Until the Judicial Branch is forced to look over every piece of legislation, they aren't doing their jobs.
Uh, no way.
The role of the court isn't just to strike down unconstitutional laws, they also help define the already written ones through case law. Believe it or not laws tend to be written fairly poorly. Two people can read the same law and interpret it differently, especially lawyers. It's the courts job to help refine the meaning of our laws over time, spanning hundreds of years. It's a constantly changing system.
Further, they simply don't have the time. It takes them months to decide a case, they certainly don't have the time to put that kind of effort into every single thing Congress passes. It's impossible.
It's not a perfect system, but damned if I can come up with a better one.
That said, I would guess that even before they decided to walk away from state agencies they were selling little or nothing to them anyway, so really only an advertising scheme to attract the attention of gun nuts.
It is, a bit.
Their refusal to sell directly to LE or the government doesn't actually prohibit those agencies from buying their goods, they can always go shopping for them through another distributor. However, they do, and I failed to mention this in my original post, refuse to service weapons owned by those agencies. So, the government now has to shop around for repairs.
Imagine California government offices no longer being able to send stuff back to Panasonic, Sony, Maganavox, or whoever the heck makes these TVs any more. All repairs and service refused flat out.
What if Ford pulled this and refused direct sales of the Crown Vic. to LE in retaliation for their emissions standards? Refused warranty service? That'd be interesting.
Of course, I'm ignoring the hypocritical elephant in the room here: I'm not aware of CA ever trying to carve out government exemptions in their energy efficiency laws. They don't pay the energy costs anyway, and the "green" products work just as good as the others. However they, like every other government agency in the country, always carve out an exemption for themselves when it comes to guns.
THAT is what elicits the disproportional sense of outrage in the gun community, and it's why we applaud the manufacturers when they do it.
To [sic] bad, becasue microstamping is a good thing. It's an additional tool to stop crimes.
It won't solve a single crime, let alone stop one. You can quote me on that.
You're not likely to see anybody actually tool up for this. It's going to be too expensive. The final result of it will be that any semi-automatic handgun not on the California DOJ approval list come Jan 1, 2010 just won't be sold in California. Anything on the list before then won't have to implement the microstamping technology unless they fall off the list by failing to renew their spot.
It's completely pointless legislation. On one hand I want to attribute this to politicians that are simply looking to make an end-run around any Constitutional barriers to end all handgun ownership in CA. On the other hand is the more likely explanation: These idiots have no idea what they're doing in the legislature.
There is nothing that says the federal government cannot make funding state issues conditional.....
Nothing says the federal government cannot review the national performance of the country's schools.
You're looking at it backwards. There's nothing that says the Federal government cannot require me to fill out my income tax forms whilst a butt plug adorned with tassels is firmly seated in my arse either.
That doesn't mean they have the authority to do it.
We've got a constitutionally limited federal republic on our hands. That means that if the Federal government wasn't granted power over something they can't meddle in it unless an amendment is passed. It's pretty simple, and until about 1937 we were pretty much OK with it.
The abuse of the "general welfare clause" to mean that the Federal government can do whatever it wants is a fairly recent perversion of the Constitution, and blame for that can be laid at the feet of FDR, probably the worst president we ever had. Just about every mess we're in can be tied back to his bullshit.
The original intent is that Congress can spend money on things that we need to fulfill their duties under the enumerated powers. It wasn't meant to give the Federal government carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to provided they thought it was in our best interests. To assume that the "general welfare clause" grants the Federal government any power that it deems good would mean that the enumerated powers, and the 10th amendment, have no real meaning.
Why in the Hell would the framers of the Constitution spend so much time on the Constitution only to provide an easy "out" for any expansion that the Federal government wanted? It's madness to assume that that was their intent, and to presume that education falls under their power requires one to assume that they either:
a) Thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to mention it. a.1) Congress missed this "obvious" power until 1979 when they created the Department of Education -or- b) Didn't think education was a good thing.
I find 'b' highly unlikely, and 'a' is just plain absurd. To state that the general welfare clause grants the Federal government any control of education is just as absurd as the claim (supported by SCOTUS) that growing a plant in my own back yard for my own consumption falls under Federal control via the "commerce clause."
