You'd be surprised to see how many people can't recognize a gun case. The last one I flew with was about 20"x20" square, had hard sizes, chrome-ish metal frame, and locking tabs on the front.
Looked pretty slick, actually. Nobody knew it was a gun case until I opened it up and showed the shotgun I had inside.
Still, somehow Delta Airlines put a 1" hole in the side of the thing. I can't say exactly what the sides were made of, but a swift stab at it with my 4.5" tanto blade from CRKT didn't puncture it. How the heck Delta did THAT I have no idea.
Finding a job that pays more than minimum wage in all this turmoil is very difficult and you should be thankful you got one.
Bull.
I want you to show me one classified job listing that pays minimum wage. Here's the local job listings for the city I live in, Grand Rapids, Michigan. There's over 1,300 jobs listed in that link and I bet it would take you a long time to find one of these minimum wage jobs.
Michigan's economy is shit compared to the rest of the country. Grand Rapids' major employers are bleeding out and laying off people left and right for upwards of 4 years now. Last I knew we had the only Army recruiting center that hadn't yet missed their quota since the start of the Iraq war. If that isn't indicative of a crappy economy I don't know what is.
First and foremost all those minimum wage jobs are scarcer than the producers apparently thought. All the easily-found jobs pay more than minimum wage. Spurlock signs on with a temp agency at $7/hr; his companion Jamieson dickers her wage down to minimum so as to not cheat the show's premise. (Spurlock quits when he finds deductions bring his take home down to a measly $4.26. This is important. We return to the puzzle of his deductions shortly.)
However, if you get caught by security guards driving on their golf carts patrolling the student parking lot, they will search your car.
Here's some advice that will serve you the rest of your life: Never let anybody search your vehicle or home unless they have a warrant. You have a choice. You don't think you do, but it's there. You can always just leave. Exit the premises. If they wish to continue their harassment then they'll need to find a cop and a judge to sign off on a warrant to search your car off premises.
If they want to search it the next day do the same: Unlock the car, get in, and leave.
There is nothing they can do, short of visiting violence upon you, to keep you under their control. If they do initiate violence upon you, well, let's address that now.
There is also another degredation of rights where I go to, pertaining to violence. If someone walks up to you and flat out punches you for no reason, you cannot do anything.
I'm 26 and this was pretty much the policy in our schools too when I went. Ignore it. If somebody attacks you knock their block off. Fight, and fight dirty. Got a book in your hands? Throw it at them -- when they duck or try and dodge it make contact. Use your surroundings. Floors are usually quite hard objects -- especially school hallways. Get 'em on the ground, get on top, and smash their freaking head into it. See if you can get a friendly high school wrestler to show you a few things -- like how to run a "double leg ride" and a "power half."
Fight not to avenge, but to stop the threat.
Sounds a bit extreme, I know, but I presume you're between 16 and 18 years old. The manner in which you act now will take a long time to shake out of your head, if it is ever possible.
You're becoming an adult, and it's time to act like one. Adults should not submit to random searches by rent-a-cop, or even actual police without a warrant. Adults should not submit to violence visited upon them by thugs on the street.
Sometimes this means making tough choices. Don't want to be searched? Don't leave campus. If you still decide to leave campus and somebody wants to search your car and you're not too keen on that idea just leave.
If somebody commits an act of violence upon you you have to make a decision: Shall I presume that the attack will not immediately further and risk being beaten into a bloody pulp, possibly resulting in serious injury? Or should I defend myself and risk suspension?
Hospital beds suck a lot worse (and cost a lot more) than a suspension. While the suspension can be pretty much guaranteed it is far easier to weather.
In parting I'd like to make one final observation based upon my conjecture. I presume that you're between the age of 16 and 18 years old given that you can leave campus during school. Further, because this is Slashdot I'm going to presume that you are male. Consider this:
You are at a time in your life when you are the most likely to resist authority. It comes with the age. You're also at a time in your life when there's as much testosterone flowing through your body as ever before which makes you the most prone to violent actions. If you are conditioned to accept authoritarian control of your life (searching your private property) and further conditioned to accept that violence visited upon you should be met with no resistance then it is going to be one Hell of a battle to get out of that mindset later on in life.
If you don't stand up for your human rights at this juncture in your life because you're afraid of a suspension or a mark in your school record it will be infinately harder to do it when you've got a good job, a wife, and a family to feed on the line.
