Yes DC does have one of the highest murder rates in the country and also its illegal to carry a concealed weapon in DC... Gee I wonder if criminals think about that before they rob you at gun point and then pop you so that you can't ID them???
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Thats what gives me the right to own it anonymously!!!!
Ok I'll take this one step at a time and hopefully enlighten you enough to at least read up on the subject.
It never ceases to amaze me how often Americans reach for the Constitution like it's infallible...
Its was written by men, so no it is not infallible but it is damn well thought out and based on a solid historic background addressing the issues that cause other governments to fall into dictatorships and tyranny.
...but the document was written 200 years ago...But do not hang onto it like the southern baptists hang onto the bible! (we make fun of them for it, don't we?)
I'm sorry I usually try not to insult people but that is not anywhere near an intelligent argument. See the above response. Our government is based on laws and presidents. The constitution is and enumeration of the rights the government has to control the populous. The Bill of Rights is a specific enumeration of the rights that the government cannot under any circumstances take away from the people. I could go on to explain how the 10th amendment is more or less been destroyed by a perversion of the commerce clause. But I'll leave that to an exercise of the reader.
When are you all going to realize that probably 99% of people who own guns don't use them to hunt food with it? When was the last time you someone shoot a deer with a handgun, then dragged the carcass home to feed the family? Why on god's green earth would you ever need an AR-15?
Have you ever even read the second amendment? Well here you go:
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.
Now let me break it down for you. First "A well regulated militia," refers to any able-bodied male. This is an established fact that the courts have ruled on. It does not mean the National Guard or any state run military organization. It's every able-bodied male in the US. Today that would include women as well ( Let me hear ya Second Amendment Sisters!!!).
Second "being necessary to the security of a free State". The founding fathers understood Edmund Burke, who said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Our freedom is not to be taken for granted. We must be willing to stand up and defend it with our lives. And so able-bodied men/women are needed to make sure that the "free state" exists.
Third "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Madison states in the Federalist Papers ( Which was a set of newspaper columns explaining the intent of the constitution, to the people who had just fought and lost loved ones why they would not have to fight such a battle again.) that every man should be armed and read to serve in the common defense of the state, but that requiring those men to assemble on a regular schedule to train would be impracticable and should as such not be attempted. Instead every man should have access to obtain the weapons needed to defend the state from all threats, foreign and domestic.
So as you can see your question as to owning hunting rifles is completely off base from what the founding fathers intended. Instead they absolutely intended every able-bodied American to own not only an AR-15 but also the latest and greatest in military small arms so that they could be called on to defend their freedoms at a moments notice. You can make your arguments that times have changed but history proves you wrong. There are plenty of socialist governments out there and if you don't like the constitution move to one of them. I along with a large number of others in this country believe in that the constitution is the finest form of government found so far and I'm willing to defend it no matter the cost.
what is so wrong with requiring not only your gun's fingerprint, but your own when you buy a gun???
This falls under the second of two facts that I feel most liberals refuse to accept:
One: People will die. Whether its an accident or and the hands of others, they will die. You cannot stop it. It will happen no matter how many laws you enact, it doesn't matter its gonna happen. (By the way more children die by falling into 5 gallon buckets than are killed by guns every year. Where is the ban on 5 gallon buckets? More people are killed every year by cars than guns. Where is the ban on cars?)
The Second Fact: There are people in this would who are evil! It's a fact! I should not even have to point to examples such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and this sniper. These are people who are bent on obtaining power for themselves.
Now once you accept the second fact you will see that by allowing the government to fingerprint me or my firearms I am opening myself up to the chance that one of these truly evil people will make use of that data to take away my arms and as such my ability to defend the freedoms I hold so dear. Do not tell me how I cannot compete with the army for I will point to Vietnam. Do not tell me in can't happen because I will point to the fact that the average German had no idea the camps existed in WWII and would have been appalled to fine out that they did. Besides the fact that the Islamic world has it out for us and if you don't think that what's happening in Israel isn't coming here you are kidding yourself.
Why do you hate/distrust your own government so much?
Who said I do... I simply understand my duty as an American and as such I am prepared to exercise the final recourse that the second amendment is. Defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN it's about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stopping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone else's loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ability to shop at Mickey Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
I was not trying to insult your political beliefs. I was simply trying to convey that every study I have every seen done using scientific method has reached the conclusion that a well-armed citizen base reduces crime.
If you remove the political spectrum issue and look at the facts the answer is clear. The issue comes down to whether you can accept these two facts: That people die, and that there are people who are truly evil in this world. Everyday they are killed in the most senseless ways, some in accidents and some purposefully by people with no remorse for what they have done to cause others deaths. You sound as if you are a highly moral person with a great respect for life. Why else would you want to remove guns from society, because they are used to kill people? But once you except the two facts above you will see that defending life is what really matters. To live in a highly moral and educated society you must be willing to stand in the way of those that wish to take that from you, defending it with your life so that others may enjoy those freedoms. And I don't know about you but when my life is on the line, I wish to have the absolute best tools to defend it with. I am not a martyr so therefore I will stand before all those who threaten my family, my country and my freedom and I will do it armed to the teeth.