You really don't know how things work in the US, do you? Your arguments read like you never made it beyond a 5th grade civics class or something.
Let's just take this federalism thing "not working" for example. You're in California. I'm in Michigan.
California gets to set it's own emission standards for cars, and they require annual testing, yes? Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
I've got a permit to carry a pistol in Michigan. California does not honor this permit, so I can't carry a gun around California. That's federalism in action.
California did, and will again once Prop 8 is rightfully struck down by the courts, honor homosexual marriages. Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
Just a few examples.
As a Californian that's obviously in favor of large governments and central planning I find it highly doubtful that you'd like to see that whole "states rights" issues simple fade from existence. Your world would change, and you'd suffer, for lack of a better term, to the whims of us cousin humping rednecks clinging to our guns and religion in fly-over country.
I thought beef cattle were usually taken out using an air-compressed bolt to the skull, not much unlike getting shot in the brain-stem with a.22LR.
Any idea on which one is more popular?
I'd also point out that I find it highly unlikely that turkey farmers simply slit the throat of the bird. Everything I've seen indicates that they just decapitate it which is every bit as humane as the "bolt to the brain stem" technique I've heard of on cattle.
Vegetarians playing the morality card are associating gruesome with cruel, and that's simply not the case when we're talking about execution methods. Sure, it looks ugly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't mostly painless.
Now, the actual life that the animals live, I can grant them some ground on the cruelty charges there. I've seen chickens raised for eggs kept in horrible conditions. Three years in a cage with the 18 birds above you literally shitting on you. Every feather on them was black, and half of 'em didn't even have any feathers at all. I felt bad for those critters.
But the cows at the dairy farm across from me seemed to be treated well. The cattle out in Montana roaming the ranges seemed perfectly normal to me too.
I start telling them about how great Indian food is. Which it is, and that works in my favor.
Indeed.
The only way I could ever go vegetarian would be to include a LOT of Indian food in my diet. I don't mind it when the meat's missing in Indian food, and I know that the lentils, garbonzo beans, tofu (I use it instead of paneer), etc. are giving me the protein I need.
It's low fat, low calorie, gives you what you need, and you can cook a dish with a single skillet. I really wish it was more popular here in the USA.
And, if you eat it the right way, no forks or spoons to clean up!
So as soon as I even mention pain and suffering, people start the handwaving and cut me off because even though they asked, I'm the jerk for actually telling them.
They cut you off because they've heard the argument before.
You're better off starting with the "I'm from South India where it's just common." That's something most people don't know, and would give you an "in" to explain what the diet consists of. Education is always better than trying to pull the ethics/morality card out.
In fact, when I first read about it I was rather surprised that the ISS wasn't recycling urine already.
Same here.
Isn't it pretty much the safest source of drinking water? You only need something that can handle things that are already in the bodies of the astronauts. We can safely assume none of them have any nasty viruses in them, and I'm pretty sure we don't have bacteria in our own urine, so you're down to getting the sodium and urea out of it I guess.
However, I really don't get the gun thing. I'm not anti-guns (we have 3 in the house), but the idea that one will somehow protect you is nonsense.
Of course the idea is nonsense. A gun is simply a tool. It won't do anything until I manipulate the controls. It won't protect me, but it is something I can use if need be in my protection.
You're on Slashdot so you probably have a comfort level with computers that confounds most people. Heck, might even be a *nix geek. You know those little tools like sed/awk/grep/ls/df etc that you use on a regular basis? Probably freaks most people out that watch you fly over a keyboard. I do that stuff too... and then I go play with firearms after work. Folks look at us and think, "zomg! extreme computer user!" and you look at me and think "zomg! extreme gun user!" Do you see the parallel? They're just tools. We use them when needed. When you finally learn all about them the mystery is gone and they become boring. Come to think of it I really wish I had a "df" for my ammo storage.
Your scenarios are all manner of messed up, too.