Okay, American Revolution history as short as I can:
England started taxing the American colonialists too high for their liking, things got hot, and on April 19, 1775 the shooting war broke out.
Come spring of 1776 Americans are getting their ass handed to them and support for the war is waning. A bunch of rich white men (not that it's a bad thing, just trying to make this very simple) got together to decide what to do. The Declaration of Independence was drawn up and signed by 56 (might be off by 1 or 2 here) men that had a lot to lose if the Americans didn't win this war.
They'd be killed. In fact, many were killed in the course of the war. It took some real balls to sign that document. Of course, it is also highly probable that they were drunk off their asses during the debate. Possibly the signing. Our early government had a tendency to work that way.
It was basically a giant middle finger to King George III and the Parliament. Mostly King George, though.
Now, to answer your questions directly:
What independence are you celebrating?
Technically we're celebrating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the men that stood behind it. There's a subtle difference and it is lost on most of the American population. We weren't actually independent on July 4, 1776 -- we just said we were.
What is it that you gained independence from?
The British monarchy.
Are you still independent of it today?
Well, yes. Even the people of England are free of the monarchy at this point. However, and this is not a popular thought among Americans, we're inadvertently creating our own monarchy here. Multiple members of the same families keep showing up in our political realm. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. His younger brothers Robet and Edward (Ted) Kennedy were later elected Senators. Robert was assianated, just like John F. Kennedy. Ted Kennedy still serves on the Senate, having been there since 1962!
Ted Kennedy's son, Patrick is also serving in our House of Representatives.
George H. W. Bush was elected President in 1988, after having served as as Congressman and Vice President under President Reagan. His son George is now President and another son, Jeb, is governor of the state of Florida.
Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992 after having served as governor of the state of Arkansas. His wife, Hillary, is now a Senator from the state of New York and is considered a possible candidate for President in 2008.
There are some people that think that Jeb Bush, the current president's brother, may make a bid for the 2008 Republican ticket. It's a long shot, but it's possible.
Why? I don't know -- I guess people just like the thought of having a "royal" family, or families, as heads of government.
You have lost your freaking marbles, you know that?
Have you EVER been greeted by a hostess with, "Would prefer to sit in the crazy guy throwing grass in your face section or non?"
Which is more likely to be heard in a restaurant:
"Wow, that was a great meal. I think I'll have a cigarette." --OR-- "wow, that was a great meal. Somebody throw shit in my face."
OK, let's look at this another way. I'm not real keen on having people throw shit at my face when I eat. Most people aren't from what I gather. If you are, that's fine; what two men do at the dinner table with a pile of grass clippings is their own business.
I'm so adverse to not having stuff thrown at me while eating I'd probably never visit a place where this was practiced. I don't care if there's a throw-shit-at-people section and a non-throw-shit-at-people section. I'm so against eating in those conditions that I'd rather go somewhere else in the event that some stray fodder lands anywhere near me.
It's this "sloppy" gun ownership that I'm concerned about. I strongly believe that no-one needs a gun in a city or urban environment, and that wide-spread ownership only makes the whole crime situation worse, whether stolen or not.
I was pondering upon this very misconception of American gun owners today. I've taken to the idea of learning Japanese in the near future and remebered a story I saw online from an American in Japan teaching English as a second language. Somebody asked him how many guns he owns (you know, because ALL Americans own guns) and when he held up a single finger as to say "Hold on one moment" they presume he owned one gun.
He owned none -- he just let the issue drop.
I digress.
Gun ownership with in cities in America is fairly rare, at least compared to what most foreigner's seem to think. I grew up in a rural area and almost every household had -a- gun. My family actually only had one shotgun. Now, my paternal grandfather has probably at least 5 because he hunts. My maternal grandfather? Probably 10.
It's rural America -- crime is nearly nonexistant there. Guns are usually stored in a closet. If you're "fancy" you put them in a locking cabinet -- but they are almost always cases with a glass front to them. You know, so your buddies can see them when they stop by to watch the game and have a couple of beers.
Yet, nobody steals guns out that way. You can leave a rifle in the back of your pickup truck and not worry about it.
After college I moved into the "big city" around here and gun ownership is almost nonexistant. I came from a family where it was fine to have 5-10 guns in your house, stored fairly unsecured, but after meeting "city folk" that idea is unheard of. You might meet the occasional bloke that keeps a handgun in his bedroom in a locking case, but it's rare.