Try reading up on your history... Vigilance is not the same as paranoia. The apathy you are promoting is what is leading this country into the hole of government reliance and laziness.
I do not need the government to do anything other than protect me from Foreign threats (like china, N. Korea and Extremist Islamic sects). I can handle the rest.
Political spectrum is irrelavant. I simple posted a link to a summery of the study. There have been numerous such studies by colleges and firms that have all reached the same results. Perhaps I should have linked to this study directly, which was conducted by William Landes of the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale University.
Basing your beliefs on a party line with no thought to how the world really works is a whole nother point that I would hazzard a guess is against what the left consistently tries to point out is their belief of tolerance and understanding of other peoples views. Which is to say that if you have an opposing study please point it out.
You don't have to value their opinion but I do believe that laws should be enacted that are based on solid facts and not on feelings and opinions (which is what I pointed out). Please see my other post for more studies that are not related to NCPA such as the DOJ, The FBI, and The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law: Here.
Please understand that nothing I say is meant to demean or insult you. I enjoy a quality discussion with someone of an opposing vie.
I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime)
Individuals use guns as often as 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. 90% of the time only brandishing the gun to deter the crime.
- Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185. (Specific issue is not online.)
The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns
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.
I assume you are refering to the "regulated" in regulated Militia. Your interrpritation is wrong. Madison makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that a well regulated militia is refering to a chain of command that the state would set up to manage the militia for the common defense. But he also makes it clear that the people will have the right to keep their own arms and that maintaining the militia under state control indefinatly is impossible and should not be attempted.
fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fingerprinting you or your firearm is a violation of the 4th amendment. Its as simple as that.
No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it.
"There are approximately 654,600 officers employed to provide law enforcement services to approximately 265 million of the nation's inhabitants, an average of only 2.5 officers for every 1,000 individuals. This statistic, of course, does not reflect the average number of officers actively deployed or on duty during a particular shift. So face it -- self-defense is your job!" - Quoted from The Armerican Liberty Foundation - Statistics from:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States (1998)," p. 291.
Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.
Thats simply not true I have quite a large respect for police officers and infact have many friends who are employed as such. I simply do not fool myself into believing that they will be there when I need them. And instead realize that this is the land of the free and home of the brave. You can not have one without the other.
You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing.
I never said it would be easy. I stated that using a firearm was easy. Any police officer who has drawn his weapon in the line of duty will tell you its the most stressful situation imaginable. But defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN its about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. You state that you would, given the choice, use your car to stop this sniper instead of a gun. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stoping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone elses loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ablity to shop at Micky Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
Collectors already pay a premium licensing fee and can obtain actual working military weapons (to a degree) that are fully automatic. They generally don't fire these weapons -- for reasons that belted ammo for an M-60 machine gun is expensive and doing weekend recreational shooting with a weapon that fires 300 rounds a minute gets expensive.
The BATF requires a $200 stamp tax to purchase a class 3 "machine gun". There is nothing stopping you as a private individual from purchasing one. You simple must pay the stamp tax and notify local law enforcement (ussually the county sherif). As for shooting them check out Knob Creek Range. They have a machine gun shoot twice a year, one just this past weekend which I attended. This is one of many such shoots and you can purchase many makes and models of machine guns there.
I seriously doubt that the framers would have supported this extreme view of the right to privacy.
Read the federalist papers. This exactly the type of privacy they had in mind. Do you know why the first battle of the revolution happened? The british came to confiscate arms and ball ammo.
For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person
For me its not any different. It gives the government a list of who has what guns and makes it that much easier to confiscate them. The idea of the second amendment is to protect me from just such an occurance.
The point is to ask whether the situation would be better if a lot of people in the DC suburbs carried firearms. Unless they are all well trained and not hot-heads...
Yes that is the question and every study thats been done proves that crime rates fall when concealed carry laws are enacted. Yes training is important and I encourage anyone who carries to seek training and to maintain that training. But it is not a requirement. Using a weapon is not difficult. Identify you target assest the danger and engage or flee.
I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals.
The police do not have to duty to protect you! Period!!! This has been addressed numerous times in court. See this study.
What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun?
How about performing a citizens arrest. With out a gun you are (pardon the pun) out gunned. But with a weapon you could confront and control the suspect.
I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun
This is the same view most of the gun control advocates have. Just because you don't trust yourself with a firearm does not mean you can not trust me. And if you can not trust me you should have a gun of your own so that you can control me should I overreact to a situation in which you are involved.
The constitution gives you the right to own guns. It does not give you the right to own them anonymously.
The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. The Forth Amendment gives me the right to own it anonymously. The Ninth protects me from the government over stepping their bounds on such and issue. To Quote Maddison:
``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
There is also the issue of frangible ammo (such as Sinterfire), which you will be seeing ALOT more of in the future. This type of ammo turns to dust on impact, and as such there is not ballistic fingerprint on the bullet because there is no bullet. The beauty of this type of ammo is that there is no back splatter, ricochet or over penetration worries. Also the bullet delivers nearly 100% of its energy into the target making the shot that much more effective at "stopping the action" which is what most police agencies are trained to do. There is also no lead, which is a big worry for shooting ranges now a days.
