Yes, and those guns were still lawfully posessed by you throughout the existence of the Assault Rifle Ban. But you and the NRA are happy to exaggerate the bill as if it took guns out of the hands of Americans.
Everyone unlucky enough to turn 18 after the spring of 1994 didn't have the same options I did.
Look, I'm trying to get through this fog to tell you that us liberal wackos don't give a shit about your guns.
Perhaps you do not, there are many who do.
I could throw scores of quotes at you from liberals who hold office where they do most certainly care about banning guns.
In the end, I wouldn't choose my vote based on which candidate I most agreed with, but which person do I think is going to leave the country a better place in 2008.
That's your right. I'm voting for Bush. I would rather it be someone else, like Keyes or Buchanan, but Bush is what we have.
Several were. Guns that I owned at the time could no longer be legally manufactured or imported.
And in fact, the legislation Clinton got the Republican-dominated House to pass was a restriction on the sale of certain newly-manufactured or imported guns that look like military weapons.
Check your facts. The House and Senate were firmly in the hands of Democrats in the spring of 1994, when the ban passed. It was in November of 1994 that the Republicans were elected en masse.
Remember Clinton's 1995 state of the union speech?
Here's a quote for you.
I think everybody in this room knows that several members of the last Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill lost their seats because of it.
That vote was the reason why Democrats lost Congress.
One guy even shot a nazi skinhead with a 22-caliber rifle.
Hopefully he shot him in the face.
You seem to take great delight in the fact that missed a "g" in my last post. Why is that?
After 4 years of a republican president, 4 years of a republican congress, and 4 years of a fairly conservative supreme court, we still have Roe V. Wade.
3 years 9 months of a Republican President, 9 years 9 months of a Republican Congress, and how conservative the USSC is can be debated.
Bush made no in-roads on abortion.
He reinstated the global gag rule. Because of him, my tax dollars are not being used to perform abortions overseas.
If Bush is reelected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal. If Kerry is elected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal.
This is a long term battle. I wans a Pro Life president to choose the next member of the USSC. I want a Pro Life Congress voting for confirmation of the next Justice.
There is a constant battle over edge cases (minors, specific procedures, term definitions, etc), but you're deluded if you think any of that is going to change much or if any movement on those small issues indicate a real precursor to change on the larger issue.
This is where the meat and potatos of the abortion battle lies. Can a minor have an abortion without parental consent, even though she can't get a tattoo or any other type of elective surgery without it? Must a spouse be notified in the event of an abortion? Will it remain legal to abort a child up until the point of birth? Will the Federal Government use tax dollars to support faclities that provide abortions? Will it remain legal to pierce the skull of an 8 month fetus and remove its brain with suction?
The case isn't much different for gun-control - don't expect any real differences in federal gun-control if either candidate (or anyone else) is elected.
Kerry voted to renew the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. That speaks volumes about what kind of leader he'll be. Under the previous President, there are things that I own that could no longer be legally made or imported, under the current President that changed. If you think that there is no difference between the two major parties on gun control, you don't know the issue.
Single issues voters are the puppets on the hands of the republicrat duopoly in the sick joke that is the American politics show. Double issue voters are just slightly less repugnant.
I don't need your approval. I'll vote how I want to. You vote however you want to. I don't much care how or why that is.
If another party wants my vote, then they'll get on board with my issues.
Getting rid of guns is so low on the liberal agenda, that radical liberals don't even waste their breath on it.
It's understood amonst themselves. They don't need to talk about it.
The NRA claims that the democrats are going to take our guns away in order to get more money from paranoid gun-owners.
The Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 caused NRA membership to DOUBLE. The NRA doesn't need to demonize the democrats, they're doing a fine job of it themselves.
A fascinating amendment would be that no person with a felony conviction would be allowed to hold public office.
I think you misspelled
I D I O T I C
as fascinating.
All of a sudden, you'd find more and more things classified as felonies. It would be about job security. The fewer people who can challenge you for your seat, the better.
Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?"
Perjury is a FELONY. That's what it was all about.
I know this will go in one ear and out the other, but I'll go there anyway. Clinton committed perjury in a civil case. He was trying to avoid having to pay damages in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. That's why he lied. He got caught lying. In the end, he survived impeachment. Oh well, but the point is that everyone is supposed to obey the law.