Me? I'm the statistical anomoly that most foreigners think represents American gun owners. I live in a cramped little apartment in the city. I own somewhere between 30 and 35 guns of various types. I admit, I'm actually not sure how many I own right this moment. I also can't tell you how many forks I own, how many pairs of shoes I have, or how many pairs of pants I own. To me they're just tools and collectable items. I have three locking steel cabinets to keep them all in -- NOT something you'd see with a rural gun owner.
You see, I'm the guy that you THINK most American gun owners are like. Let me tell you, there aren't many of us. Regular American gun owners balk when I talk about my collection. City folk? Well they're just downright appaled!
Take a gander at the numbers. It is estimated that there are 280,000,000 guns in America right now. There's also about that many people. When you sample urban populations you'll find that MOST people don't own guns. Now when you sample rural folks you'll find it isn't uncommon to find 5-10 guns per household. See what I'm saying? We don't really have a high saturation of gun ownership in our high-crime cities. I am not going to say that gun ownership reduces crime. I find that to be a sketchy argument. It is untestable. However when you look at our rural communities you find that the introduction, or existence, of high gun ownership doesn't increase crime.
American cities, compared to the rest of America, are pretty much gun free zones. I know it doesn't seem like that on the news, but it is the truth.
Don't you pretty much have to know someone in order to buy a handgun in New Jersey now?
No, not really. The FOID (Firearms Owner ID) cards are still handed out without having to pull any strings. It's still an abomination of a process -- but it does run without any bias that I'm aware of.
Massachusetts on the other hand... you'd better have a friendly Sheriff. They illegaly delay their firearms license cards with wreckless abandon.
I think this measure will help battle meth usage significantly for these reasons. Do I think meth use will disappear? Speaking as someone well versed in the study of human behavior, no; but I do think in this case its a legitimate step to take.
You may be right, but I thought I'd take a moment to point out that the replies here are discussing regulating a primary ingredient to an illegal amphetamine attached to an article which seems to indicate that the heavily related pharmaceutical grade amphetaimes are pretty easy to come by illegally.
You know, because we're cramming them down kid's throats.
No, the query string parameters would still be visible so long as they're in the URL -- which is generally what search engines do.
The headers and the message body are encrypted. So, if every search engine switched to a POST form instead of a GET form then the query parameters would be hidden.
Politically speaking Ron Paul (R-TX) is pretty "out there" and I try to pay attention to what he says.
If you want just loony there's Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Probably your best candidate for a beat-down on the House floor too. Apparently she clocked a capital police officer when she tried rushing passed a security gate without wearing the pin (or is it a badge?) that identifies who's a congresscritter and who isn't.
There probably was a huge flood that flooded the whole region at one point, but there probably wasn't a drunk with a boat and 2 of every animal.
If you don't think it's possible to get drunk enough to think that you've floating around in a boat with 2 of every animal onboard I'd like to introduce you to a substance known as... Jaggermeister.
Heh... at least I'm not the only one that thought it would have really been news if it was Alex Jones!
Jones didn't do Loose Change though -- that's somebody else but very closely mirrors Jones' thinking.
His 911 piece is 911: Martial Law: Rise of the Police State
Far more entertaining than Loose Change, but jumps around to various topics, 911 being sorta being in the middle of it all.
As the sales tax percentage goes up, the price difference goes up. People look at the prices of the products, not arcane crap like the percentage of take home pay and the increase over what the price used to be.
Calculating the cost of something based on what percentage isn't "arcane crap" -- that's the only thing that really matters when you're trying to consider whether or not you can afford something.
However, since the percentages actually decrease by the same factor, the difference shrinks, and Wal-Mart in fact appears to be losing advantage under FairTax.
I believe you may be correct and have showed me the err or my thinking. Let's try this again from a different persepctive: How much crap can i buy with $70 vs $100 under both systems.
5 * 1.06 = $5.30 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 13.20 units. 6 * 1.06 = $6.36 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 11.00 units.
5 + (5 * 0.06 + 5 * 0.23) = $6.45 and given $100 I can buy 15.50 units. 6 + (6 * 0.06 + 6 * 0.23) = $7.74 and given $100 I can buy 12.92 units.
15.50 units / 13.20 units = 17% purchasing power increase. 12.92 units / 11.00 units = 17% purchasing power increase.