Sorry but thats not true... I can change the characteristics of a bullet simply by firing a fair number of lead only bullets (say 200) down the barrel and not cleaning it. The lead gauling will change the rifling characteristics enough to make the factory fingerprint different. Not to mention that simply reheat treating the barrel, re boring the chamber, honeing the barrel with a ball bearing and a honing compound will all changed the rifling marks. This has nothing to do with tracking criminals. It has do to with the goal of making every person in the nation a potential criminal and controlling them. The 4th amendment was written to prevent such things.
This doesn't address the issue that its fairly easy to build a firearm either. Take Bill Holmes line of books. With a lathe and a milling machine you can produce a firearm in as little as a day or two.
Once again this is a knee-jerk reaction. This person or persons has commited a crime, and when caught will be punished for it. Thinking that any law would have prevented this is illogical and flat out wrong. You can make anything a crime but that doesn't mean its going to stop anyone from doing it. What it does is create a police state where everyone is a criminal and as such can be controlled.
Re:Could not find a link to the Pittsburgh story
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2
"Every country that has attempted socialism, or a close variant of it, has undergone a massive upsurge in literacy and the involvement of the populace in education programs, only to be ended by internal corruption of the structure (the USSR being a prime example) or outside military and economic warfare (Nicaragua)"
You make my argument for me. Socialism is inherently flawed. It in and of it self leads to the corruption and perversion of its intended goal. True capitalism keeps this from happening by use of the simple facts of human nature. A person naturally wants to make his life better and so strives to do so in the best way he can. Others doing the same and competing with and against him or her lead to the balance and furthering of the society at large.
"There is nothing in true socialism that prevents you doing what you want, or owning whatever you want. The "in socialist states, everything is owned by the state" is another lie people swallow without thinking."
noun: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
noun: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
I guess the dictionary fell into the same lie!?!
"You get your terms mixed up,..."
Check above seems my terms are correct.
"...your priorities all wrong..."
I'm sorry??? My priorities are wrong? How so? I get up in the morning and go to work and do my job to get paid so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit. Not as everyone else feels I should! My priorities have gotten me to the point in my life where I own my own house, car, motorcycle, entertainment system, and (I'm sure this one will send you though the roof...) enough guns to defend the liberties and freedoms that I enjoy.
"...and trot out the same misconceptions and lies that the media has been drumming into the population for decades."
I'm sorry again...as I once again missed how you feel your jab is pointed at me. Maybe you missed the fact that the media in this country has been spewing out the so-called lies you say aren't true of socialism. (i.e. government healthcare, welfare, Social Security...) and yet the openly claim they are the true followers of Marxism! You seem to be well versed in Marx's words but you are not as well up on why the founding fathers of this country rejected the ideas and doctrines that lead Marx to his conclusions. I suggest you pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers and The Constitution and read why the bill of rights was written and how it becomes the founding principle of Capitalism.
"Congratulations on being a paid-up member of the sheep, now go back to your pointless job peon."
Maybe my job is pointless. I work for a cable internet access provider as a network engineer. But the fact of the matter is that I enjoy my job. I like what I do and feel that I am building something that people want. And as such I work hard to make it the best system that it can be. Not only because I want to get paid but also because it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. Also the company that I now work for happens to be the same company that drove me to sell my dialup internet access provider that I started at the age of 21. Of course since I owned it I sold it for a profit and then went straight to work for the people who drove me to sell my business. But then I didn't have to listen to "The State" or as you call it "The Body of Workers"(Side Question: What do you think Marx Body of Workers is?) tell me that I couldn't act in my best interest and that I had to keep my business so that there was competition. Or worse that my current employer had to open up the system that they built with their money to me because "Its only fair because to compete I need access to their network."
What I'm getting at is that your idea of true socialism has never and will never exist because the ideas and structures for it lead in and of themselves to corruption and the feedback loop of laziness. You can rant all you want about how it's the right thing to do but the simple fact is History proves you wrong. In two ways as a matter of fact, one in that no socialist government has survived the test of time, always leading to the corruption and implosion that you yourself spoke of. And two that The US is the most powerful and stable government ever to have existed since Rome.
So I'm going back to being a self accomplished and empowered peon that I am. You go back to working for your comrades so they can sit and watch soaps all day and make babies so they can get more state welfare.
"And this is different from western, capitalist "democracies" how exactly?"
Hmmm... I wonder why it is that the uneducated populace that exists in this country, that I believe you are referring to, seem to all vote for the liberal socialist democrats?
"Socialism is, by definition, the participation of the common man in the decisions that effect the common man, it is the control of the workforce BY the workforce, not by a central administration...Read Marx before you start spouting crap about socialism"
I suggest you read it and attempt to understand its ramifications before you attack those who do not agree with you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Right? The end all be all basis of Marxism. So who decides what your ability is? Who decides what your needs are? That's right, a central ruling body! Because the end belief of Marxism is that we are all sheep and we need to be managed by the elite who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of society at determining what society need and what is good for it.