It's perfectly acceptable to presume that somebody illegally entering my home is a threat to my life and the lives of my family. It's codified in Michigan law that I'm permitted to make that assumption. Legally speaking that simple act of unlawful entry is a non-verbal way of the attacker telling me that he intends to kill me. It's not my problem if they're not aware of this, and if you honestly don't think a home invader understands that their activities may result in them getting shot at, well, I simply don't know what to say.
He's entered my home with the understanding that gunplay or other lethal force may ensue. No man is ever completely unarmed. He may not have a firearm, but he's got fists and feet, maybe a brick. I have no intention of trying to engage in a "fair" fight with somebody that's already shown complete disregard for the safety of me and mine. Callous? Perhaps, but I'm not the one illegally entering homes.
Consequently, there is only ONE scenario when a home invasion is begun: The attacker and myself are both armed. I will be armed as a matter of practice and he should assume likewise. The scenario does not change until the attacker gives the victim good reason to believe that he is unarmed. Running away would be the preferred one.
At no point in time do the scales tip in my favor by being unarmed. Never. The only time a victim shouldn't bring a gun into play is when they're not willing to use it, as that may lead to them being unarmed by the attacker and now we've got the worst situation possible: Unarmed victim and armed attacker. This is not a scenario I entertain ever happening to me.
Your fancy tuned gun with special ammo sounds lovely,
It's actually a $200 beater shotgun with a $90 barrel added on. The ammo is pretty regular type stuff. I just post that kinda info to prevent other gun guys asking me what configuration I keep it in. Keeps the chatter down. However, it does show that you aren't very familiar with common home defense weapons, what with not being able to identify it. Like when you wrote:
although speculatively he might be persuaded if he's caught you off guard and spots your wingmaster hanging out of your belt)
Ever seen somebody try and hang a 40" long shotgun off their belt? It doesn't work too well.
You posted your 4 "what if" scenarios so let me run by you my 1 "what if" scenario.
Dog picks up on an intruder. He sleeps in our bedroom, so I'm going to hear him. I grab the shotgun and take up a stance outside my bedroom door, rack one round into the chamber and shove another shell into the magazine tube. From there I'm facing 3 of the 4 entrances to my house, ignoring windows. The longest shot distance is 14 yards and I know my load patterns 9 pellets within 8" at 15 yards. The fourth entrance is 90 degr
I never said I needed to be armed, just that I arm myself. There is a difference.
I could answer the door without wearing pants, I suppose, but that just wouldn't make any sense.
I enjoy shooting firearms, and I've got a lot of them. While I hope I never have to use one in defense of an innocent life it'd be rather silly for me not to keep one handy in the rare chance I need it.
The dog, at 2 years old, is better than any electronic sensor out there. I live in the country, not ultra-remote but far enough away from me neighbors that I couldn't hit their house with a thrown baseball, but he still alerts on things like the meter reader being next door.
I have no idea how he does it, but he'll go ape and 5 minutes later there's a meter reader in my yard.
Criminals aren't generally very smart, but as a rule they tend to pick the easier targets. Stickers on the windows identifying home security systems are just a notice that they need to grab and go. An 80lb. dog staring at them through the window is a signal that maybe the neighbor's place is a better target.
I suppose I could invest in some cameras, but I'm not really too concerned with catching a burglar, just deterring them. If I'm not home and they go into Full Retard mode and decide they want to wrestle with my dog then have at it.
If I am home the dog lets me know when we have possible "visitors" far quicker than any electronics would. I can't put motion sensors in my neighbor's driveway, but the dog picks up on that stuff. I work from home about 80% of the time and it happens almost daily. He sees something like the school bus stop out in front of the house, barks, runs over to me and starts nuzzling me. I look at what he's seeing, pet him, and sometimes hand him a treat.
If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt (if I'm not already wearing one) and I'm usually at the door before they even have a chance to ring the bell. Sure, it isn't typical, but I shoot as a hobby and I'm comfortable keeping loaded firearms handy.
Security has to be multi-layered. We all know that as computer geeks. The best technology in the world can be defeated through social engineering. "Fancy" wireless security systems can be defeated with RF interference. Heck, you might just forget the turn the darned thing on one night.
A dog? You can't really turn that thing off. You'd have to work to train that territorial protection mechanism out of them. That's my alarm system.