I wish everyone in the world had to pay full price for Microsoft and Adobe software instead of copy it or buy cheap pirated versions. Then people would start recognising the value of Free Software.
There are other legal ways of getting software below the full retail price.
I still have a valid college ID. I can get academic discounts. I work in this field, and have for a long time. I can get cheap copies of programs from company reps. Adobe gave me a free copy of Photoshop.
Until then, pirated windows is probably the strongest competitor Linux faces.
Linux just isn't for everyone. I have 3 linux servers running under my desk right now. I'm also typing this on a machine running XP. Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. If you have more than just a hammer, not everything will look like a nail.
He's already been disqualified by leasing it for TV broadcast this year. It will be on next month.
Which is precisely why McCain-Feingold is a BAD LAW. F-911 is a "documentary" so it'll get played on TV right before the election, but no one can buy airtime to rebut any of the claims made in it.
About a month ago, I was pricing laptops at a local shop and their configuration program offered only WinXP Home and WinXP Professional. I told the salesman, I'll be running linux, I don't need any version of Windows, but that's not a choice here.
He said, no problem, we'll take $100 off of the price.
To be honest, the people who are locked into buying a PC with Windows on it are the people who want to run Windows in the first place.
I remember a lot of people complaining that the iMac was USB-only. The thing is, Apple sold millions of those computers.
Sure, but not to me. I'll spend the money for an AmigaOne board before I buy new Apple hardware ever again.
Now nobody is making parallel printers.
Notice, new PCs still come with parallel ports so that people can continue to use printers, scanners and whatever else they need to. Also, notice that the marketplace is STILL all about USB even though computers still have parallel ports. Apple could have done the same. The original Blue and White G3 had ADB, there is no good reason why the iMac didn't.
If it wasn't for Apple pushing firewire, who knows how long it would have been before vendors would have been building it (IEEE 1394) into their video cameras and motherboards.
Apple charges more to license FireWire than Intel does to license USB 2.0, had they not been so quick on the draw, it would have never taken off.
So yeah, I can't use my old laserwriter IInt on my new G4 Powerbook. I'm not too disappointed, though. It's a 300dpi laser printer. Now I can get 1400dpi inkjet printers for under $100.
I'll take the B&W quality of even a cheap laser printer over any inkjet.
The ink is wet, through the capillary action of the fibers in the paper you print on, you don't really get these super high resolutions that the printer makers claim. That coupled with the fact that the ink is more expensive than Gasoline in Europe means that unless you really need the color, a laser is a better investment.
Glad you resurrected that dead iMac!!!
I've been watching ebay for more. I'd love to have a rack full of them cranking out distributed.net keys and warming up the room.
For those who say that illegal should refer to "stuff made criminal under US [federal|state|local] law," get over it, man submits himself to all sorts of authorities.
Double Bullshit. The author of the article attempted to make it sound like it would be a breach of a criminal law. You trying to invoke some obscure usage of the word is just a bad.
Anyone who read the article knows full well that the author intended to mislead readers.
"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign,"
Are we really talking about something that is Illegal, or are we talking about a contract to protect a financial stake in the "Official" debates?
Would they be arrested and tried if they debated on Nightline or would they be sued for breach of contract?
I suspect that, since we're talking about a contract with CPD, it's the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and those guns were still lawfully posessed by you throughout the existence of the Assault Rifle Ban. But you and the NRA are happy to exaggerate the bill as if it took guns out of the hands of Americans.
Everyone unlucky enough to turn 18 after the spring of 1994 didn't have the same options I did.
Look, I'm trying to get through this fog to tell you that us liberal wackos don't give a shit about your guns.
Perhaps you do not, there are many who do.
I could throw scores of quotes at you from liberals who hold office where they do most certainly care about banning guns.
LK
In the end, I wouldn't choose my vote based on which candidate I most agreed with, but which person do I think is going to leave the country a better place in 2008.
That's your right. I'm voting for Bush. I would rather it be someone else, like Keyes or Buchanan, but Bush is what we have.
LK
Then if W gets back in, you - and everyone who votes like you - deserve everything you get.
As does the opposition who forced us to vote that way.
LK
I'm neither a Christian nor a Muslim.
I'm at peace with my God.
Several were. Guns that I owned at the time could no longer be legally manufactured or imported.