SHIT! I thought that one would actually work out for the mom-and-pop operations favor when I started writing this! I realize, now, why that makes no sense, but until I wrote down the numbers I thought it to be possibly true.
As has been pointed out my tax calculations were dead wrong. Stupid mistake; I was doing it all on the fly. Let's try again:
Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.
The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 + 5.00 * 0.06 + 5.00 * 0.23) = $6.45. Then (6.45/100.00) = 6.45% of my take-home income.
At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 + 6.00 * 0.06 + 6.00 * 0.23) = $7.74. Then (7.74/100.00) = 7.74% of my take-home income.
Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (6.45/7.57) = 85% of original felt price. Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (7.74/9.09) = 85% of original felt price
It still does NOTHING to help out discount retailers or to even hurt them.
Just thought of something else. I'm not too up on the FairTax but isn't the plan to keep necessities tax-free like food? I know that's the case with groceries in my home state of Michigan with regards to state sales tax.
Presuming that this is the case then let's run it again:
$5/70 = 7.14% of my income. $5/100 = 5% of my income.
$6/70 = 8.57% of my income. $6/100 = 6% of my income.
5.00/7.14 = 70% of original felt price. 6.00/8.57 = 70% of original felt price.
Not working out in your favor on that one either...
Also, Walmart would rule the world with this one. Their lower prices would now be significantally lower than the mom and pop shops, since the tax overhead is much higher.
I haven't worked it out yet, but it sounds false to me at first glance. Let's see if this is true.
Let's say I make $100 under the current system. Immediately 30% is lopped off by the Federal government (give or take a little here and there) so I have $70 to buy stuff with.
Let's say state sales tax is 6%
If Wal-Mart has an item for $5 we'll presume the mom-and-pop has it for $6 -- a 20% increase in the overall price. Sound fair?
The final cost at Wal-Mart would be $5.30, or (5.30/70.00) = 7.57% of my take-home income.
The price at the mom-and-pop is $6.36 or (6.36/70.0) = 9.09% of my take-home income.
Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.
The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 * 1.06 + 5.00 * 1.23) = $11.45. Then (11.45/100.00) = 11.45% of my take-home income.
At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 * 1.06 + 6.00 * 1.23) = $13.74. Then (13.74/100.00) = 13.74% of my take-home income.
Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (11.45/7.57) = 151% increase Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (13.74/9.09) = 151% increase.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be surprised to see how many people can't recognize a gun case. The last one I flew with was about 20"x20" square, had hard sizes, chrome-ish metal frame, and locking tabs on the front.
Looked pretty slick, actually. Nobody knew it was a gun case until I opened it up and showed the shotgun I had inside.
Still, somehow Delta Airlines put a 1" hole in the side of the thing. I can't say exactly what the sides were made of, but a swift stab at it with my 4.5" tanto blade from CRKT didn't puncture it. How the heck Delta did THAT I have no idea.
Bull.
I want you to show me one classified job listing that pays minimum wage. Here's the local job listings for the city I live in, Grand Rapids, Michigan. There's over 1,300 jobs listed in that link and I bet it would take you a long time to find one of these minimum wage jobs.
Michigan's economy is shit compared to the rest of the country. Grand Rapids' major employers are bleeding out and laying off people left and right for upwards of 4 years now. Last I knew we had the only Army recruiting center that hadn't yet missed their quota since the start of the Iraq war. If that isn't indicative of a crappy economy I don't know what is.
Did you hear about the episode of 30 Days where the two hosts lived off minimum wage jobs? They couldn't get a job that actually paid minimum wage.
.50 BMG (M85 Barrett, M60)
.50BMG shoulder fired rifle wielded by the US Military is the M82 Barrett, not the M85 and the M60 fired 7.62x51 ammunition, not .50BMG.
The
You're probably thinking of the M2 (Ma Deuce).
Pool / Billiards - The white ball smashes into the colored balls putting them into holes. In the end both players beat up on the black ball.
Racist and violent!
However, if you get caught by security guards driving on their golf carts patrolling the student parking lot, they will search your car.
Here's some advice that will serve you the rest of your life: Never let anybody search your vehicle or home unless they have a warrant. You have a choice. You don't think you do, but it's there. You can always just leave. Exit the premises. If they wish to continue their harassment then they'll need to find a cop and a judge to sign off on a warrant to search your car off premises.