Once the alarm goes off, what do you do? Well, you need to identify the threat and deal with it. Manually calling 911 on a cell phone is a good thing to do, as you can describe the nature of the situation far better than any home-brewed security system can.
Beyond that we've got dealing with the actual threat itself, and nothing's better than an old reliable firearm. Personally I keep a Remington 870 Wingmaster w/ an 18.5" Mossberg manufactured cylinder bore barrel topped with rifle sights and 4 rounds of Federal reduced recoil 00 Buck handy at night. During the day I've usually got a S&W 1911SC, Glock 23C, or CZ-RAMI in.40S&W on my belt or a Kel-Tec P3AT nearby if I'm not actually wearing a "real" gun but want something I can clip to my pants in the event of an unexpected visitor at my door.
When it comes to keeping me and mine safe and secure I believe simpler is better and like to stick with older technology. While you're farting around with RF systems and sensors I'll be over here feeding my dog peanut butter flavored treats wen he does his job.
Oh, and for the record my dog is a pet first and foremost. He's here for companionship. Sure, he costs more than an alarm system, but he's worth it. The fact that he's such great asset in security is a side benefit. If there ever comes a day where he's too old to care about that stuff we'll just get another and let this one continue to be a pet.
something like this should have been established a long time ago.
It was.
The GAO (Government Accountability Office) publishes html, text, and PDF versions of all legislation. Thomas even links to them when you're looking a bill, so it wasn't very hard to make a permlink to legislation.
The only real downside was that the GAO doesn't update as fast as Thomas does. Plus a lot of "noobs" would think the Thomas links were permanent and paste them into discussions.
I'm afraid that's just a perception problem on your part. Grab the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine sometime. I'm sure you'll find something about 1st amendment issues in it. They've been really big in coming out against McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform the past few years.
The NRA and ACLU have teamed up on some 1st amendment court cases too. Heck, I'm a card carrying member of both orgs.
If the author is talking about The Middler... that attacker has to be on your network!!! This is only an issue on untrusted networks.
Which means you should take care of it early, when you're on a trusted network, not when you're off on vacation and want to check your mail from the hotel lobby's computer.
That way, I can leave annoying voice messages on the phone of a certain individual who prefers to annoyingly text me instead of confronting me over the phone. Then, I won't have to talk to her
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, Michigan requires a permit to purchase a handgun.
Uh, no way.
The role of the court isn't just to strike down unconstitutional laws, they also help define the already written ones through case law. Believe it or not laws tend to be written fairly poorly. Two people can read the same law and interpret it differently, especially lawyers. It's the courts job to help refine the meaning of our laws over time, spanning hundreds of years. It's a constantly changing system.
Further, they simply don't have the time. It takes them months to decide a case, they certainly don't have the time to put that kind of effort into every single thing Congress passes. It's impossible.
It's not a perfect system, but damned if I can come up with a better one.
There are currently about 16, maybe 17, people in Detroit with jobs.
It is, a bit.
Their refusal to sell directly to LE or the government doesn't actually prohibit those agencies from buying their goods, they can always go shopping for them through another distributor. However, they do, and I failed to mention this in my original post, refuse to service weapons owned by those agencies. So, the government now has to shop around for repairs.
Imagine California government offices no longer being able to send stuff back to Panasonic, Sony, Maganavox, or whoever the heck makes these TVs any more. All repairs and service refused flat out.
What if Ford pulled this and refused direct sales of the Crown Vic. to LE in retaliation for their emissions standards? Refused warranty service? That'd be interesting.
Of course, I'm ignoring the hypocritical elephant in the room here: I'm not aware of CA ever trying to carve out government exemptions in their energy efficiency laws. They don't pay the energy costs anyway, and the "green" products work just as good as the others. However they, like every other government agency in the country, always carve out an exemption for themselves when it comes to guns.
THAT is what elicits the disproportional sense of outrage in the gun community, and it's why we applaud the manufacturers when they do it.
It won't solve a single crime, let alone stop one. You can quote me on that.