You wish to make a huge jump in your logic; you wish to place on me your belief that our country is screwed up. While I do agree that our country is screwed up, I do not believe that we share a common belief as to why. This country has for the past 80 years or so been moving away from a government of and for the people to a central socialist structure. (Yes you could say that it started before that with the civil war, but the current trend began with the New Deal.) And with this move we have see the restrictions of rights the increase of crime and the whittling away of our moral fiber. You see the issue at hand is that socialism feels good, because we can convince ourselves that we are helping out those who cannot help themselves. When in reality we are simply setting of a sociological feedback loop to encourage laziness. Where as true capitalism is a harsh reality in that if you sit back and don't do anything with your life you will be cast to the wayside of society and left because you bring nothing good and suck out what does not belong to you. The simple fact is that if you are willing to work your ass off and push yourself to be all that you can, capitalism will reward you for that. Where as if you want to sit back and rest on what others have done to make your life happy socialism is what you see as the way to go.
Of course I could ask you whether you like to keep the money you work for and live your life as you see fit, but you would most likely answer me that I am a cruel and harsh person who would let people die of hunger. But then I wouldn't expect you to understand that any person who is willing to lie down and die with out a fight to make some thing of themselves does not deserve my pity.
Actually the free flow of ideas is exactly what is needed. Theses Islamic countries are set up so that their base of power comes from an uneducated populace. A modern society cannot function under total socialist polices, which don't kid yourself Islamic rule is a form of socialism. Central management can not be robust enough to make sure that everyone can have two cars, a DVD player and a computer at their house. And as such if we simply start introducing these people to these simple things we take for granted. Social change will occur all on its own. As an example women will be given rights and the ability to work because they will be needed to produce the goods that the new and enlightened society demand.
1. Contract to write software. 2. Write software. 3. Get Paided on contract.... If you understood anything about how economics work you might see past the tripe you've had spouted to you and believed because it easier than to learn something for yourself.
But consider Qmail. Its more secure than sendmail. Much easier to configure. And does all the things you requested. Here is the link for the Anti-Virus support. Check out the RAV product as it is can scan both emails and your drives...aka samba shares. Although it is a product you have to pay for... I consider anti-viruse one of those things that is worth paying for to make sure you're up to date.
How come no one ever asks what happens when a copyright runs out and something reverts to the public domain? Why is it illegal to write software that circumvents an access control when that access control will eventually be null and void by the expiration of the copyright?
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is? All ideas/music/movies/whatever are built on something from the past. We stand on the shoulders of giants. To take that away is to stop forward progress of all humankind.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit." - Heinlein's Lifeline
Well first you have to blow a hole in the airplane and since Air Marshals carry frag rounds that can not penatrate the skin of the aircraft thats not an issue.
I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this whole guns in the sky issue. Currently there are F-15/16's standing on alert across the country to shoot down any hijacked airliners. So its ok to send a sidewinder missle up the ass of a 767 but if Uncle Louie takes a stray round while the pilot is placing a double tap in Osama's head its somehow a bad thing? Wake up people!!!
Do you know how to uncap a modem? Do you know that it requires a computer to do it? I won't go in to the details as I work for a cable modem provider... but the modem must get a new configuration from somewhere that allows it to use more bandwidth. So yes they would need to seize the computers for evidence of the crime.
Taking another posters advice here is the review at Steves-digicams.com The only complaint I've heard about this camera is that the battery life was short. Well I've had mine for almost nine months and the Lithium Batteries that were supplied with the camera are still doing fine. Lots of controls, extra lenses and filters can be threaded on. I would recommend that you get a 64MB SmartCard with it and the cam on normal 640x480 res. you get almost 700 shots per card. It drops to something like 32 shots on the highes res which are hugh files that you do spy type zooming on in Photoshop:-)
I didn't really mean to get in to cost in my original statements. I work in a world of possiblities with my job. The cost issue only comes up near the end when we finally weight out all the possiblities we are looking at.
Did you consider that only one copy of any show needs stored for all users? a 1 Million dollar SANs storage solution would hold alot of episodes of Friends and is hardly a huge investment for companies that are spending over 30 million for system rebuilds.
Now I don't disagree that in the here and now client side has many advantages. But I really believe that a headend solution is the way of the future... Is it just me or does knowing that its possible to setup a system that would allow me to watch any show that has ever been on whenever I want it not the way tv should be. I guess having what me and my coworkers consider our personal Coax system might skew our vision of how the world should work a bit:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes DC does have one of the highest murder rates in the country and also its illegal to carry a concealed weapon in DC... Gee I wonder if criminals think about that before they rob you at gun point and then pop you so that you can't ID them???
Have you ever even read the constitution?
The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Thats what gives me the right to own it anonymously!!!!
Ok I'll take this one step at a time and hopefully enlighten you enough to at least read up on the subject.
...but the document was written 200 years ago...But do not hang onto it like the southern baptists hang onto the bible! (we make fun of them for it, don't we?)
It never ceases to amaze me how often Americans reach for the Constitution like it's infallible...
Its was written by men, so no it is not infallible but it is damn well thought out and based on a solid historic background addressing the issues that cause other governments to fall into dictatorships and tyranny.
I'm sorry I usually try not to insult people but that is not anywhere near an intelligent argument. See the above response. Our government is based on laws and presidents. The constitution is and enumeration of the rights the government has to control the populous. The Bill of Rights is a specific enumeration of the rights that the government cannot under any circumstances take away from the people. I could go on to explain how the 10th amendment is more or less been destroyed by a perversion of the commerce clause. But I'll leave that to an exercise of the reader.