If they want to search it the next day do the same: Unlock the car, get in, and leave.
There is nothing they can do, short of visiting violence upon you, to keep you under their control. If they do initiate violence upon you, well, let's address that now.
There is also another degredation of rights where I go to, pertaining to violence. If someone walks up to you and flat out punches you for no reason, you cannot do anything.
I'm 26 and this was pretty much the policy in our schools too when I went. Ignore it. If somebody attacks you knock their block off. Fight, and fight dirty. Got a book in your hands? Throw it at them -- when they duck or try and dodge it make contact. Use your surroundings. Floors are usually quite hard objects -- especially school hallways. Get 'em on the ground, get on top, and smash their freaking head into it. See if you can get a friendly high school wrestler to show you a few things -- like how to run a "double leg ride" and a "power half."
Fight not to avenge, but to stop the threat.
Sounds a bit extreme, I know, but I presume you're between 16 and 18 years old. The manner in which you act now will take a long time to shake out of your head, if it is ever possible.
You're becoming an adult, and it's time to act like one. Adults should not submit to random searches by rent-a-cop, or even actual police without a warrant. Adults should not submit to violence visited upon them by thugs on the street.
Sometimes this means making tough choices. Don't want to be searched? Don't leave campus. If you still decide to leave campus and somebody wants to search your car and you're not too keen on that idea just leave.
If somebody commits an act of violence upon you you have to make a decision: Shall I presume that the attack will not immediately further and risk being beaten into a bloody pulp, possibly resulting in serious injury? Or should I defend myself and risk suspension?
Hospital beds suck a lot worse (and cost a lot more) than a suspension. While the suspension can be pretty much guaranteed it is far easier to weather.
In parting I'd like to make one final observation based upon my conjecture. I presume that you're between the age of 16 and 18 years old given that you can leave campus during school. Further, because this is Slashdot I'm going to presume that you are male. Consider this:
You are at a time in your life when you are the most likely to resist authority. It comes with the age. You're also at a time in your life when there's as much testosterone flowing through your body as ever before which makes you the most prone to violent actions. If you are conditioned to accept authoritarian control of your life (searching your private property) and further conditioned to accept that violence visited upon you should be met with no resistance then it is going to be one Hell of a battle to get out of that mindset later on in life.
If you don't stand up for your human rights at this juncture in your life because you're afraid of a suspension or a mark in your school record it will be infinately harder to do it when you've got a good job, a wife, and a family to feed on the line.
Okay, American Revolution history as short as I can:
England started taxing the American colonialists too high for their liking, things got hot, and on April 19, 1775 the shooting war broke out.
Come spring of 1776 Americans are getting their ass handed to them and support for the war is waning. A bunch of rich white men (not that it's a bad thing, just trying to make this very simple) got together to decide what to do. The Declaration of Independence was drawn up and signed by 56 (might be off by 1 or 2 here) men that had a lot to lose if the Americans didn't win this war.
They'd be killed. In fact, many were killed in the course of the war. It took some real balls to sign that document. Of course, it is also highly probable that they were drunk off their asses during the debate. Possibly the signing. Our early government had a tendency to work that way.
It was basically a giant middle finger to King George III and the Parliament. Mostly King George, though.
Now, to answer your questions directly:
What independence are you celebrating?
Technically we're celebrating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the men that stood behind it. There's a subtle difference and it is lost on most of the American population. We weren't actually independent on July 4, 1776 -- we just said we were.
What is it that you gained independence from?
The British monarchy.
Are you still independent of it today?
Well, yes. Even the people of England are free of the monarchy at this point. However, and this is not a popular thought among Americans, we're inadvertently creating our own monarchy here. Multiple members of the same families keep showing up in our political realm. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. His younger brothers Robet and Edward (Ted) Kennedy were later elected Senators. Robert was assianated, just like John F. Kennedy. Ted Kennedy still serves on the Senate, having been there since 1962!
Ted Kennedy's son, Patrick is also serving in our House of Representatives.
George H. W. Bush was elected President in 1988, after having served as as Congressman and Vice President under President Reagan. His son George is now President and another son, Jeb, is governor of the state of Florida.
Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992 after having served as governor of the state of Arkansas. His wife, Hillary, is now a Senator from the state of New York and is considered a possible candidate for President in 2008.
There are some people that think that Jeb Bush, the current president's brother, may make a bid for the 2008 Republican ticket. It's a long shot, but it's possible.
