The Congress shall have Power To... (Paragraphs 1-15) Paragraph 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Using one very long sentence to describe a subject with so very much more history is... Well, it's beyond a little bit myopic. For greater context, I'd point to the various times founding fathers mused on this subject, but I'm sure if you can find Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16, you can also find such items of historical interest.
Anyway...The power vested in Paragraph 16 was realized by the Militia Acts of 1792, enacted by the second congress and signed into law by George Washington himself:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia........every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, **provide himself** with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service......and **providing himself** with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.*
*For the sake of brevity, I truncated verbose text I felt didn't add to the overall meaning of the act.
The reason Congress wanted the power to arm and discipline the militia was so that they could later direct militiamen to prepare themselves for duty by appropriating the proper, standard duty weapon of the time. This is for the sake of sound military logistics. A soldier mustering with nonstandard equipment unless otherwise ordered is a liability to his unit. In modern terms, they'd probably find themselves the current standard duty weapon of the armed services: an M-16 rifle--and whatever ammo, magazines, mag pouches, etc.
That was the state of affairs until the Militia Act of 1903, which created a federal funded militia (i.e. National Guard), as well as preserved what it termed the unorganized militia (i.e. everyone able bodied male--this time expunging the limitation to white males). When I hear someone meekly say "but guns should only be in the hands of the police and military", I chuckle to myself under the realization that legally, that person has a significant chance of being a militiaman (him)self. After all, it's this very law which opens the door to selective service, established in 1917.
However, being faithful to the ideals of the Constitution I'd go one step further and say that *all able-bodied citizens* are at the very least part of the unorganized militia, and are subject to all of the rights and duties associated with that end (such as being proficient, disciplined, etc.) The particular implementation of government as realized by the founding fathers may have been wanting in any number of ways--but it's my opinion and belief that the words they used, and the ideas those words represent ring ever true today.
It's a problem alright. What if you're channel hopping at any given moment, like 99% of us?
Under this proposal, it's likely one station would be dramatically louder than the next. PBS stations for example often use a sound philosophy that preserves dynamic range. Most other stations crush the shit out of their audio with some sort of compression filter, decreasing dynamic range for the sake of increasing the overall signal gain. Not only does it sound louder, it sounds quite a bit worse.
To me, it wasn't so much of a problem in the old analog days. The audio channels didn't have enough bandwidth for good dynamic range, nor was the average TV's sound system up to the task. Today, the TV's built in speakers still suck (generally less than the old days though), but our audio delivery mechanism is much improved thanks to Dolby Digital (AC-3) being the standard audio codec. Plug in your audio receiver and your fancy speakers and the potential for good sound is there.
But the stations ruin it all in a big-dick-contest: the quest to provide the loudest, most obnoxious sound experience for their customers--advertisers. I admit that it would be more than a little stupid to legislate average sound volume for *every* station, but at the same time it might be helpful for the FCC to help set some "soft" guidelines.
Corporations aren't organisms, they can't die because they have yet to live. They're legal constructs. Also, dissolution isn't analogous to being taken out in the street and shot, as is the rightful end to some of the more evil corporations.
Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction.
What crackpot did you hear that from? LSD was discovered during the search for medically useful variants of the active alkaloids of a certain common poisonous fungus. And yeah, the researchers discovered a few such compounds, along with LSD. The assertion that LSD was somehow "designed" to be anything at all is...silly.
It was/is used for psychiatric treatment, and at low doses it's useful for treating migraines--but research in those areas was long put aside due to the perceived stigma. Furthermore, while heavy use can cause potent changes in the brain and psyche (resulting in a condition which presents itself like brain damage), there isn't a consensus on its causing persistent psychosis... And at any rate, it's not considered addictive because the body quickly builds tolerance to psychoactive doses, which certianly would be a poor feature of something designed to be "the perfect drug".
Of course you could not take on the government singularly. You couldn't do it by the hundred, you couldn't do it by the thousand. Fifty thousand men fighting in a conventional manner might be brushed aside as easily as one man standing alone.