You're not likely to see anybody actually tool up for this. It's going to be too expensive. The final result of it will be that any semi-automatic handgun not on the California DOJ approval list come Jan 1, 2010 just won't be sold in California. Anything on the list before then won't have to implement the microstamping technology unless they fall off the list by failing to renew their spot.
It's completely pointless legislation. On one hand I want to attribute this to politicians that are simply looking to make an end-run around any Constitutional barriers to end all handgun ownership in CA. On the other hand is the more likely explanation: These idiots have no idea what they're doing in the legislature.
We're getting there.
STI and Barrett (both gun companies) now refuse to sell to any law enforcement or government agency in California.
You're looking at it backwards. There's nothing that says the Federal government cannot require me to fill out my income tax forms whilst a butt plug adorned with tassels is firmly seated in my arse either.
That doesn't mean they have the authority to do it.
We've got a constitutionally limited federal republic on our hands. That means that if the Federal government wasn't granted power over something they can't meddle in it unless an amendment is passed. It's pretty simple, and until about 1937 we were pretty much OK with it.
The abuse of the "general welfare clause" to mean that the Federal government can do whatever it wants is a fairly recent perversion of the Constitution, and blame for that can be laid at the feet of FDR, probably the worst president we ever had. Just about every mess we're in can be tied back to his bullshit.
The original intent is that Congress can spend money on things that we need to fulfill their duties under the enumerated powers. It wasn't meant to give the Federal government carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to provided they thought it was in our best interests. To assume that the "general welfare clause" grants the Federal government any power that it deems good would mean that the enumerated powers, and the 10th amendment, have no real meaning.
Why in the Hell would the framers of the Constitution spend so much time on the Constitution only to provide an easy "out" for any expansion that the Federal government wanted? It's madness to assume that that was their intent, and to presume that education falls under their power requires one to assume that they either:
a) Thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to mention it.
a.1) Congress missed this "obvious" power until 1979 when they created the Department of Education
-or-
b) Didn't think education was a good thing.
I find 'b' highly unlikely, and 'a' is just plain absurd. To state that the general welfare clause grants the Federal government any control of education is just as absurd as the claim (supported by SCOTUS) that growing a plant in my own back yard for my own consumption falls under Federal control via the "commerce clause."
You really don't know how things work in the US, do you? Your arguments read like you never made it beyond a 5th grade civics class or something.
Let's just take this federalism thing "not working" for example. You're in California. I'm in Michigan.
California gets to set it's own emission standards for cars, and they require annual testing, yes? Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
I've got a permit to carry a pistol in Michigan. California does not honor this permit, so I can't carry a gun around California. That's federalism in action.
California did, and will again once Prop 8 is rightfully struck down by the courts, honor homosexual marriages. Michigan does not. That's federalism in action.
Just a few examples.
As a Californian that's obviously in favor of large governments and central planning I find it highly doubtful that you'd like to see that whole "states rights" issues simple fade from existence. Your world would change, and you'd suffer, for lack of a better term, to the whims of us cousin humping rednecks clinging to our guns and religion in fly-over country.
I never knew laying cable could be so interesting.
I thought beef cattle were usually taken out using an air-compressed bolt to the skull, not much unlike getting shot in the brain-stem with a .22LR.
Any idea on which one is more popular?
I'd also point out that I find it highly unlikely that turkey farmers simply slit the throat of the bird. Everything I've seen indicates that they just decapitate it which is every bit as humane as the "bolt to the brain stem" technique I've heard of on cattle.
BINGO!
Vegetarians playing the morality card are associating gruesome with cruel, and that's simply not the case when we're talking about execution methods. Sure, it looks ugly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't mostly painless.
Now, the actual life that the animals live, I can grant them some ground on the cruelty charges there. I've seen chickens raised for eggs kept in horrible conditions. Three years in a cage with the 18 birds above you literally shitting on you. Every feather on them was black, and half of 'em didn't even have any feathers at all. I felt bad for those critters.
But the cows at the dairy farm across from me seemed to be treated well. The cattle out in Montana roaming the ranges seemed perfectly normal to me too.
Indeed.
