeding of tax payers and doing absolutely jack shit all day long. That's not just morally wrong, but criminal.
Somebody failed physics class.
Grab a 12" stick of wood and tie 6 pounds to the end of it. Grasp your hands around one end (cover up 6" or so) and hold up that 6 pound weight.
Now, try it woth a 20 foot pole. Let's assume that the pole has no weight.
You know how a lever works? The fulcrum of your shoulder is right near the body. It's not designed to lift things straight away from your body because it's too damned long.
Shorter arms make this easier.
Oh, hell, tie the weight to your elbow if you don't beleive me.
I take a trip to the range 2-4 times a week. Put me on the firing line with any beat cop and see who shoots better.
Grab a dictionary from the latse 1700's -- well regulated does not mean steeped in laws. It means trained. I am well trained.
Ok, so I'm opposed to the 10 round limit. I walk the same streets as the local law enforcement. I work in a high crime neighborhood. I own the same firearm (in a slightly more compact version) as the police officers in this area. Their firearm, the Glock 22 is meant to hold 15 rounds of ammunition. Mine, the Glock 23, is meant to hold 13.
Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds. I must pay insanely inflated prices for the full 13 round capability to get pre-1994 models. It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal, or somebody close to you has, and I'm sorry for that, but no law would have prevented them from doing what they did it seems. Whatever course of action was taken by them it was already 100% illegal.
Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.
Well, thank you. We had been watching S 659 and later S 1805 like hawks for months wanting it to pass.
Agreed, but the "no compromise" thing was valid. I'm sad to see S 1805 die like that but I'd have been foaming at the mouth if Feinstein's rider was attached. The NRA knew this and knows what it's members want to see first and foremost: the sunset of the 1994 bill in question. It's refered to as the "Assault Weapons Ban" but it's hardly that.
It was spelled out pretty clear in the beginning by all pro-gun groups (and the President) that they wanted a clean bill. The Republicans screwed up and allowed time for the riders to be brought to the floor.
However, we'd rather deal with slightly higher prices as firearms manufacturers fend off lawsuits than deal with the 1994 bill for another 10 years.
The only way around this is to get involved with a group that will put in the man-hours to keep track of it. You'll never see a politician promite their true voting record. You can twist and skewer anything and make it look real. You absolutely have to track them down day by day on the specific bills you're interested in.
Find a group of people that align with your beliefs and start tracking your politicians.
Take a look at John Kerry. You can find him voting "pro-war" and you can find him voting "anti-war" in the past 12 months. What's his true stance? You can't tell that with a search engine. You've absolutely got to stay involved the whole way through.
Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.
That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.
Here's how it went.
One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.
This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.
Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.
My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.
Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.
Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.
Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.
Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.
So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.
It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.
All this information is recorded somewhere on the House of Reps and Senate websites. I was scanning records hourly as S 1805 (Protection for Lawful firearms commerce) was being debated and voted on in the Senate. I'll dig up the links in a second -- it'll be easier to spot once you've seen them before.
... that's at least good for the 108th Congress.
Oh, and Thomas can be used to search for the EXACT text of pending bills in both Houses. They're a myriad o them though so you pretty much need to be involved with an activist group that'll keep you posted on what bills are in committee and which ones have a chance of getting of committee. Unless your reps are on the actual committee it's not much use to call them up and voice opinions on a bill that's not going anywhere. Well, that's my take on it. Seems like your position would have more "oomph" if you call them when you know it's out of committee -- shows that you're on top of the issue.
Yep, there it is: Congress voting records
Here's a better page I gathered up from the Senate's site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html
Best way to learn how it works, IMHO, is to watch the NRA and other gun-rights groups. That's how I got involved with it all I guess.
I'm the last person to promote use of lethal force for protection of property. However, you're not understanding the nature behind the argument I feel.
A mugging is a violent act. In normal thinking parts of this world (IMHO) it's prefectly legal to respond to a lethal threat of violence with lethal force.
If I walk up to you, 10 feet away, and demand that you tell me you like me while pulling a gun on you to insure compliance I have put your life in danger. The level of my demands does not in any way, shape, or form effect the perceived threat level to your own person. It shouldn't at least. I don't care if somebody demands a stick of gum or my car -- if they pull a weapon my life is in danger and I not only have the natural right, but often the legal right, to respond with deadly force to neutralize the threat.
The wording of your reponse, "Killing someone to protect", just screams to me that you do not have any background in such areas. You do not shoot to kill, ever, you shoot to stop. A very small caliber round will kill a human being if given enough time. That is not the goal. The goal is to deliver a massive amount of trauma to their body to immediately stop all action on their part. That does not mean that you're trying to kill them. People shoot center of mass not because it's deadly, but because it's likely to stop the person. A shot to the upper thigh (if you hit a major artery) is horribly fatal despite what you see in the movies, however it's unlikely to IMMEDIATELY stop the attacker. Stopping is the goal, not killing.
I wouldn't shoot somebody over $300 dollars. I wouldn't shoot sommebody for any sum of money. The whole situation turns though once the perp presents the threat of deadly force.
If you're carrying $1,000 in nifty gizmos that are prime targets for criminals it wouldn't be such a bad idea to invester $300-$500 more dollars and get yourself a good sidearm. You rarely (as in I've never) heard of somebody's Glock being taken off their belt and stolen!
Have everybody bring in their microwave when touring offices. When they say it'll support situation X have people walk out their car, grab microwave, and plug it in. See if they're still confident in supporting that load. If they are, flip 'em on.
Nothing beats proof you can actually see. Just figure out what how many microwaves you need to simulate your load.
A slew of Slashdotter's ranting on and on about the $300,000 dollars as if it's dead set in stone that he absoulutely without a doubt asked "for $300,000 dollars or else!".
You want to know what happened? He probably asked them for a $15k up-front payment for the next year, maybe less... whatever. Just enough to keep him from LOSING money on the site. When the Sheriff got all pissy he probably VERBALLY informed them that it's actually cost him near $300,000 in time and real money over the years... which is probably inflated but given that he was pissed at the time he's likely to over-estimate when shooting from the hip.
Show me, in writing, an invoice from this guy with the figure $300,000 on it (or something anywhere NEAR that) and I'll beleive it.
Anything less than that and I'm going to chalk it up to an overzealous sheriff going way overboard.
Hell, he's probably lucky he's alive.
I'm going to stick with a couple of time proven battle rifles and a few thousand rounds of ammunition along with other general supplies.
If you want to put your hand over your nametag... go ahead. It won't stop somebody from knocking on your door though.
Make fake ID's. Seriously.
I'm no expert, but DS3 lines (capable of up to 45Mbps) run over copper just fine. You're probably better off if you can get fibre, but copper will do in a pinch.
Sorry... my words were rather harsh becuase I've used the "email ahead" feature once or twice about dupes and it's ignored. I don't have access to my email else I'd have tried to.
I originaly searched for "Speak Freely" myself but tried the alternate when I didn't see the dup come up right away.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/20/155625 3&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=185&tid= 95
For God's sake, search for 'speakfreely' in your own engine. It returns ONE result! The same damned article!