And yet... A single 30 cent bullet in the right place and time can change the world. Pro tip: the people we need to be concerned with are more afraid of the 30 cent bullets than they are of the tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, GPS, satellites, and trained/disciplined armies.
Your understanding of your country's history is saddening.
Prior to WWI, in a time when most of London was still serviced by horse and cart, the bowler hat was the acme of popular fashion, cocaine was a legal medicine, and bobbies patrolled the streets with their truncheons and whistles, many (most?) gentlemen carried revolvers concealed on their persons. Even they realized way back then, that while a patrolman might be nearby, they wouldn't be close enough to save him when the highwaymen came.
FYI You can opt-out of the junk and commercial mail the NRA sends out--really aught to be the default, that is one of my many annoyances with that group.
If you don't want to do that, but still enjoy the freedom to go bang away and keep guns for defense (I don't believe it's possible to have zero interest if you enjoy these things), you might consider chucking a few bucks towards the Gun Owners of America or Second Amendment Foundation. The worst they will do is put you on an email list to keep you abreast of national and local stories of interest, and these two groups do a lot to keep things free.
A prison term ostensibly is issued for three reasons: punishment, rehabilitation, and to serve as a deterrent against potential criminal action for everyone else. Here in the US, punishment is usually the focus of imprisonment, and as a result we tend to have longer terms. In Europe, the focus is less on hard time, and much more on rehabilitation.
That being the case, why do we release felons if we don't feel they're rehabilitated enough to vote? I mean, keeping guns out of the hands of people who have committed violent offenses in the past is a grand idea and all. Rehabilitation or not they do have a better chance of doing their evil again. But voting? Come on.
Then there's the federal statute which dictates a felony (paraphrasing) as a crime with a potential punishment over one year... Even if you don't receive that much time during sentencing, the mere fact that you could have makes you a felon in the eyes of the law. An acquaintance of mine recently went through this for DUI. Our state recently adopted a three strikes policy for DUIs. Third strike guarantees at least a year in prison, and he got his third DUI two weeks after the law went into effect.
I'm not going to say that he didn't do a stupid thing (three times over)... To lose many of ones liberties over non-violent offenses? I don't think it's right. Of course, he had a modest gun collection, and he basically had to give it to his friends.
To hell with that: I want the phone belonging to the asshole driver in front of me, who happens to be having a very involved conversation, all the while driving 15 in a 35mph zone, and splitting the lanes of a two way street to feel *my* emotions. In other words: if the phone had pants, it'd activate vibrate mode and proceed to shit 'em.
If Intel could figure that out, I'd give 'em a high five or something.
I'm not sure who made came to this determination... But it's We The People of the United Stats, not We The Anonymous Spooks of the United States, who are solely capable of deciding these things. If he was banned by an act of Congress, fine.
I am completely apathetic to the idea of his visiting our wönderful country.
ITAR truly is an ineffective, bureaucratic cluserfuck (as if there's any other kind). Not only does it completely fail at its claimed mission, it really does hamper scientific discovery, internationally cooperative efforts for developing weapons and other technologies, and even local commerce.
submersibles, underwater robots, etc: The Department of State (DoS from here on out) keeps close track of these because they're on a list of "munitions". Any time you want to enter foreign waters/return to the US with one of these, you need the import/export paperwork described above--or else run afoul potential criminal consequences.
Firearms related manufacturing for US-only consumption: Besides claiming to only regulate import/export of various items of military interest, ITAR does in fact also regulate the domestic production of things like bullets, cartridges, propellants and guns, gun parts etc. etc. Manufacturers of such goods currently pay $2200 per year to register with the DoS... Even if the items will never be exported. About the only firearm related thing specifically exempted from the scope of ITAR are shotguns made expressly for sporting purposes.
Kind of. Christians take Christ as their god, and Christ is a part of the old Jewish god who is quasi-related to the Egyptian sun-god Osiris, and also ideologically co-descended from the Roman sun-god Sol Invictus, who is likewise ideologically descended from Greek sun-god Apollo, who is quasi-related to the Egyptian sun-moon gods Osiris and his son (or resurrected self, as some believe) Horus. I bet that Allah is in some way related too.