The only way I could ever go vegetarian would be to include a LOT of Indian food in my diet. I don't mind it when the meat's missing in Indian food, and I know that the lentils, garbonzo beans, tofu (I use it instead of paneer), etc. are giving me the protein I need.
It's low fat, low calorie, gives you what you need, and you can cook a dish with a single skillet. I really wish it was more popular here in the USA.
And, if you eat it the right way, no forks or spoons to clean up!
And how do you propose you render them unconscious and still leave the body suitable for human consumption? You can't drug the thing.
They cut you off because they've heard the argument before.
You're better off starting with the "I'm from South India where it's just common." That's something most people don't know, and would give you an "in" to explain what the diet consists of. Education is always better than trying to pull the ethics/morality card out.
Same here.
Isn't it pretty much the safest source of drinking water? You only need something that can handle things that are already in the bodies of the astronauts. We can safely assume none of them have any nasty viruses in them, and I'm pretty sure we don't have bacteria in our own urine, so you're down to getting the sodium and urea out of it I guess.
Of course the idea is nonsense. A gun is simply a tool. It won't do anything until I manipulate the controls. It won't protect me, but it is something I can use if need be in my protection.
You're on Slashdot so you probably have a comfort level with computers that confounds most people. Heck, might even be a *nix geek. You know those little tools like sed/awk/grep/ls/df etc that you use on a regular basis? Probably freaks most people out that watch you fly over a keyboard. I do that stuff too... and then I go play with firearms after work. Folks look at us and think, "zomg! extreme computer user!" and you look at me and think "zomg! extreme gun user!" Do you see the parallel? They're just tools. We use them when needed. When you finally learn all about them the mystery is gone and they become boring. Come to think of it I really wish I had a "df" for my ammo storage.
Your scenarios are all manner of messed up, too.
It's perfectly acceptable to presume that somebody illegally entering my home is a threat to my life and the lives of my family. It's codified in Michigan law that I'm permitted to make that assumption. Legally speaking that simple act of unlawful entry is a non-verbal way of the attacker telling me that he intends to kill me. It's not my problem if they're not aware of this, and if you honestly don't think a home invader understands that their activities may result in them getting shot at, well, I simply don't know what to say.
He's entered my home with the understanding that gunplay or other lethal force may ensue. No man is ever completely unarmed. He may not have a firearm, but he's got fists and feet, maybe a brick. I have no intention of trying to engage in a "fair" fight with somebody that's already shown complete disregard for the safety of me and mine. Callous? Perhaps, but I'm not the one illegally entering homes.
Consequently, there is only ONE scenario when a home invasion is begun: The attacker and myself are both armed. I will be armed as a matter of practice and he should assume likewise. The scenario does not change until the attacker gives the victim good reason to believe that he is unarmed. Running away would be the preferred one.
At no point in time do the scales tip in my favor by being unarmed. Never. The only time a victim shouldn't bring a gun into play is when they're not willing to use it, as that may lead to them being unarmed by the attacker and now we've got the worst situation possible: Unarmed victim and armed attacker. This is not a scenario I entertain ever happening to me.
It's actually a $200 beater shotgun with a $90 barrel added on. The ammo is pretty regular type stuff. I just post that kinda info to prevent other gun guys asking me what configuration I keep it in. Keeps the chatter down. However, it does show that you aren't very familiar with common home defense weapons, what with not being able to identify it. Like when you wrote:
Ever seen somebody try and hang a 40" long shotgun off their belt? It doesn't work too well.
You posted your 4 "what if" scenarios so let me run by you my 1 "what if" scenario.
Dog picks up on an intruder. He sleeps in our bedroom, so I'm going to hear him. I grab the shotgun and take up a stance outside my bedroom door, rack one round into the chamber and shove another shell into the magazine tube. From there I'm facing 3 of the 4 entrances to my house, ignoring windows. The longest shot distance is 14 yards and I know my load patterns 9 pellets within 8" at 15 yards. The fourth entrance is 90 degr
I never said I needed to be armed, just that I arm myself. There is a difference.
I could answer the door without wearing pants, I suppose, but that just wouldn't make any sense.