Why? I don't know -- I guess people just like the thought of having a "royal" family, or families, as heads of government.
How far we have fallen...
You have lost your freaking marbles, you know that?
Have you EVER been greeted by a hostess with, "Would prefer to sit in the crazy guy throwing grass in your face section or non?"
Which is more likely to be heard in a restaurant:
"Wow, that was a great meal. I think I'll have a cigarette."
--OR--
"wow, that was a great meal. Somebody throw shit in my face."
OK, let's look at this another way. I'm not real keen on having people throw shit at my face when I eat. Most people aren't from what I gather. If you are, that's fine; what two men do at the dinner table with a pile of grass clippings is their own business.
I'm so adverse to not having stuff thrown at me while eating I'd probably never visit a place where this was practiced. I don't care if there's a throw-shit-at-people section and a non-throw-shit-at-people section. I'm so against eating in those conditions that I'd rather go somewhere else in the event that some stray fodder lands anywhere near me.
I was pondering upon this very misconception of American gun owners today. I've taken to the idea of learning Japanese in the near future and remebered a story I saw online from an American in Japan teaching English as a second language. Somebody asked him how many guns he owns (you know, because ALL Americans own guns) and when he held up a single finger as to say "Hold on one moment" they presume he owned one gun.
He owned none -- he just let the issue drop.
I digress.
Gun ownership with in cities in America is fairly rare, at least compared to what most foreigner's seem to think. I grew up in a rural area and almost every household had -a- gun. My family actually only had one shotgun. Now, my paternal grandfather has probably at least 5 because he hunts. My maternal grandfather? Probably 10.
It's rural America -- crime is nearly nonexistant there. Guns are usually stored in a closet. If you're "fancy" you put them in a locking cabinet -- but they are almost always cases with a glass front to them. You know, so your buddies can see them when they stop by to watch the game and have a couple of beers.
Yet, nobody steals guns out that way. You can leave a rifle in the back of your pickup truck and not worry about it.
After college I moved into the "big city" around here and gun ownership is almost nonexistant. I came from a family where it was fine to have 5-10 guns in your house, stored fairly unsecured, but after meeting "city folk" that idea is unheard of. You might meet the occasional bloke that keeps a handgun in his bedroom in a locking case, but it's rare.
Me? I'm the statistical anomoly that most foreigners think represents American gun owners. I live in a cramped little apartment in the city. I own somewhere between 30 and 35 guns of various types. I admit, I'm actually not sure how many I own right this moment. I also can't tell you how many forks I own, how many pairs of shoes I have, or how many pairs of pants I own. To me they're just tools and collectable items. I have three locking steel cabinets to keep them all in -- NOT something you'd see with a rural gun owner.
You see, I'm the guy that you THINK most American gun owners are like. Let me tell you, there aren't many of us. Regular American gun owners balk when I talk about my collection. City folk? Well they're just downright appaled!
Take a gander at the numbers. It is estimated that there are 280,000,000 guns in America right now. There's also about that many people. When you sample urban populations you'll find that MOST people don't own guns. Now when you sample rural folks you'll find it isn't uncommon to find 5-10 guns per household. See what I'm saying? We don't really have a high saturation of gun ownership in our high-crime cities. I am not going to say that gun ownership reduces crime. I find that to be a sketchy argument. It is untestable. However when you look at our rural communities you find that the introduction, or existence, of high gun ownership doesn't increase crime.
American cities, compared to the rest of America, are pretty much gun free zones. I know it doesn't seem like that on the news, but it is the truth.
Springfield XD I presume?
No, not really. The FOID (Firearms Owner ID) cards are still handed out without having to pull any strings. It's still an abomination of a process -- but it does run without any bias that I'm aware of.
Massachusetts on the other hand... you'd better have a friendly Sheriff. They illegaly delay their firearms license cards with wreckless abandon.
Three years after a "smart gun" is available on the market citizens of New Jersey won't be able to buy regular mechanical handguns anymore.
Police, of course, are exempt from this restriction.
Well, then, I stand corrected. You are, indeed, correct good sir.
My apologies.
You may be right, but I thought I'd take a moment to point out that the replies here are discussing regulating a primary ingredient to an illegal amphetamine attached to an article which seems to indicate that the heavily related pharmaceutical grade amphetaimes are pretty easy to come by illegally.