And in fact, the legislation Clinton got the Republican-dominated House to pass was a restriction on the sale of certain newly-manufactured or imported guns that look like military weapons.
Check your facts. The House and Senate were firmly in the hands of Democrats in the spring of 1994, when the ban passed. It was in November of 1994 that the Republicans were elected en masse.
Remember Clinton's 1995 state of the union speech?
Here's a quote for you.
- I think everybody in this room knows that several members of the last Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill lost their seats because of it.
That vote was the reason why Democrats lost Congress.One guy even shot a nazi skinhead with a 22-caliber rifle.
Hopefully he shot him in the face.
You seem to take great delight in the fact that missed a "g" in my last post. Why is that?
LK
After 4 years of a republican president, 4 years of a republican congress, and 4 years of a fairly conservative supreme court, we still have Roe V. Wade.
3 years 9 months of a Republican President, 9 years 9 months of a Republican Congress, and how conservative the USSC is can be debated.
Bush made no in-roads on abortion.
He reinstated the global gag rule. Because of him, my tax dollars are not being used to perform abortions overseas.
If Bush is reelected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal. If Kerry is elected, in 4 years, abortion will still be legal.
This is a long term battle. I wans a Pro Life president to choose the next member of the USSC. I want a Pro Life Congress voting for confirmation of the next Justice.
There is a constant battle over edge cases (minors, specific procedures, term definitions, etc), but you're deluded if you think any of that is going to change much or if any movement on those small issues indicate a real precursor to change on the larger issue.
This is where the meat and potatos of the abortion battle lies. Can a minor have an abortion without parental consent, even though she can't get a tattoo or any other type of elective surgery without it? Must a spouse be notified in the event of an abortion? Will it remain legal to abort a child up until the point of birth? Will the Federal Government use tax dollars to support faclities that provide abortions? Will it remain legal to pierce the skull of an 8 month fetus and remove its brain with suction?
The case isn't much different for gun-control - don't expect any real differences in federal gun-control if either candidate (or anyone else) is elected.
Kerry voted to renew the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. That speaks volumes about what kind of leader he'll be. Under the previous President, there are things that I own that could no longer be legally made or imported, under the current President that changed. If you think that there is no difference between the two major parties on gun control, you don't know the issue.
LK
Let me guess, one of your issues is abortion?
Yes. The other is Gun Control.
Single issues voters are the puppets on the hands of the republicrat duopoly in the sick joke that is the American politics show. Double issue voters are just slightly less repugnant.
I don't need your approval. I'll vote how I want to. You vote however you want to. I don't much care how or why that is.
If another party wants my vote, then they'll get on board with my issues.
LK
As much as I'd love to support them, a vote for them would be a vote for Kerry. I can't do that.
LK
Getting rid of guns is so low on the liberal agenda, that radical liberals don't even waste their breath on it.
It's understood amonst themselves. They don't need to talk about it.
The NRA claims that the democrats are going to take our guns away in order to get more money from paranoid gun-owners.
The Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 caused NRA membership to DOUBLE. The NRA doesn't need to demonize the democrats, they're doing a fine job of it themselves.
LK
If you mean abortion providors, yeah. I suppose so.
LK
How do you reason with such persons?
Just like anyone else, the difference is that they don't agree with you about what is reasonable.
I'm a two issue voter. I don't care what else a candidate does, if he's right on my two issues and the other guy is wrong, nothing else matters.
No matter what gets dug up about your guy in this election, it's not going to change your mind.
You're no different, there is no reasoning with you either. We've just come to different conclusions.
LK
I think you misspelled
- I D I O T I C
as fascinating.All of a sudden, you'd find more and more things classified as felonies. It would be about job security. The fewer people who can challenge you for your seat, the better.
LK
Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?"
Perjury is a FELONY. That's what it was all about.
I know this will go in one ear and out the other, but I'll go there anyway. Clinton committed perjury in a civil case. He was trying to avoid having to pay damages in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. That's why he lied. He got caught lying. In the end, he survived impeachment. Oh well, but the point is that everyone is supposed to obey the law.
LK
And yet people still want to vote for W. I just don't get it.
I'm Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment. GW may stink, but I don't have any other choice on election day.
LK
And exactly why is AAC's DRM "less evil" than WMA's DRM? Because it is made by Apple and not MS??!?!
Anyone else like a big slice of bias with that? Anyone?