I enjoy shooting firearms, and I've got a lot of them. While I hope I never have to use one in defense of an innocent life it'd be rather silly for me not to keep one handy in the rare chance I need it.
I'll stick with the dog + firearm approach.
The dog, at 2 years old, is better than any electronic sensor out there. I live in the country, not ultra-remote but far enough away from me neighbors that I couldn't hit their house with a thrown baseball, but he still alerts on things like the meter reader being next door.
I have no idea how he does it, but he'll go ape and 5 minutes later there's a meter reader in my yard.
Criminals aren't generally very smart, but as a rule they tend to pick the easier targets. Stickers on the windows identifying home security systems are just a notice that they need to grab and go. An 80lb. dog staring at them through the window is a signal that maybe the neighbor's place is a better target.
I suppose I could invest in some cameras, but I'm not really too concerned with catching a burglar, just deterring them. If I'm not home and they go into Full Retard mode and decide they want to wrestle with my dog then have at it.
If I am home the dog lets me know when we have possible "visitors" far quicker than any electronics would. I can't put motion sensors in my neighbor's driveway, but the dog picks up on that stuff. I work from home about 80% of the time and it happens almost daily. He sees something like the school bus stop out in front of the house, barks, runs over to me and starts nuzzling me. I look at what he's seeing, pet him, and sometimes hand him a treat.
If it's an unknown person in my driveway I slip a gun onto my belt (if I'm not already wearing one) and I'm usually at the door before they even have a chance to ring the bell. Sure, it isn't typical, but I shoot as a hobby and I'm comfortable keeping loaded firearms handy.
Security has to be multi-layered. We all know that as computer geeks. The best technology in the world can be defeated through social engineering. "Fancy" wireless security systems can be defeated with RF interference. Heck, you might just forget the turn the darned thing on one night.
A dog? You can't really turn that thing off. You'd have to work to train that territorial protection mechanism out of them. That's my alarm system.
Once the alarm goes off, what do you do? Well, you need to identify the threat and deal with it. Manually calling 911 on a cell phone is a good thing to do, as you can describe the nature of the situation far better than any home-brewed security system can.
Beyond that we've got dealing with the actual threat itself, and nothing's better than an old reliable firearm. Personally I keep a Remington 870 Wingmaster w/ an 18.5" Mossberg manufactured cylinder bore barrel topped with rifle sights and 4 rounds of Federal reduced recoil 00 Buck handy at night. During the day I've usually got a S&W 1911SC, Glock 23C, or CZ-RAMI in .40S&W on my belt or a Kel-Tec P3AT nearby if I'm not actually wearing a "real" gun but want something I can clip to my pants in the event of an unexpected visitor at my door.
When it comes to keeping me and mine safe and secure I believe simpler is better and like to stick with older technology. While you're farting around with RF systems and sensors I'll be over here feeding my dog peanut butter flavored treats wen he does his job.
Oh, and for the record my dog is a pet first and foremost. He's here for companionship. Sure, he costs more than an alarm system, but he's worth it. The fact that he's such great asset in security is a side benefit. If there ever comes a day where he's too old to care about that stuff we'll just get another and let this one continue to be a pet.
Uhh, no. He was reaching down to pick up a grenade that fell off his jacket, not knowing it was live.
It was.
The GAO (Government Accountability Office) publishes html, text, and PDF versions of all legislation. Thomas even links to them when you're looking a bill, so it wasn't very hard to make a permlink to legislation.
The only real downside was that the GAO doesn't update as fast as Thomas does. Plus a lot of "noobs" would think the Thomas links were permanent and paste them into discussions.
I'm afraid that's just a perception problem on your part. Grab the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine sometime. I'm sure you'll find something about 1st amendment issues in it. They've been really big in coming out against McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform the past few years.
The NRA and ACLU have teamed up on some 1st amendment court cases too. Heck, I'm a card carrying member of both orgs.
If the author is talking about The Middler ... that attacker has to be on your network!!! This is only an issue on untrusted networks.
Which means you should take care of it early, when you're on a trusted network, not when you're off on vacation and want to check your mail from the hotel lobby's computer.
So... how long ya been married?
No it isn't. We're nerds for a reason.