Consider this: Osiris was said to killed by evil forces, was put in a tomb, and was resurrected three days later. Also, like Apollo & Invictus, there was a festival for Osiris/Horus during the winter solstice (around the 20th-30th of December), in anticipation of the yearly death of the old sun-cycle and re-birth of a new sun-cycle (and subsequent growing and harvesting seasons)
Gee, I wonder why that all kind of sounds familiar.
Hell, it's hard enough to get a small group of people to agree on pizza toppings. I can't imagine what kind of clusterfuck could be caused by a bunch of stubborn, egotistical scholarly types.
All that means is that artsy-filmy people liked it, and as everyone knows these types tend to live in a reality distortion field--so their opinion on the qualities of a good movie is quite often disconnected from everyone else's. And let's face it, the whole Academy Award thing basically amounts to a huge, televised circle jerk.
How about this: It's not for agents in other countries. It's for agents in their own country.
The original tone went for a VERY long time without modification. Suppose the receiving system or transmitter needed maintenance as might be expected after that amount of time. A common method for secure radio operation is to pre-establish a code system that only the sender and receiver will understand. Suppose the voice transmissions are code for the times the transmitter was expected to go down for maintenance.
If the transmitter was a dead-man's switch of some sort (as a retaliatory second strike during nuclear Armageddon for example) that sort of information would be pretty critical, well, to avoid global thermonuclear war in the first place... It would mean the receiving station could be manually set to a passive mode until normal operations could be resumed.
It really aught to be the case where the trade name is limited to the area of commerce the trademark will be used in. It's more than a little unfair to say on the trademark paperwork "we're going to use this for anything and everything and also the kitchen sink", when in reality they have no intention of ever marketing kitchen supplies or indeed anything but electronic entertainment devices under that name.
Looking at the eiPott packaging though--that's probably where they lost the case. It's funny. It's clever... But a reasonable person would conclude they are clearly trying to establish a link to the iPod brand. The link between the names eiPott and iPod is so much more tenuous on its own.
Yeah, well maybe all the dinosaurs had to constantly march eastward around the globe, so that they might stay in the habitable zone... Over millions of 'days', the incessant parading of their giant bodies must have accelerated the Earth and gave us the rotational inertia we know and love today. Perhaps the Earth started rotating so fast that they could no longer keep up, and so they all died of exhaustion.
Ever think of that Mr. Smartypants? Yeah, didn't think so.
You misunderstand the purpose of the survival kit / bug out bag. The best way to survive a disaster is naturally to not be in it in the first place--but if you do get into a hard spot, a little bit of prior preparation can make life a lot more comfortable. As such, a case of MREs and some fresh water isn't used to camp out for a week waiting for aid with the rest of the SOBs... It's there to give you and a friend or two (wife, kids) the opportunity to walk out, on your own. during the worst case scenario. You can go a surprising distance on foot in the course of a few days--but only if you don't have to worry about starving or dehydrating to death.
As for "quality of life reduction" i.e. monetary issues: a lot of folks spend significantly more on coffee, superfluous cable channels and junk food every fiscal quarter than I have invested in the totality of my durable survival goods (perhaps excepting said rifle and its accessories). So I miss out on a few frappuccinos and pack most of my lunches. Yeah, my quality of life really suffers. Not. Also, most of this stuff serves dual purposes. I'm an outdoorsy guy and like to go camping and hiking, fishing etc. My emergency food and water gets rotated when I feel like using it. The tools are used. None of the initial investment is wasted.
When you can't go a day without thinking about something that's missing from your survival stash, that's probably something to worry about. I just don't think most people are that way. The guys who are waiting for a socioeconomic collapse or some kind of zombieland scenario are simply louder than the millions of men and women who quietly live the Scout motto.
Slashdot Mirror
The Congress shall have Power To... (Paragraphs 1-15)
Paragraph 16:
Using one very long sentence to describe a subject with so very much more history is... Well, it's beyond a little bit myopic. For greater context, I'd point to the various times founding fathers mused on this subject, but I'm sure if you can find Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16, you can also find such items of historical interest.