You know, because we're cramming them down kid's throats.
What a bizarre world we live in.
No, the query string parameters would still be visible so long as they're in the URL -- which is generally what search engines do.
The headers and the message body are encrypted. So, if every search engine switched to a POST form instead of a GET form then the query parameters would be hidden.
Politically speaking Ron Paul (R-TX) is pretty "out there" and I try to pay attention to what he says.
If you want just loony there's Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Probably your best candidate for a beat-down on the House floor too. Apparently she clocked a capital police officer when she tried rushing passed a security gate without wearing the pin (or is it a badge?) that identifies who's a congresscritter and who isn't.
Hey did ya hear? Karl Rove's been indicted!
If you don't think it's possible to get drunk enough to think that you've floating around in a boat with 2 of every animal onboard I'd like to introduce you to a substance known as... Jaggermeister.
Heh... at least I'm not the only one that thought it would have really been news if it was Alex Jones! Jones didn't do Loose Change though -- that's somebody else but very closely mirrors Jones' thinking.
His 911 piece is 911: Martial Law: Rise of the Police State
Far more entertaining than Loose Change, but jumps around to various topics, 911 being sorta being in the middle of it all.
Calculating the cost of something based on what percentage isn't "arcane crap" -- that's the only thing that really matters when you're trying to consider whether or not you can afford something.
I believe you may be correct and have showed me the err or my thinking. Let's try this again from a different persepctive: How much crap can i buy with $70 vs $100 under both systems.
5 * 1.06 = $5.30 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 13.20 units.
6 * 1.06 = $6.36 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 11.00 units.
5 + (5 * 0.06 + 5 * 0.23) = $6.45 and given $100 I can buy 15.50 units.
6 + (6 * 0.06 + 6 * 0.23) = $7.74 and given $100 I can buy 12.92 units.
15.50 units / 13.20 units = 17% purchasing power increase.
12.92 units / 11.00 units = 17% purchasing power increase.
SHIT! I thought that one would actually work out for the mom-and-pop operations favor when I started writing this! I realize, now, why that makes no sense, but until I wrote down the numbers I thought it to be possibly true.
As has been pointed out my tax calculations were dead wrong. Stupid mistake; I was doing it all on the fly. Let's try again:
Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.
The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 + 5.00 * 0.06 + 5.00 * 0.23) = $6.45. Then (6.45/100.00) = 6.45% of my take-home income.
At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 + 6.00 * 0.06 + 6.00 * 0.23) = $7.74. Then (7.74/100.00) = 7.74% of my take-home income.
Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (6.45/7.57) = 85% of original felt price.
Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (7.74/9.09) = 85% of original felt price
It still does NOTHING to help out discount retailers or to even hurt them.
No, I hosed up the calculations with taxable items. The untaxable items post still remains. I'll re-work the math in another post here.
Just thought of something else. I'm not too up on the FairTax but isn't the plan to keep necessities tax-free like food? I know that's the case with groceries in my home state of Michigan with regards to state sales tax.
Presuming that this is the case then let's run it again:
$5/70 = 7.14% of my income.
$5/100 = 5% of my income.
$6/70 = 8.57% of my income.
$6/100 = 6% of my income.
5.00/7.14 = 70% of original felt price.
6.00/8.57 = 70% of original felt price.
Not working out in your favor on that one either...
I haven't worked it out yet, but it sounds false to me at first glance. Let's see if this is true.
Let's say I make $100 under the current system. Immediately 30% is lopped off by the Federal government (give or take a little here and there) so I have $70 to buy stuff with.
Let's say state sales tax is 6%
If Wal-Mart has an item for $5 we'll presume the mom-and-pop has it for $6 -- a 20% increase in the overall price. Sound fair?
The final cost at Wal-Mart would be $5.30, or (5.30/70.00) = 7.57% of my take-home income.
The price at the mom-and-pop is $6.36 or (6.36/70.0) = 9.09% of my take-home income.
Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.
The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 * 1.06 + 5.00 * 1.23) = $11.45. Then (11.45/100.00) = 11.45% of my take-home income.
At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 * 1.06 + 6.00 * 1.23) = $13.74. Then (13.74/100.00) = 13.74% of my take-home income.
Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (11.45/7.57) = 151% increase
Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (13.74/9.09) = 151% increase.
Nope... not seeing the Wal-Mart advantage here.