When are you all going to realize that probably 99% of people who own guns don't use them to hunt food with it? When was the last time you someone shoot a deer with a handgun, then dragged the carcass home to feed the family? Why on god's green earth would you ever need an AR-15?
Have you ever even read the second amendment? Well here you go:
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.
Now let me break it down for you. First "A well regulated militia," refers to any able-bodied male. This is an established fact that the courts have ruled on. It does not mean the National Guard or any state run military organization. It's every able-bodied male in the US. Today that would include women as well ( Let me hear ya Second Amendment Sisters!!!).
Second "being necessary to the security of a free State". The founding fathers understood Edmund Burke, who said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Our freedom is not to be taken for granted. We must be willing to stand up and defend it with our lives. And so able-bodied men/women are needed to make sure that the "free state" exists.
Third "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Madison states in the Federalist Papers ( Which was a set of newspaper columns explaining the intent of the constitution, to the people who had just fought and lost loved ones why they would not have to fight such a battle again.) that every man should be armed and read to serve in the common defense of the state, but that requiring those men to assemble on a regular schedule to train would be impracticable and should as such not be attempted. Instead every man should have access to obtain the weapons needed to defend the state from all threats, foreign and domestic.
So as you can see your question as to owning hunting rifles is completely off base from what the founding fathers intended. Instead they absolutely intended every able-bodied American to own not only an AR-15 but also the latest and greatest in military small arms so that they could be called on to defend their freedoms at a moments notice. You can make your arguments that times have changed but history proves you wrong. There are plenty of socialist governments out there and if you don't like the constitution move to one of them. I along with a large number of others in this country believe in that the constitution is the finest form of government found so far and I'm willing to defend it no matter the cost.
what is so wrong with requiring not only your gun's fingerprint, but your own when you buy a gun???
This falls under the second of two facts that I feel most liberals refuse to accept:
One: People will die. Whether its an accident or and the hands of others, they will die. You cannot stop it. It will happen no matter how many laws you enact, it doesn't matter its gonna happen. (By the way more children die by falling into 5 gallon buckets than are killed by guns every year. Where is the ban on 5 gallon buckets? More people are killed every year by cars than guns. Where is the ban on cars?)
The Second Fact: There are people in this would who are evil! It's a fact! I should not even have to point to examples such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and this sniper. These are people who are bent on obtaining power for themselves.
Now once you accept the second fact you will see that by allowing the government to fingerprint me or my firearms I am opening myself up to the chance that one of these truly evil people will make use of that data to take away my arms and as such my ability to defend the freedoms I hold so dear. Do not tell me how I cannot compete with the army for I will point to Vietnam. Do not tell me in can't happen because I will point to the fact that the average German had no idea the camps existed in WWII and would have been appalled to fine out that they did. Besides the fact that the Islamic world has it out for us and if you don't think that what's happening in Israel isn't coming here you are kidding yourself.
Why do you hate/distrust your own government so much?
Who said I do... I simply understand my duty as an American and as such I am prepared to exercise the final recourse that the second amendment is. Defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN it's about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stopping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone else's loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ability to shop at Mickey Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
I was not trying to insult your political beliefs. I was simply trying to convey that every study I have every seen done using scientific method has reached the conclusion that a well-armed citizen base reduces crime.
If you remove the political spectrum issue and look at the facts the answer is clear. The issue comes down to whether you can accept these two facts: That people die, and that there are people who are truly evil in this world. Everyday they are killed in the most senseless ways, some in accidents and some purposefully by people with no remorse for what they have done to cause others deaths. You sound as if you are a highly moral person with a great respect for life. Why else would you want to remove guns from society, because they are used to kill people? But once you except the two facts above you will see that defending life is what really matters. To live in a highly moral and educated society you must be willing to stand in the way of those that wish to take that from you, defending it with your life so that others may enjoy those freedoms. And I don't know about you but when my life is on the line, I wish to have the absolute best tools to defend it with. I am not a martyr so therefore I will stand before all those who threaten my family, my country and my freedom and I will do it armed to the teeth.
Try reading up on your history... Vigilance is not the same as paranoia. The apathy you are promoting is what is leading this country into the hole of government reliance and laziness.
I do not need the government to do anything other than protect me from Foreign threats (like china, N. Korea and Extremist Islamic sects). I can handle the rest.
Political spectrum is irrelavant. I simple posted a link to a summery of the study. There have been numerous such studies by colleges and firms that have all reached the same results. Perhaps I should have linked to this study directly, which was conducted by William Landes of the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale University.
Basing your beliefs on a party line with no thought to how the world really works is a whole nother point that I would hazzard a guess is against what the left consistently tries to point out is their belief of tolerance and understanding of other peoples views. Which is to say that if you have an opposing study please point it out.
You don't have to value their opinion but I do believe that laws should be enacted that are based on solid facts and not on feelings and opinions (which is what I pointed out). Please see my other post for more studies that are not related to NCPA such as the DOJ, The FBI, and The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law: Here.