Anyway...The power vested in Paragraph 16 was realized by the Militia Acts of 1792, enacted by the second congress and signed into law by George Washington himself:
*For the sake of brevity, I truncated verbose text I felt didn't add to the overall meaning of the act.
The reason Congress wanted the power to arm and discipline the militia was so that they could later direct militiamen to prepare themselves for duty by appropriating the proper, standard duty weapon of the time. This is for the sake of sound military logistics. A soldier mustering with nonstandard equipment unless otherwise ordered is a liability to his unit. In modern terms, they'd probably find themselves the current standard duty weapon of the armed services: an M-16 rifle--and whatever ammo, magazines, mag pouches, etc.
That was the state of affairs until the Militia Act of 1903, which created a federal funded militia (i.e. National Guard), as well as preserved what it termed the unorganized militia (i.e. everyone able bodied male--this time expunging the limitation to white males). When I hear someone meekly say "but guns should only be in the hands of the police and military", I chuckle to myself under the realization that legally, that person has a significant chance of being a militiaman (him)self. After all, it's this very law which opens the door to selective service, established in 1917.
However, being faithful to the ideals of the Constitution I'd go one step further and say that *all able-bodied citizens* are at the very least part of the unorganized militia, and are subject to all of the rights and duties associated with that end (such as being proficient, disciplined, etc.) The particular implementation of government as realized by the founding fathers may have been wanting in any number of ways--but it's my opinion and belief that the words they used, and the ideas those words represent ring ever true today.
It's a problem alright. What if you're channel hopping at any given moment, like 99% of us?
Under this proposal, it's likely one station would be dramatically louder than the next. PBS stations for example often use a sound philosophy that preserves dynamic range. Most other stations crush the shit out of their audio with some sort of compression filter, decreasing dynamic range for the sake of increasing the overall signal gain. Not only does it sound louder, it sounds quite a bit worse.
To me, it wasn't so much of a problem in the old analog days. The audio channels didn't have enough bandwidth for good dynamic range, nor was the average TV's sound system up to the task. Today, the TV's built in speakers still suck (generally less than the old days though), but our audio delivery mechanism is much improved thanks to Dolby Digital (AC-3) being the standard audio codec. Plug in your audio receiver and your fancy speakers and the potential for good sound is there.
But the stations ruin it all in a big-dick-contest: the quest to provide the loudest, most obnoxious sound experience for their customers--advertisers. I admit that it would be more than a little stupid to legislate average sound volume for *every* station, but at the same time it might be helpful for the FCC to help set some "soft" guidelines.
Well, deceased folk have been known to cast votes on occasion, so I imagine a dead candidate would be hugely popular amongst their ranks. Why not?
Corporations aren't organisms, they can't die because they have yet to live. They're legal constructs. Also, dissolution isn't analogous to being taken out in the street and shot, as is the rightful end to some of the more evil corporations.
Well, this is something of an accidental discomfort ray. If they wanted death ray power levels, I'm sure they could have done it.
Did you know LSD was designed to be the perfect drug that would not destroy your body (unlike opium) and not result in addiction.
What crackpot did you hear that from? LSD was discovered during the search for medically useful variants of the active alkaloids of a certain common poisonous fungus. And yeah, the researchers discovered a few such compounds, along with LSD. The assertion that LSD was somehow "designed" to be anything at all is...silly.
It was/is used for psychiatric treatment, and at low doses it's useful for treating migraines--but research in those areas was long put aside due to the perceived stigma. Furthermore, while heavy use can cause potent changes in the brain and psyche (resulting in a condition which presents itself like brain damage), there isn't a consensus on its causing persistent psychosis... And at any rate, it's not considered addictive because the body quickly builds tolerance to psychoactive doses, which certianly would be a poor feature of something designed to be "the perfect drug".
Huh. I for one finally understand what The Who meant in You Better You Bet.
Of course you could not take on the government singularly. You couldn't do it by the hundred, you couldn't do it by the thousand. Fifty thousand men fighting in a conventional manner might be brushed aside as easily as one man standing alone.
And yet... A single 30 cent bullet in the right place and time can change the world. Pro tip: the people we need to be concerned with are more afraid of the 30 cent bullets than they are of the tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, GPS, satellites, and trained/disciplined armies.