I'm a former Mac user, you'll be hard pressed to find a more harsh critic of Apple than me.
What is less evil about Apple's DRM. Is that there is a little room for fair play. You can copy the music to multiple computers, and unlimited iPods.
In my book, that's a lot less evil than the "No Copies Ever" DRM that Hollywood and the Music Industry want.
LK
I wish everyone in the world had to pay full price for Microsoft and Adobe software instead of copy it or buy cheap pirated versions. Then people would start recognising the value of Free Software.
There are other legal ways of getting software below the full retail price.
I still have a valid college ID. I can get academic discounts. I work in this field, and have for a long time. I can get cheap copies of programs from company reps. Adobe gave me a free copy of Photoshop.
Until then, pirated windows is probably the strongest competitor Linux faces.
Linux just isn't for everyone. I have 3 linux servers running under my desk right now. I'm also typing this on a machine running XP. Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses. If you have more than just a hammer, not everything will look like a nail.
LK
I seem to recall Apple having an anti-trusted computing and drm stance.
iTMS and AAC anyone?
Just because their DRM is the least evil one going doesn't mean that it isn't DRM.
LK
Speaking of which, we havn't heard a word about him since his capture, maybe the show trial starts just in time for the election?
Haven't heard a word about him since his capture? You haven't been paying attention.
There was Wall to Wall coverage of his First day in court, in July.
LK
He's already been disqualified by leasing it for TV broadcast this year. It will be on next month.
Which is precisely why McCain-Feingold is a BAD LAW. F-911 is a "documentary" so it'll get played on TV right before the election, but no one can buy airtime to rebut any of the claims made in it.
LK
About a month ago, I was pricing laptops at a local shop and their configuration program offered only WinXP Home and WinXP Professional. I told the salesman, I'll be running linux, I don't need any version of Windows, but that's not a choice here.
He said, no problem, we'll take $100 off of the price.
To be honest, the people who are locked into buying a PC with Windows on it are the people who want to run Windows in the first place.
People who will run other OSes know where to buy.
LK
I remember a lot of people complaining that the iMac was USB-only. The thing is, Apple sold millions of those computers.
Sure, but not to me. I'll spend the money for an AmigaOne board before I buy new Apple hardware ever again.
Now nobody is making parallel printers.
Notice, new PCs still come with parallel ports so that people can continue to use printers, scanners and whatever else they need to. Also, notice that the marketplace is STILL all about USB even though computers still have parallel ports. Apple could have done the same. The original Blue and White G3 had ADB, there is no good reason why the iMac didn't.
If it wasn't for Apple pushing firewire, who knows how long it would have been before vendors would have been building it (IEEE 1394) into their video cameras and motherboards.
Apple charges more to license FireWire than Intel does to license USB 2.0, had they not been so quick on the draw, it would have never taken off.
So yeah, I can't use my old laserwriter IInt on my new G4 Powerbook. I'm not too disappointed, though. It's a 300dpi laser printer. Now I can get 1400dpi inkjet printers for under $100.
I'll take the B&W quality of even a cheap laser printer over any inkjet.
The ink is wet, through the capillary action of the fibers in the paper you print on, you don't really get these super high resolutions that the printer makers claim. That coupled with the fact that the ink is more expensive than Gasoline in Europe means that unless you really need the color, a laser is a better investment.
Glad you resurrected that dead iMac!!!
I've been watching ebay for more. I'd love to have a rack full of them cranking out distributed.net keys and warming up the room.
LK
Is it this Condoleeza Rice?
No. She was on Politically Incorrect once, I remember expecting to see Condoleeza and I was surprised when it wasn't her.
LK
Who do you have to blow to get an invite?
For those who say that illegal should refer to "stuff made criminal under US [federal|state|local] law," get over it, man submits himself to all sorts of authorities.
Double Bullshit. The author of the article attempted to make it sound like it would be a breach of a criminal law. You trying to invoke some obscure usage of the word is just a bad.
Anyone who read the article knows full well that the author intended to mislead readers.
LK
"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign,"
Are we really talking about something that is Illegal, or are we talking about a contract to protect a financial stake in the "Official" debates?
Would they be arrested and tried if they debated on Nightline or would they be sued for breach of contract?
I suspect that, since we're talking about a contract with CPD, it's the latter.
LK