Please understand that nothing I say is meant to demean or insult you. I enjoy a quality discussion with someone of an opposing vie.
:
I am concerned about the similarity (you chose not to quote that part), but guns are actually used in crimes quite a lot (let's not get into whether a gun owner is more or less likely to commit a crime)
About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.
Individuals use guns as often as 2.5 million times per year to protect themselves. 90% of the time only brandishing the gun to deter the crime.
- Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law (Fall 1995), vol. 1, pp. 173, 185. (Specific issue is not online.)
The second ammendment clearly points to the need to regulate guns
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.
I assume you are refering to the "regulated" in regulated Militia. Your interrpritation is wrong. Madison makes it clear in the Federalist Papers that a well regulated militia is refering to a chain of command that the state would set up to manage the militia for the common defense. But he also makes it clear that the people will have the right to keep their own arms and that maintaining the militia under state control indefinatly is impossible and should not be attempted.
fingerprinting doesn't mean you would always know who currently has the gun or their address, just someplace to start.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fingerprinting you or your firearm is a violation of the 4th amendment. Its as simple as that.
No cops aren't required to protect you, but most of them are good people who are very interested in serving their community. There just aren't (nor do I want there to be) enough of them to be everywhere. Most of them would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to stop this guy, and they are well trained not to endanger the rest of us while they are doing it.
"There are approximately 654,600 officers employed to provide law enforcement services to approximately 265 million of the nation's inhabitants, an average of only 2.5 officers for every 1,000 individuals. This statistic, of course, does not reflect the average number of officers actively deployed or on duty during a particular shift. So face it -- self-defense is your job!" - Quoted from The Armerican Liberty Foundation - Statistics from
Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States (1998)," p. 291.
Your comment suggests a lack of respect for those who do this very difficult job.
Thats simply not true I have quite a large respect for police officers and infact have many friends who are employed as such. I simply do not fool myself into believing that they will be there when I need them. And instead realize that this is the land of the free and home of the brave. You can not have one without the other.
You make it sound like making a 'citizens arrest' is an easy thing.
I never said it would be easy. I stated that using a firearm was easy. Any police officer who has drawn his weapon in the line of duty will tell you its the most stressful situation imaginable. But defending our freedoms is not about voting and watching CNN its about the willingness to lay down your life for what you believe is right. You state that you would, given the choice, use your car to stop this sniper instead of a gun. I say that I would gladly stand between you, your wife, your child and any of your family with a weapon and be willing to die to protect you from him because I believe that stoping this sicko is more important than my life if it means stopping him from shooting someone elses loved one. When you accept and realize that life in America is not about your ablity to shop at Micky Dee's and Walmart, and is instead about eternal vigilance you will see that taking the steps needed to feel confident carrying and using a firearm should be your first concern so that you children and theirs can live in a free country too.
Any measures that could potentially cut annual shooting deaths in say half should be seriously considered.
And the only measure that has repeatibly shown these results is the passing of concealed carry laws. See The NCPA.
Collectors already pay a premium licensing fee and can obtain actual working military weapons (to a degree) that are fully automatic. They generally don't fire these weapons -- for reasons that belted ammo for an M-60 machine gun is expensive and doing weekend recreational shooting with a weapon that fires 300 rounds a minute gets expensive.
The BATF requires a $200 stamp tax to purchase a class 3 "machine gun". There is nothing stopping you as a private individual from purchasing one. You simple must pay the stamp tax and notify local law enforcement (ussually the county sherif). As for shooting them check out Knob Creek Range. They have a machine gun shoot twice a year, one just this past weekend which I attended. This is one of many such shoots and you can purchase many makes and models of machine guns there.
I seriously doubt that the framers would have supported this extreme view of the right to privacy.
Read the federalist papers. This exactly the type of privacy they had in mind. Do you know why the first battle of the revolution happened? The british came to confiscate arms and ball ammo.
For me, fingerprinting a firearm is a lot different that fingerprinting a person
For me its not any different. It gives the government a list of who has what guns and makes it that much easier to confiscate them. The idea of the second amendment is to protect me from just such an occurance.
The point is to ask whether the situation would be better if a lot of people in the DC suburbs carried firearms. Unless they are all well trained and not hot-heads...
Yes that is the question and every study thats been done proves that crime rates fall when concealed carry laws are enacted. Yes training is important and I encourage anyone who carries to seek training and to maintain that training. But it is not a requirement. Using a weapon is not difficult. Identify you target assest the danger and engage or flee.
I think everyone is safer with the police chasing the criminals.
The police do not have to duty to protect you! Period!!!
This has been addressed numerous times in court. See this study.
What would/could you do if you saw this guy fire his gun?
How about performing a citizens arrest. With out a gun you are (pardon the pun) out gunned. But with a weapon you could confront and control the suspect.
I know I'd have a lot better odds stopping him with my '88 Crown Vic than a handgun
This is the same view most of the gun control advocates have. Just because you don't trust yourself with a firearm does not mean you can not trust me. And if you can not trust me you should have a gun of your own so that you can control me should I overreact to a situation in which you are involved.
The constitution gives you the right to own guns. It does not give you the right to own them anonymously.