Your understanding of your country's history is saddening.
Prior to WWI, in a time when most of London was still serviced by horse and cart, the bowler hat was the acme of popular fashion, cocaine was a legal medicine, and bobbies patrolled the streets with their truncheons and whistles, many (most?) gentlemen carried revolvers concealed on their persons. Even they realized way back then, that while a patrolman might be nearby, they wouldn't be close enough to save him when the highwaymen came.
FYI You can opt-out of the junk and commercial mail the NRA sends out--really aught to be the default, that is one of my many annoyances with that group.
If you don't want to do that, but still enjoy the freedom to go bang away and keep guns for defense (I don't believe it's possible to have zero interest if you enjoy these things), you might consider chucking a few bucks towards the Gun Owners of America or Second Amendment Foundation. The worst they will do is put you on an email list to keep you abreast of national and local stories of interest, and these two groups do a lot to keep things free.
And that leads me to a philosophical question...
A prison term ostensibly is issued for three reasons: punishment, rehabilitation, and to serve as a deterrent against potential criminal action for everyone else. Here in the US, punishment is usually the focus of imprisonment, and as a result we tend to have longer terms. In Europe, the focus is less on hard time, and much more on rehabilitation.
That being the case, why do we release felons if we don't feel they're rehabilitated enough to vote? I mean, keeping guns out of the hands of people who have committed violent offenses in the past is a grand idea and all. Rehabilitation or not they do have a better chance of doing their evil again. But voting? Come on.
Then there's the federal statute which dictates a felony (paraphrasing) as a crime with a potential punishment over one year... Even if you don't receive that much time during sentencing, the mere fact that you could have makes you a felon in the eyes of the law. An acquaintance of mine recently went through this for DUI. Our state recently adopted a three strikes policy for DUIs. Third strike guarantees at least a year in prison, and he got his third DUI two weeks after the law went into effect.
I'm not going to say that he didn't do a stupid thing (three times over)... To lose many of ones liberties over non-violent offenses? I don't think it's right. Of course, he had a modest gun collection, and he basically had to give it to his friends.
To hell with that: I want the phone belonging to the asshole driver in front of me, who happens to be having a very involved conversation, all the while driving 15 in a 35mph zone, and splitting the lanes of a two way street to feel *my* emotions. In other words: if the phone had pants, it'd activate vibrate mode and proceed to shit 'em.
If Intel could figure that out, I'd give 'em a high five or something.
I'm not sure who made came to this determination... But it's We The People of the United Stats, not We The Anonymous Spooks of the United States, who are solely capable of deciding these things. If he was banned by an act of Congress, fine.
I am completely apathetic to the idea of his visiting our wönderful country.
No doubt. I've also heard similar stories regarding US proprietary alloys, and a number of other things. It's just stupid.
ITAR truly is an ineffective, bureaucratic cluserfuck (as if there's any other kind). Not only does it completely fail at its claimed mission, it really does hamper scientific discovery, internationally cooperative efforts for developing weapons and other technologies, and even local commerce.
submersibles, underwater robots, etc:
The Department of State (DoS from here on out) keeps close track of these because they're on a list of "munitions". Any time you want to enter foreign waters/return to the US with one of these, you need the import/export paperwork described above--or else run afoul potential criminal consequences.
Firearms related manufacturing for US-only consumption:
Besides claiming to only regulate import/export of various items of military interest, ITAR does in fact also regulate the domestic production of things like bullets, cartridges, propellants and guns, gun parts etc. etc. Manufacturers of such goods currently pay $2200 per year to register with the DoS... Even if the items will never be exported. About the only firearm related thing specifically exempted from the scope of ITAR are shotguns made expressly for sporting purposes.
Kind of. Christians take Christ as their god, and Christ is a part of the old Jewish god who is quasi-related to the Egyptian sun-god Osiris, and also ideologically co-descended from the Roman sun-god Sol Invictus, who is likewise ideologically descended from Greek sun-god Apollo, who is quasi-related to the Egyptian sun-moon gods Osiris and his son (or resurrected self, as some believe) Horus. I bet that Allah is in some way related too.
Consider this: Osiris was said to killed by evil forces, was put in a tomb, and was resurrected three days later. Also, like Apollo & Invictus, there was a festival for Osiris/Horus during the winter solstice (around the 20th-30th of December), in anticipation of the yearly death of the old sun-cycle and re-birth of a new sun-cycle (and subsequent growing and harvesting seasons)
Gee, I wonder why that all kind of sounds familiar.
Hell, it's hard enough to get a small group of people to agree on pizza toppings. I can't imagine what kind of clusterfuck could be caused by a bunch of stubborn, egotistical scholarly types.
Hrm. Lately, i've seen a lot more 'creativity' in contracts, EULAs and the such, than I've seen in many other industries.
Actually, is not true to say that Brazil is 100% useless because is great for sexual tourism (the hookers are plenty and beautiful) but that's it.
And most of them have even had their penises removed. Bonus.
All that means is that artsy-filmy people liked it, and as everyone knows these types tend to live in a reality distortion field--so their opinion on the qualities of a good movie is quite often disconnected from everyone else's. And let's face it, the whole Academy Award thing basically amounts to a huge, televised circle jerk.
Actually, I think that was originally a scientology strategy.
How about this: It's not for agents in other countries. It's for agents in their own country.
The original tone went for a VERY long time without modification. Suppose the receiving system or transmitter needed maintenance as might be expected after that amount of time. A common method for secure radio operation is to pre-establish a code system that only the sender and receiver will understand. Suppose the voice transmissions are code for the times the transmitter was expected to go down for maintenance.
If the transmitter was a dead-man's switch of some sort (as a retaliatory second strike during nuclear Armageddon for example) that sort of information would be pretty critical, well, to avoid global thermonuclear war in the first place... It would mean the receiving station could be manually set to a passive mode until normal operations could be resumed.
It really aught to be the case where the trade name is limited to the area of commerce the trademark will be used in. It's more than a little unfair to say on the trademark paperwork "we're going to use this for anything and everything and also the kitchen sink", when in reality they have no intention of ever marketing kitchen supplies or indeed anything but electronic entertainment devices under that name.
Looking at the eiPott packaging though--that's probably where they lost the case. It's funny. It's clever... But a reasonable person would conclude they are clearly trying to establish a link to the iPod brand. The link between the names eiPott and iPod is so much more tenuous on its own.
Yeah, well maybe all the dinosaurs had to constantly march eastward around the globe, so that they might stay in the habitable zone... Over millions of 'days', the incessant parading of their giant bodies must have accelerated the Earth and gave us the rotational inertia we know and love today. Perhaps the Earth started rotating so fast that they could no longer keep up, and so they all died of exhaustion.
Ever think of that Mr. Smartypants? Yeah, didn't think so.
You misunderstand the purpose of the survival kit / bug out bag. The best way to survive a disaster is naturally to not be in it in the first place--but if you do get into a hard spot, a little bit of prior preparation can make life a lot more comfortable. As such, a case of MREs and some fresh water isn't used to camp out for a week waiting for aid with the rest of the SOBs... It's there to give you and a friend or two (wife, kids) the opportunity to walk out, on your own. during the worst case scenario. You can go a surprising distance on foot in the course of a few days--but only if you don't have to worry about starving or dehydrating to death.
As for "quality of life reduction" i.e. monetary issues: a lot of folks spend significantly more on coffee, superfluous cable channels and junk food every fiscal quarter than I have invested in the totality of my durable survival goods (perhaps excepting said rifle and its accessories). So I miss out on a few frappuccinos and pack most of my lunches. Yeah, my quality of life really suffers. Not. Also, most of this stuff serves dual purposes. I'm an outdoorsy guy and like to go camping and hiking, fishing etc. My emergency food and water gets rotated when I feel like using it. The tools are used. None of the initial investment is wasted.
When you can't go a day without thinking about something that's missing from your survival stash, that's probably something to worry about. I just don't think most people are that way. The guys who are waiting for a socioeconomic collapse or some kind of zombieland scenario are simply louder than the millions of men and women who quietly live the Scout motto.