The Second Amendment gives me the right to own a firearm. The Forth Amendment gives me the right to own it anonymously. The Ninth protects me from the government over stepping their bounds on such and issue. To Quote Maddison:
``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings
of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904).
There is also the issue of frangible ammo (such as Sinterfire), which you will be seeing ALOT more of in the future. This type of ammo turns to dust on impact, and as such there is not ballistic fingerprint on the bullet because there is no bullet. The beauty of this type of ammo is that there is no back splatter, ricochet or over penetration worries. Also the bullet delivers nearly 100% of its energy into the target making the shot that much more effective at "stopping the action" which is what most police agencies are trained to do. There is also no lead, which is a big worry for shooting ranges now a days.
Sorry but thats not true... I can change the characteristics of a bullet simply by firing a fair number of lead only bullets (say 200) down the barrel and not cleaning it. The lead gauling will change the rifling characteristics enough to make the factory fingerprint different. Not to mention that simply reheat treating the barrel, re boring the chamber, honeing the barrel with a ball bearing and a honing compound will all changed the rifling marks. This has nothing to do with tracking criminals. It has do to with the goal of making every person in the nation a potential criminal and controlling them. The 4th amendment was written to prevent such things.
This doesn't address the issue that its fairly easy to build a firearm either. Take Bill Holmes line of books. With a lathe and a milling machine you can produce a firearm in as little as a day or two.
Once again this is a knee-jerk reaction. This person or persons has commited a crime, and when caught will be punished for it. Thinking that any law would have prevented this is illogical and flat out wrong. You can make anything a crime but that doesn't mean its going to stop anyone from doing it. What it does is create a police state where everyone is a criminal and as such can be controlled.
Couldn't find the actual story but here is a letter to the editor of the Butler Eagle refering to the story. The guy who was arrested was named Bill Neel.
"Every country that has attempted socialism, or a close variant of it, has undergone a massive upsurge in literacy and the involvement of the populace in education programs, only to be ended by internal corruption of the structure (the USSR being a prime example) or outside military and economic warfare (Nicaragua)"
You make my argument for me. Socialism is inherently flawed. It in and of it self leads to the corruption and perversion of its intended goal. True capitalism keeps this from happening by use of the simple facts of human nature. A person naturally wants to make his life better and so strives to do so in the best way he can. Others doing the same and competing with and against him or her lead to the balance and furthering of the society at large.
"There is nothing in true socialism that prevents you doing what you want, or owning whatever you want. The "in socialist states, everything is owned by the state" is another lie people swallow without thinking."
Socialism:
noun: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
noun: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
I guess the dictionary fell into the same lie!?!
"You get your terms mixed up,..."
Check above seems my terms are correct.
"...your priorities all wrong..."
I'm sorry??? My priorities are wrong? How so? I get up in the morning and go to work and do my job to get paid so that I can enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit. Not as everyone else feels I should! My priorities have gotten me to the point in my life where I own my own house, car, motorcycle, entertainment system, and (I'm sure this one will send you though the roof...) enough guns to defend the liberties and freedoms that I enjoy.
"...and trot out the same misconceptions and lies that the media has been drumming into the population for decades."
I'm sorry again...as I once again missed how you feel your jab is pointed at me. Maybe you missed the fact that the media in this country has been spewing out the so-called lies you say aren't true of socialism. (i.e. government healthcare, welfare, Social Security...) and yet the openly claim they are the true followers of Marxism! You seem to be well versed in Marx's words but you are not as well up on why the founding fathers of this country rejected the ideas and doctrines that lead Marx to his conclusions. I suggest you pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers and The Constitution and read why the bill of rights was written and how it becomes the founding principle of Capitalism.
"Congratulations on being a paid-up member of the sheep, now go back to your pointless job peon."
Maybe my job is pointless. I work for a cable internet access provider as a network engineer. But the fact of the matter is that I enjoy my job. I like what I do and feel that I am building something that people want. And as such I work hard to make it the best system that it can be. Not only because I want to get paid but also because it gives me a feeling of accomplishment. Also the company that I now work for happens to be the same company that drove me to sell my dialup internet access provider that I started at the age of 21. Of course since I owned it I sold it for a profit and then went straight to work for the people who drove me to sell my business. But then I didn't have to listen to "The State" or as you call it "The Body of Workers"(Side Question: What do you think Marx Body of Workers is?) tell me that I couldn't act in my best interest and that I had to keep my business so that there was competition. Or worse that my current employer had to open up the system that they built with their money to me because "Its only fair because to compete I need access to their network."
What I'm getting at is that your idea of true socialism has never and will never exist because the ideas and structures for it lead in and of themselves to corruption and the feedback loop of laziness. You can rant all you want about how it's the right thing to do but the simple fact is History proves you wrong. In two ways as a matter of fact, one in that no socialist government has survived the test of time, always leading to the corruption and implosion that you yourself spoke of. And two that The US is the most powerful and stable government ever to have existed since Rome.
So I'm going back to being a self accomplished and empowered peon that I am. You go back to working for your comrades so they can sit and watch soaps all day and make babies so they can get more state welfare.
"And this is different from western, capitalist "democracies" how exactly?"
Hmmm... I wonder why it is that the uneducated populace that exists in this country, that I believe you are referring to, seem to all vote for the liberal socialist democrats?
"Socialism is, by definition, the participation of the common man in the decisions that effect the common man, it is the control of the workforce BY the workforce, not by a central administration...Read Marx before you start spouting crap about socialism"
I suggest you read it and attempt to understand its ramifications before you attack those who do not agree with you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Right? The end all be all basis of Marxism. So who decides what your ability is? Who decides what your needs are? That's right, a central ruling body! Because the end belief of Marxism is that we are all sheep and we need to be managed by the elite who believe they are smarter and better than the rest of society at determining what society need and what is good for it.
You wish to make a huge jump in your logic; you wish to place on me your belief that our country is screwed up. While I do agree that our country is screwed up, I do not believe that we share a common belief as to why. This country has for the past 80 years or so been moving away from a government of and for the people to a central socialist structure. (Yes you could say that it started before that with the civil war, but the current trend began with the New Deal.) And with this move we have see the restrictions of rights the increase of crime and the whittling away of our moral fiber. You see the issue at hand is that socialism feels good, because we can convince ourselves that we are helping out those who cannot help themselves. When in reality we are simply setting of a sociological feedback loop to encourage laziness. Where as true capitalism is a harsh reality in that if you sit back and don't do anything with your life you will be cast to the wayside of society and left because you bring nothing good and suck out what does not belong to you. The simple fact is that if you are willing to work your ass off and push yourself to be all that you can, capitalism will reward you for that. Where as if you want to sit back and rest on what others have done to make your life happy socialism is what you see as the way to go.
Of course I could ask you whether you like to keep the money you work for and live your life as you see fit, but you would most likely answer me that I am a cruel and harsh person who would let people die of hunger. But then I wouldn't expect you to understand that any person who is willing to lie down and die with out a fight to make some thing of themselves does not deserve my pity.
Actually the free flow of ideas is exactly what is needed. Theses Islamic countries are set up so that their base of power comes from an uneducated populace. A modern society cannot function under total socialist polices, which don't kid yourself Islamic rule is a form of socialism. Central management can not be robust enough to make sure that everyone can have two cars, a DVD player and a computer at their house. And as such if we simply start introducing these people to these simple things we take for granted. Social change will occur all on its own. As an example women will be given rights and the ability to work because they will be needed to produce the goods that the new and enlightened society demand.
Secret Xiph plan to make money:
...
1. Contract to write software.
2. Write software.
3. Get Paided on contract.
If you understood anything about how economics work you might see past the tripe you've had spouted to you and believed because it easier than to learn something for yourself.
But consider Qmail. Its more secure than sendmail. Much easier to configure. And does all the things you requested. Here is the link for the Anti-Virus support. Check out the RAV product as it is can scan both emails and your drives...aka samba shares. Although it is a product you have to pay for... I consider anti-viruse one of those things that is worth paying for to make sure you're up to date.
How come no one ever asks what happens when a copyright runs out and something reverts to the public domain? Why is it illegal to write software that circumvents an access control when that access control will eventually be null and void by the expiration of the copyright?
,or turned back, for their private benefit."
Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is? All ideas/music/movies/whatever are built on something from the past. We stand on the shoulders of giants. To take that away is to stop forward progress of all humankind.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped
- Heinlein's Lifeline
Well first you have to blow a hole in the airplane and since Air Marshals carry frag rounds that can not penatrate the skin of the aircraft thats not an issue.
I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this whole guns in the sky issue. Currently there are F-15/16's standing on alert across the country to shoot down any hijacked airliners. So its ok to send a sidewinder missle up the ass of a 767 but if Uncle Louie takes a stray round while the pilot is placing a double tap in Osama's head its somehow a bad thing? Wake up people!!!
Do you know how to uncap a modem? Do you know that it requires a computer to do it? I won't go in to the details as I work for a cable modem provider... but the modem must get a new configuration from somewhere that allows it to use more bandwidth. So yes they would need to seize the computers for evidence of the crime.
Taking another posters advice here is the review at Steves-digicams.com The only complaint I've heard about this camera is that the battery life was short. Well I've had mine for almost nine months and the Lithium Batteries that were supplied with the camera are still doing fine. Lots of controls, extra lenses and filters can be threaded on. I would recommend that you get a 64MB SmartCard with it and the cam on normal 640x480 res. you get almost 700 shots per card. It drops to something like 32 shots on the highes res which are hugh files that you do spy type zooming on in Photoshop :-)
I didn't really mean to get in to cost in my original statements. I work in a world of possiblities with my job. The cost issue only comes up near the end when we finally weight out all the possiblities we are looking at.
:-)
Did you consider that only one copy of any show needs stored for all users? a 1 Million dollar SANs storage solution would hold alot of episodes of Friends and is hardly a huge investment for companies that are spending over 30 million for system rebuilds.
Now I don't disagree that in the here and now client side has many advantages. But I really believe that a headend solution is the way of the future... Is it just me or does knowing that its possible to setup a system that would allow me to watch any show that has ever been on whenever I want it not the way tv should be. I guess having what me and my coworkers consider our personal Coax system might skew our vision of how the world should work a bit